(CHES5145) reading notes for Special Topic 3: Cross-Cultural Exchange in the Global Context

Lecturer: Dr. Elaine Kwok, Yin Ning (kyn.elaine@gmail.com)

 

 

 

(CHES5145) Chinese Art in the World after 1900: Aesthetics and History

Lecturer: Dr. Elaine Kwok, Yin Ning (kyn.elaine@gmail.com)

Special Topic 3: Cross-Cultural Exchange in the Global Context

– Elaine: The artworks by artists with mixed ethnic backgrounds (artists have one parent

from Europe and another from China) are NOT the criteria for being cross-cultural

artworks although they usually would appear some cross-cultural features.

– Elaine: The definition of cross-cultural artworks as I put forth is that artworks require

more than one artistic-aesthetic frameworks in order to make sense of the artworks’

meanings, i.e. to understand the artworks from a cross-cultural perspective. This is

illustrated in Clarke’s discussion. He also argues that the further implication is highly

related to the negotiation of cultural identity particularly in HK’s colonial and

postcolonial context.

– Elaine: A cross-cultural perspective or handling for artwork interpretations may cause

problems or complications, which is analyzed in Elkins’s analysis. ***BUT be careful

with Elkin’s circular reasoning (see the details of Elaine’s explanation below for the

reading).

– Elaine: The cross-cultural perspective in art history is a relatively new scholarship and is

rapidly developed in recent few decades. It deserves more attention to its updated

advancement and further complications in terms of its theoretical conception and

application.

– Elaine: Identity problem/crisis is NOT necessarily caused by cross-cultural situation BUT

it is usually implicated in cross-cultural situation; existential confusion can also cause

identity problem/crisis.

 

Clarke, David. Art and Place: Essays on Art from a Hong Kong Perspective, Hong Kong: HKU

Press, 1996. 65-104 [65-84 listed in Unit 8; 85-104 listed in Seminar Topic 3].

 

 

(CHES5145) reading notes for Special Topic 3: Cross-Cultural Exchange in the Global Context

Lecturer: Dr. Elaine Kwok, Yin Ning (kyn.elaine@gmail.com)

 

– Elaine: (p. 65) traditional (Chinese) vs modern (Western) -> in HK

–

– Elaine: (p. 66) to reconcile the tradition (Chinese) and the modern (Western)in HK ->

cross-cultural interaction -> HK’s cultural identity

–

– Elaine: (pp. 66-80) Clarke analyzes specific artists and their works in order to illustrate

how their works are reconciling and negotiating between the Chinese and the Western in

order find their HK cultural identity in art.

– -> The process of cultural identity reconciliation and negotiation is in a two-way

directional structure. This means each side of the culture transforms and reconfigures the

other side’s understanding of the opposite culture.

– “[p. 85] In this essay … The interaction between East Asian and Western cultures, …”

–

– “[p. 86] From the perspective of an artist working in Hong Kong, far from the centres of

Western modernist culture, the heroic narrative of art’s escape from narrative might look

less convincing, and what might seem elsewhere to be a contamination of the visual by

the verbal might look more like an interesting and fruitful entanglement. Such indeed

seems to be the case with Antonio Mak.”

 

 

(CHES5145) reading notes for Special Topic 3: Cross-Cultural Exchange in the Global Context

Lecturer: Dr. Elaine Kwok, Yin Ning (kyn.elaine@gmail.com)

 

– Elaine: It is the entanglement of the verbal and the visual -> cross-cultural interaction &

transformation & reconciliation & negotiation in HK -> HK art -> HK cultural identity

(Lecture – ‘Hong Kong Art: The Colonial and the Post-Colonial’ -> art of HK vs art in

HK)

– Elaine: (p. 91) using Chinese characters to give “pre-existing units” for constructing

meanings + visual elements -> “from context to context” (linguistic context to visual

context + Eastern context to Western context, e.g. on pp. 98-103) -> transform / reconcile

/ negotiate the viewer’s understanding of the artwork -> HK art with cross-cultural

natures and special identity of mix the West and the East

–

 

Elkins, James. Chinese Landscape Painting as Western Art History, Hong Kong: Hong Kong

University Press, 2010. ix-xviii; 24, 45, 57, 62, 110, and 145.

