Craig Clunas and How He

Craig Clunas and how he portrays material culture in his writings and how John Fairbanks expresses his views on Chinese culture

The question of portraying culture in writing is inherent to any author. The reasoning and the method of evaluating a subject proceeds from the known -- what the writer has accumulated from his experience; which means the culture that he or she was born into and the contrasts or similarities that strike when an alien culture is explored. It is a theory of quantum physics that this appear as we wish it to be. Light thus is a particle or a wave to the observer and the observer who thinks that it is a wave sees it so. Similarly in comparing art and culture the essential need is to see, if the society which produced the work falls in the framework of what the writer knows and feels. This unconscious comparison seeks, though biased the similarities which we are familiar with. Far removed from one another and with a turbulent history, Europe and China are dissimilar worlds. There could be no comparison in any manner in the evolution of the history and culture, and consequently art of both the regions.

The western growth of art as a result of the growth of capitalism and consequently influenced by capitalist tendencies is a though that lurks in the mind and when an author like Craig Clunas examines the Ming period in China, the comparisons of capitalist production methods in both is shown with strength. There is no question that Craig Clunas does not consider the Art from the Chinese perspective but from the point-of-view of the European connoisseur. The Ming dynasty artifacts have been interpreted and classified by European scholars with a similar bias. Leaning on them, which is inevitable has to a great extent made Craig Clunas look at the works of art from a materialistic view point.

This observation will be justified in examination of the current and thread of the books he wrote and also on the reviews of other eminent writes presented here. On the other hand, John Fairbanks was more concerned about the culture of China, even communist china and he has gone deep into the Chinese system without expecting to see any comparisons with western culture. In other words John Fairbanks attempted to present China as it was and as it is and left the judgment to the reader. In other words there was emphasis on culture but there was no tint of the native experiences of capitalism and his own feelings as American to cloud the judgment.

2. Two World Views

Writings of Craig Clunas show that he looked at the works of art from a materialistic view point. John Fairbanks was more into the history and overall cultural metamorphism of the society of china that he was careful to analyze from the Chinese point-of-view. Hence to him materialism did not cloud the judgment of Chinese civilization. However we have to be cautious in comparing both the writers. While Craig Clunas was judging the art of the Ming Dynasty which was interpreted according to the standards of Europe, John Fairbanks was more concerned with the overall culture and emphasis on the Chinese goodness rather than art form. We attempt therefore to compare two different paradigms that were operating and directed at two different set of values. Errors of judgment could be avoided only if we stick to strictly examining if "materialism did influence either of the authors." (Rawski, 11)

This essentially makes us omit the exhaustive references to Ming dynasty art from Craig Clunas and omit the political and nation wise commentaries of John Fairbanks. Other reviewers of Craig Clunas have shown either directly or by referring to it the materialistic interpretation of Clunas of Chinese art. For example in reviewing the book: "Visual and Material Cultures of Ming China, Evelyn S. Rawski says that the work of Craig Clunas no doubt through objects, texts and art works to bear on the cultural history of the Ming." (Rawski, 12) The contrast between the European and Chinese thinking in arts, and the book also has insights into the material aspect of art. Though the reviewer Evelyn S. Rawski was more interested in the way Clunas discussed the art scene of the Ming dynasty, he was forced to observe that Clunas's mode of analyzing tended to be on "the material presence of the visual image and the visual claims of the material object Clunas saw visual and material cultures in extreme plurality." (Rawski, 14)

Craig Clunas: Art View:

Craig Clunas argues that the eight discourses of Gao Lian and the ZenZheng's treatise will appear out of context to historians of the Ming dynasty. However the works reflect the changes that were current in China in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. They point out to the evolution of the material culture of the period. He cites the example of development in agriculture, ceramics and the influence of Christianity that made inroads into the Chinese empire. (Miller, 96) The argument he advances over the influence of materialism goes to the extent of showing the interest of the Chinese in building dams, and the technical curiosity and engineering skills that were promoted during the period. The growth of technology and improvements in agriculture and the methods of budgeting the empires finances and the evolution of the gentry which is emphasized in detail point out the author's obsession in promoting the western notions as having been imbibed into the Chinese empire much earlier in the Ming period. The arguments of the author Craig Clunas therefore attribute the collapse of the empire to the dis-satisfied intellectuals and their influence. While it is true that the Chinese culture does give special importance to the learned, we cannot agree with the author that the collapse of the Ming dynasty was engineered and made possible by the intellectual dissatisfaction alone. (Miller, 97)

