Chinese pottery and porcelain; vol. 2. Ming and Ch'ing PorcelainHobson, R. L. (Robert Lockhart)
History
Chinese pottery and porcelain; vol. 2. Ming and Ch'ing Porcelain
Hobson, R. L. (Robert Lockhart)
Porcelain, Chinese; Pottery, Chinese
As to the antiquity of this decoration in China, I can find no evidence
of its existence before the eighteenth century, and I am inclined to
think it was even then a late development. There are two cups in the
Hippisley Collection with apocryphal Hsüan Tê dates, but the majority
of marked examples are Ch’ien Lung or later. Out of fourteen pieces in
the Franks Collection five have the Ch’ien Lung mark, two have palace
marks of the Tao Kuang period,[455] and one has a long inscription
stating that it was made by Wang Shêng-Kao in the fourth month of
1798.[456] The rest are unmarked. The manufacture continues to the
present day, and the same process has been freely used in Japan, where
it is called _hotaru-de_, or firefly decoration. In this type of
ornament the Chinese were long forestalled by the potters of Western
Asia, for the rice-grain transparencies were used with exquisite effect
in Persia and Syria in the twelfth century if not considerably earlier.
It remains to mention a species of decoration which is not strictly
ceramic. It consists of coating the porcelain biscuit with black
lacquer in which are inlaid designs in mother-of-pearl, the _lac
burgauté_ of the French (Plate 128, Fig. 3). This porcelain is known
by the French name of _porcelaine laquée burgautée_, and it seems
to have been originally a product of the Ch’ien Lung period; at any
rate, I can find no evidence of its existence before the eighteenth
century.
In the Ch’ien Lung period Chinese porcelain reaches the high-water
mark of technical perfection. The mastery of the material is complete.
But for all that the art is already in its decline. By the middle of
the reign it is already overripe, and towards the end it shows sure
signs of decay. At its best the decoration is more ingenious than
original, and more pretty than artistic. At its worst it is cloying
and tiresome. The ware itself is perfectly refined and pure, but
colder than the K’ang Hsi porcelain. The _famille rose_ painting
is unequalled at its best for daintiness and finish, but the broken
tints and miniature touches cannot compare in decorative value with the
stronger and broader effects of the Ming and K’ang Hsi brushwork. The
potting is almost perfect, but the forms are wanting in spontaneity;
and the endless imitation of bronze shapes becomes wearisome, partly
because the intricate forms of cast metal are not naturally suited to
the ceramic material, and partly because the elaborate finish of the
Ch’ien Lung wares makes the imitation of the antique unconvincing. In
detail the wares are marvels of neatness and finish, but the general
impression is of an artificial elegance from which the eye gladly
turns to the vigorous beauty of the earlier and less sophisticated
types.
[Illustration: Plate 128.--Ch’ien Lung Porcelain. _British
Museum._
Fig. 1.--Vase with “rice grain” ground and blue and white design.
Height 7¾ inches.
Fig. 2.--Vase with “lacework” designs. Ch’ien Lung mark. Height
7¾ inches.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account