– Elaine: Elkins studies European understanding of Chinese painting as expressed in

written texts. It focuses only on Chinese landscape painting (he does not include other

forms/genres of Chinese painting like portraiture, flower-and-bird painting; and does not

involve the European views expressed in the period before the 20th century).1

– Elaine: By revealing how scholars, regardless his or her ethnic backgrounds, studying

Chinese landscape painting is actually expressing their views on Chinese art history

which are based on western framework and perspective. Elkins argues that those scholars

are not working on Chinese art history or the history of Chinese landscape painting but

on Western art history by using Chinese landscape painting as the object of their study.

– Elaine: His main argument is a series of 6 accusations that western writers’ writings on

Chinese landscape painting history are not Chinese art history but examples within

western art history. In his six hypotheses, he accuses the writers of holding the

1 Elkins, Chinese Landscape Painting as Western Art History, p. xii, and p. 145

 

 

(CHES5145) reading notes for Special Topic 3: Cross-Cultural Exchange in the Global Context

Lecturer: Dr. Elaine Kwok, Yin Ning (kyn.elaine@gmail.com)

 

presuppositions and prejudices that make their writings a western construct and not the

historical reality of Chinese art.

– Elaine: He develops his argument by putting forth 6 “hypotheses” which encompass

various dimensions of those scholarly works’ methodologies, philosophical approaches,

historical frameworks, and cultural perspectives.

– The six hypotheses as listed by Jennifer Purtle in the Forward (p. xii)2 are: “Briefly

summarized, these hypotheses:

– “1) propose the inherently Western nature of art history, and the place of Chinese

landscape painting history as example or examples within Western art history rather than

as a co-equal of Western art history;

– “2) problematize comparison (entrenched in the discipline of art history), especially

cross-cultural comparison;

2 The six hypotheses as listed by Jennifer Purtle in the Forward are: “Briefly summarized, these hypotheses: 1)

propose the inherently Western nature of art history, and the place of Chinese landscape painting history as example

or examples within Western art history rather than as a co-equal of Western art history; 2) problematize comparison

(entrenched in the discipline of art history), especially cross-cultural comparison; 3) advise that art history is so

inherently a Western discipline that any history of Chinese landscape painting is a Western endeavor, even if written

by a Chinese person in Chinese for a Chinese audience; 4) state that comparison of historical perspective (that is, a

sense of relative position with respect to one’s own tradition) reveals assumptions about the nature of art history and

its sequences, and shows affinities between Chinese and Western periods; 5) note that Chinese painting has an odd

structure, exemplified by decline in the late Ming and derogatory, if not absent narratives of the Qing (a counter-

hypothesis contends that late Ming and Qing artists appear to art history as a form of postmodernism); and plead for

sustained inquiry in considering art history as Western, aware that when inquiry into art objects transcends Western

assumptions, it will no longer be recognizable as art history.” James Elkins, Chinese Landscape Painting as

Western Art History, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2010, p. xii.

Elkins states his six hypotheses in his book: “[p. 24] First hypothesis. The history of Western art is deeply related to

the enterprise of art history itself, so much so that the history of Chinese landscape painting tends to appear as an

example, or as a set of possible examples, and not a coequal in the production or understanding of art history itself.”

“[p. 45] Second hypothesis. Because all understanding works by comparison, no account can be free of it.

Comparisons to Western art continue to mold what is said about Chinese landscape painting. Being self-critical,

provisional, sensitive, linguistically accomplished, circumspect, a abstract, or informal about comparisons does not

vitiates their power, and there is no evidence that we have escaped from even the largest mismatches.”

“[p. 57] Third hypothesis. The project of writing art history is Western, and so any history of Chinese landscape

painting is partly but fundamentally a Western endeavor, even if it is written by a Chinese historian, in Chinese, for

Chinese readers.”

“[p. 62] Fourth hypothesis. A comparison of historical perspectives addresses some of the deepest-lying

assumptions about the nature of art history and its possible sequences. It does so because it seems to be among the

most inoffensive and abstract of all comparative principles. In Chinese landscape painting, it reveals affinities

between Chinese and Western periods that continue to inform the history of Chinese art.”