It is possible that there was some kind of social rot that went on inside. Craig Clunas points this out layer when he says that during the later period "the late Ming society, as a culturally exquisite bloom which was nevertheless in some sense rotten inside." (Miller, 98) Craig Clunas however makes it clear that his intention was not to show that Ming China was "exactly like contemporary Europe" but he desired to show that identical patterns in the art world and the concepts of aesthetics seem to have evolved. (Miller, 101) Though he refutes that he is taking sides to show that there was "sprouts of capitalism" and leaned on Marx whose heritages developed by Immanuel Wallersiten is cited, the author leans also on Appadurai's contention that art must be viewed within the cultural boundaries. (Miller, 101) Yet a general pattern emerges that Craig Clunas could not refrain from comparing the European way of thinking of art, namely that the European demand for luxuries showed a material culture and this caused the capitalist production. He compares "the invention of taste" has having occurred both in the Chinese and European society much the same way. The European gentleman was also required to be a connoisseur. This and other attributes he states makes China similar to Europe. (Miller, 103)

There is a fallacy of imposing a view to a frame to which it is not relevant. If we ask ourselves the question, as to if in the European art world, did the materialist production create a profusion of items that were not art but commercial things? The answer could be yes, and no. Yes in the sense that the process of manufacture for items with mass demand merely created copies of a single design without the soul of the creator in it. Mass production of fabrics, for example. Mass production of some artifacts too was done thereby lessening the overall value of the item making it commercial. However the art in its form survived without being enmeshed in the materialistic view. This is because universally art is created from the visions of the artists which initially or unless it becomes very popular has no materialistic intentions. It is therefore valid to say that if art in the pure art form survived the European commercialization, the Ming art was more of an art for arts sake than commercial exploitation. But Craig Clunas argues that there is a direct pattern that could be noticed in the Ming dynasty artifacts that could lead to the scale in which ceramic production was done. (Clunas, 62)

The progress of the ceramic industry all through from the Ming dynasty to later eighteenth century when it was exported to Europe with Chinese motifs and blanks is shown as the material mercerization of art. Where there are evidence to show that certain merchants and art exporters like Gua it is argued by Craig Clunas, show that the production were materialistic and had a commercial angle other than art. He argues that the Late Ming was a period was a system where many luxuries were based on discrimination that was a result of using art as commodity. He argues that the exact thing happened in the case of paintings. The aim of the book "Superfluous things: material culture and social status in early modern China" (Clunas, 64) was simply to examine Chinese art in the light of material culture. This shows that Craig Clunas was of the view that evolution of art in China was deeply linked to materialistic and opportunistic needs. This train of though could be observed in all his writings. In this book there is a comparison of luxuries with the eighteenth-century England as well as the development of the society which is consumer focused. (Clunas, 67)

The arguments on art and commoditization of art are not without merit. The argument that as luxuries are demanded the tendency to mass produce for the market cannot be entirely brushed aside. The arguments of the consumption of luxuries are not unique to Culinas. Many other authors have also touched on the subject. The "growth of luxury consumption among the very wealthy, especially silk, mirrors, and so on of the period caused the material production of the items, formerly a reserve of artisans, and this was called by Werner Sombart as objectification" of luxury. (Pomeranz, 114) Thus there could be substance in the argument that commoditization could occur once the demand for art goods increased and a commercial production began. But the entire evolution of art is not based on commoditization but the popularity of art makes it perhaps a commodity of luxury. (Pomeranz, 114)

The entire argument thus rests on the premise that the Ming artifacts seem mass produced on account of the large number of available specimens, and the fact that similar pottery was also to be found exported to Europe. This premise gives rise to the material interpretation of the Chinese art. In fact there seems to be a distinction in the consumption of luxuries which marks the point from where the materialist interpretation begins. For example when art objects were displayed in the British museum it is argued that decorative arts had classified "clothing, chairs, wine jars, and other materials that traditional Chinese classification of art did not include. Art thus is seen as a way of categorizing a wider set of manifestation of material culture." (Barringer, 43)

Thus Culinas shows an obsession to see the entire history from the materialist point-of-view, ignoring other possibilities. We have to caution ourselves here that as we examine Fairbanks and his work we have to remember that Fairbanks was looking at China as a historian and not an expert on art. No doubt his views on Chinese art are valid and different from those of Culinas but are to be seen in a broader light and span. Fairbanks was concerned with the Chinese society, political, economic and social development, not only of ancient China but also of the contemporary, in his time, Communist China.

