The Ceramic Art: A Compendium of The History and Manufacture of Pottery and PorcelainYoung, Jennie J.
History
The Ceramic Art: A Compendium of The History and Manufacture of Pottery and Porcelain
Young, Jennie J.
Pottery -- History
One piece may have flowers and
various household articles (Fig. 99) upon a white ground, or rose may
mingle with turquoise and maroon in the border. Nothing is too bold for
the Chinese artist, and no effect appears to be unattainable or untried.
He is equally at home painting on white enamel a delicate border, or
rivalling the rich hues of a gaudy butterfly in a life-like imitation of
the fluttering insect.
[Illustration: Fig. 98.--Chinese Rose Family. (Robert Hoe, Jr., Coll.)]
Before leaving the Rose family, let us glance at a few of the pieces
ascribed to Japan, and which ought to be restored to China. To
illustrate the difficulty of assigning them, with positive certainty, to
either country, the plate given on page 143 may be referred to (Fig.
100). Mr. Andrews considers his piece Japanese, and his opinion is
supported by the fact that other specimens, also claimed for Japan, have
the same subject painted in the centre. When a photograph of the piece
was submitted to the Hon. Jushie Yoshida Kiyonari, the Japanese Minister
at Washington, he replied: “It seems to me certain that the subject, as
well as the style of the painting, are strictly Chinese; and this much
I would say, if I had the piece in my possession, I could not but
consider it as a _good Chinese specimen_.”
[Illustration: Fig. 99.--Chinese Bowl. Rich Decoration, chiefly Yellow
and Rose. Height, 11 in.; circumference, 5 ft. 8 in. (Mrs. John V. L.
Pruyn Coll.)]
When Jacquemart tries to find an origin for the Chinese Rose family, he
says: “Does it issue from the accidental discovery of the red of
Cassius? Is it contemporary with other porcelains? Does it come from a
particular centre? We think its creation is to be attributed to the wish
of imitating the admirable porcelain of Japan.” The same writer, in
treating of what he calls “artistic” porcelain of the Japanese Rose
family, says: “If we required to seek the cause of these modifications
and of the particular style of artistic porcelain, we should find it in
a desire of rivalling the Chinese porcelain of the Rose family.” In
other words, the Japanese Rose suggested the Chinese Rose, and the
Chinese Rose suggested the Japanese Rose--a stage at which the
discussion becomes neither lucid nor satisfactory.
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