“[p. 110] Fifth hypothesis. The history of Chinese painting has an odd structure. In particular the Ming decline and

Qing eclipse have no parallels in the West, and so they may be fundamentally inassimilable. […] Counter-

hypothesis. Late Ming and Qing artists appear to art history as a form of postmodernism.”

“[p. 145] Sixth hypothesis. There are reasons to keep trying to understand how art history is Western. But any such

attempt will remain with Western art history, and if an account succeeds in throwing off Western assumptions it will

no longer be recognizable as art history.”

Elkins, Chinese Landscape Painting as Western Art History, , p. 24, p. 45, p. 57, p. 62, p. 110, and p. 145.

 

 

(CHES5145) reading notes for Special Topic 3: Cross-Cultural Exchange in the Global Context

Lecturer: Dr. Elaine Kwok, Yin Ning (kyn.elaine@gmail.com)

 

– “3) advise that art history is so inherently a Western discipline that any history of Chinese

landscape painting is a Western endeavor, even if written by a Chinese person in Chinese

for a Chinese audience;

– “4) state that comparison of historical perspective (that is, a sense of relative position

with respect to one’s own tradition) reveals assumptions about the nature of art history

and its sequences, and shows affinities between Chinese and Western periods;

– “5) note that Chinese painting has an odd structure, exemplified by decline in the late

Ming and derogatory, if not absent narratives of the Qing (a counter-hypothesis contends

that late Ming and Qing artists appear to art history as a form of postmodernism); and

– “[6] plead for sustained inquiry in considering art history as Western, aware that when

inquiry into art objects transcends Western assumptions, it will no longer be recognizable

as art history.”

– Elaine: (p. 24, p. 45, p. 57, p. 62, p. 110, and p. 145) Elkins states his six hypotheses in

his book: “[1st – p. 24] First hypothesis. The history of Western art is deeply related to

the enterprise of art history itself, so much so that the history of Chinese landscape

painting tends to appear as an example, or as a set of possible examples, and not a

coequal in the production or understanding of art history itself.”

– “[2nd – p. 45] Second hypothesis. Because all understanding works by comparison, no

account can be free of it. Comparisons to Western art continue to mold what is said

about Chinese landscape painting. Being self-critical, provisional, sensitive,

linguistically accomplished, circumspect, abstract, or informal about comparisons does

not vitiates their power, and there is no evidence that we have escaped from even the

largest mismatches.”

– “[3rd – p. 57] Third hypothesis. The project of writing art history is Western, and so any

history of Chinese landscape painting is partly but fundamentally a Western endeavor,

even if it is written by a Chinese historian, in Chinese, for Chinese readers.”

– “[4th – p. 62] Fourth hypothesis. A comparison of historical perspectives addresses some

of the deepest-lying assumptions about the nature of art history and its possible sequences.

It does so because it seems to be among the most inoffensive and abstract of all

comparative principles. In Chinese landscape painting, it reveals affinities between

Chinese and Western periods that continue to inform the history of Chinese art.”

– “[5th – p. 110] Fifth hypothesis. The history of Chinese painting has an odd structure. In

particular the Ming decline and Qing eclipse have no parallels in the West, and so they

may be fundamentally inassimilable. I am going to oppose that hypothesis to another one,

 

 

(CHES5145) reading notes for Special Topic 3: Cross-Cultural Exchange in the Global Context

Lecturer: Dr. Elaine Kwok, Yin Ning (kyn.elaine@gmail.com)

 

which is its mirror opposite, because the very invisibility of the period makes it the focus

of attention. I cannot imagine a reflective reader of Sherman Lee’s books, or of Wen

Fong’s, who is not immediately fascinated with the possibility that a major tradition

could somehow take such a wrong turn that it calls down the combined wrath and

indifference of its major historians.”

– “[6th – p. 145] Sixth hypothesis. There are reasons to keep trying to understand how art

history is Western. But any such attempt will remain with Western art history, and if an

account succeeds in throwing off Western assumptions it will no longer be recognizable

as art history.”