The views of John Fairbanks

A neutral essay for example the Cambridge History of china shows that the use of creative art is more of a social phenomenon which the rulers or leaders use to inculcate belief into the populace. Sociologists like Mary Sheridan and Joseph Hung have attempted to use fiction as a means of understanding culture and evolution of art forms and expressions. The contention is that fiction bears resemblance to the actual conduct of the times and therefore reflective of the society. The question is if we could trace the element of materialism into these researchers. It is a fact that other writers have not insisted on the Chinese art as being material. John K. Fairbank, in contributing to the book has argued that the art forms rather reflect the evolving values in society rather than materialism. (MacFarquhar; Fairbank; Twitchett, 575)

The development of the society is not contemporaneous with the development of art but rather more on the availability of basic resources and the social order in using those resources. The available resources like huge tracts of land, and large number of workers gave the Chinese the resources to create enterprises and monetizing the economy. The effects of religion in art and culture and the expansion of thought cannot be overstated. We cannot make the mistake of ignoring the influence of religion in art and daily life. This could not at all be based n materialism. For example Patricia Ebrey says that Buddhism was a great factor in influencing the community of China and its monasteries and customs reflect this. Stories and depictions of earlier periods including art reflect the common spiritual belief. This is in contrast to the view of Craig Clunas who has with one sweep made a materialist interpretation without considering the driving forces that shape the society and hence art. (Ebrey; Liu, 121)

The rise of Confucianism, Buddhism, and their influence on "Chinese arts, culture, economics, society" (Ebrey; Liu, 122) have been researched well by other authors who have succeeded in showing the essential complex relation between the Chinese society, religion, ethos and cultural progress that was reflected in the art that each period produced. The Ming artifacts thus would be much more than a commercial production based on demand and supply. (Ebrey; Liu, 122) There were other researchers who have analyzed the Chinese history like Frank-Jurgen Richter. (Richter, 178) Richter, in comparing the Chinese community with the net work theory combines social activities e with the economic thought. Thus Max Weber analyzed the Chinese culture in terms of the factors that is not conductive to economic development. Most scholars have a negative attitude to Chinese Culture but it is shown that John Fairbanks retrieves that south Asian countries particularly China has a conservative inertia that prevents it from globalizing. Fairbanks believed that modernizing China will have to essentially remove Confucianism. Later on the success of China has now made it clear that China could progress with the values intact. If that is the case then the Ming dynasty could have also been a period of progress that need not have been materialistic as argued by Craig Clunas. (Richter, 178)

Fairbanks not only analyzed the culture but also showed that there was essential difference in the very basis of how the west understood the Chinese way of life. Fairbanks's analysis of ritual practice extends to the political and martial aspects of thee Chinese. Chinese were an aggressive race and the Ming rulers fought 308 wars. Ming rulers viewed defense as a temporary way of overcoming a bad situation. Expansive ambitions are seen with the Chinese rulers, both Quoin and Ming. (Van de Ven, 255) The concept of vassals and tributes, and the way the ruling class treated the others were concerns of Fairbank. His enquiry did not begin with a comparison with the west, and to him art and art forms were the expressions of the nature of the state. The Chinese state had its own feudal order that could not be compared to any other. The earlier rulers believed that they existed in the center of the world and progressively as on went out of the centre things became worse. Hence the foreign influences on Chinese thinking and art would therefore be minimal. Fairbank has redefined the tributary system and the consideration comes in strangely studying the Chinese warfare. In the interpretations of Chinese culture, Fairbank looks at the subject as a true historian should, dispassionately and objectively. (Van de Ven, 255)