Craig Clunas and John Fairbanks' contrasting approaches to Chinese culture

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.

3. Conclusion

Craig Clunas did not consider art from the Chinese perspective but from the point-of-view of the European connoisseur. To Craig Clunas the Ming works of art were not art as was defined in Europe but a materialistic mass production of luxury. Thus the premise began with the assertion that all the Ming artifacts were essentially luxury items produced commercially and the history of the period was sought to be fitted into this premise. In the process evidence found in the form of works of the Chinese historians were trashed. On the other hand it was argued by Craig Clunas, that materialistic view was the sound way of approaching the subject.

John K. Fairbank has argued that the art forms rather reflect the evolving values in society rather than materialism. John Fairbanks was more into the history and overall cultural metamorphism of the society of china. There was no particular favorite frame from which he viewed the subject. John Fairbanks was more concerned with the overall culture and the effect of religion in art and culture is more visible in the works that other researchers did but does not find a place in Craig Clunas work. Of course we also have to remind ourselves in concluding that we were making an attempt to compare two persons who had different interests but the same subject matter. In reading both we feel that Fairbanks had a greater vision of the two.