– Elaine: All of these dimensions, according to Elkins, are the presumptions and

presuppositions dominant in the academic discipline of Western art history. Elkins

judges those academic works by comparing them to a hidden standard or a presupposed

achievement at which Chinese art history can be shown as it ‘really’ is or was by making

no reference to any Western framework and perspective. The question whether it is

possible to reach such a standard is another story.

– Elaine: Elkins’s six hypotheses do foreground the ways in which Chinese landscape

painting has been studied; and do reveal in what sense the studies on Chinese landscape

painting are heavily loaded with many presuppositions which, according to him, are

invalid or wrong when understanding the history of this art.

– Elaine: Methodologically, the logic of Elkins’s argument shows a problem of circular

reasoning in which the objects of his research (western writings on Chinese landscape

painting) are at the same time constitutive of his accusations that the very western

writings’ (the objects of his research) presuppositions and prejudices make their writings

not Chinese art history or historical reality but western history examples. Thus, once a

writing is a western one, the writing is by nature or by default loaded with Elkin’s

hypotheses because what defines a writing as a western writing, according to Elkin, is the

very features which are at the same time the presuppositions and prejudices making the

writing NOT a Chinese one BUT a western one.

– Elaine: This is to say that by nature, what can be reasonably defined as western writings

has to be exactly made up with the presuppositions or prejudices of which Elkins accuses

the writers. Elkins develops his argument by putting forth six hypotheses which

encompass various dimensions of writers’ methodologies, philosophical approaches,

historical frameworks, and cultural perspectives. All of these dimensions, according to

Elkins, are presumptions and presuppositions dominant in the academic discipline of

western art history.

 

 

(CHES5145) reading notes for Special Topic 3: Cross-Cultural Exchange in the Global Context

Lecturer: Dr. Elaine Kwok, Yin Ning (kyn.elaine@gmail.com)

 

– In other words, the qualities of the 6 hypotheses are the defining characteristics of

Western scholarship on Chinese art history, i.e. Western scholarship = 6 hypotheses

(characteristics). If you want to argue that Western scholarship is XYZ because it shows

6 characteristics, Western scholarship would always be XYZ by nature & by definition

no matter what.

– Elaine: My analogy of a circular reasoning in arguing for the idea that ‘the male is bad’

analogy explaining the circular reasoning problem in Elkins’s analysis -> (my apologies

if anyone find it offensive) Men are bad because they have a penis which can be a piece

of weapon to intrude into other people’s body; they are physically stronger so that they

can do physical harm more easily to others; they are bodily bigger so that they can

physically dominate other people in an easier way; etc. Having a penis, physically

stronger, bodily bigger, etc. are the very defining and constitutive features of what men

are in general or in common sense -> since these accusations of men being bad are based

on the very defining constitutive features of man, the reasoning backing these accusations

are circular reasoning.

– Elaine: Circular reasoning => When the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

– Elaine: My position is that nobody can be free of having presuppositions or prejudices.

There is nothing wrong when a person judges another culture based on the culture of the

person’s home country or based on whichever culture the person chooses to compare

with. This is because when making judgement, a set of standards or criteria as a

framework or perspective is always needed.

– However, what matters is the investigation of what can and cannot be seen by adopting a

certain framework or perspective and how what is seen is evaluated by such a framework

and from such a perspective. Such an investigation should be put forth explicitly when

making any judgement.

– Elaine: Dissimilar to Elkins’ position, my research (PhD thesis) reveals major patterns

and concerns when Europeans were encountering Chinese painting and calligraphy. The

‘hidden’ standard used in my study is the common knowledge about Chinese culture

which had been around in China for many centuries before Europeans expressed their

views in the written texts. In other words, my research judges the European

understanding of the two art forms by comparing it with the culture knowledge common

in China.

– Elaine: Other than these positions, the major differences between Elkins’s and my

research are the scope and the period of our studies that he focuses on the Western

understanding of Chinese landscape painting in the 20th century; I focus on the European

reception of Chinese painting and calligraphy from the 17th century to the 19th century.