Recently, Mr. Wu Hong, a well-known art historian and professor at the University of Chicago, won the Distinguished Lifetime Achievement Award for Writing on Art in 2022 by the College Art Association of America (CAA).
As an internationally renowned scholar in the field of Chinese art history, Professor Wu Hong has tried to translate Chinese and Western cultures since the last century, opening up a new paradigm of Chinese art history writing. The award speech said:
"Training in both China and the United States has allowed Wu Hung's work to bring cultural perspectives from both countries to the fields of aesthetics, art history, and archaeology. From the earliest ancient relics to the intervention of the current era in the contradictory psychological structures of the Progressive Narrative of the West, his arguments laid the foundation of Chinese culture. From the Dunhuang Grottoes to Chongping to Zhu Jinshi's installation 'Phalanx: A Cube of Rice Paper', he has received numerous awards for transforming the study of East Asian art and focusing on the relationship between images and the space being observed.
All in all, his work explores many complex transformations across time and space. He has always been very interested in the shape of time, and has written a large number of monographs, papers and exhibition catalogues on world time, bringing Chinese visual culture into different focal points. The scope of his work is as large as an epic, in which debates can span centuries and focus on the humanity of both the artist and the audience. He was a practitioner of art history, a poet and scholar who knew from the bottom of his heart how to pick up a pen and create clear and delicate prose, opening up new areas for experts and new readers. ”
In October 2015, Professor Wu Hong proposed in a lecture at Fudan University entitled "Ancient Chinese Art in the Global Landscape": What is the most unique and valuable contribution of traditional Chinese art to the history of human art? How to rewrite the history of Chinese art in the context of the global landscape? Today, Movable Type Jun shared with book lovers the interviews conducted by The Paper and Professor Wu Hong during the lecture.
What contributions has Chinese art made to the history of human art?
—
Chen Shiyue Jiang Cen Sheng Yixin Wen
This article was first published on October 28, 2015 by The Paper
"Art and industry are different, not evolutionary"
In this series of lectures in Fudan, with the theme of "Ancient Chinese Art in the Global Landscape", you chose ceremonial vessels, tombs, hand scrolls and landscapes as the themes of the four lectures, why did you choose this, can they be used as the four representatives of ancient Chinese art in your mind?
Wu Hung: Not necessarily, I didn't think that far at once. As I said in the first lecture, I would like to reflect on what the characteristics of Chinese art are, not to say how ideology and culture are, the most important thing is to start from the types and forms of art, to see which are the most special compared with other artistic traditions.
The origin of this question is that there is such a discussion in foreign academic circles, and it is also related to how a History of Chinese Art should be written. The current way of writing art history is basically based on chronology, from dynasty to dynasty from distant era to dynasty, which is easy to cover up the question I just asked.
In addition, although this lecture in Fudan is run by the Institute of Literature and History, it is facing the teachers and students of the whole school, and my positioning of the audience is from different departments and majors, including some people outside the school, so I want to use this occasion not to answer some particularly specific questions, but to reflect on Chinese art from a macroscopic perspective.
What is Chinese art? Of course, we can say that everything that is produced in this part of China is Chinese art. But it's a bit simplistic. Just like talking about a person, if you only say that this life is in Jiangsu or Shanghai, it is just an introduction to a background, and more importantly, you should talk about the person's personality or personality, growth experience, etc. So I wanted to use these four lectures to discuss some of the core personalities or personalities of Chinese art. Of course, it is impossible to include all four lectures. What I am doing now is to select a few aspects that first appear in my mind, and I will definitely develop in the future.
When you talked about ceremonial vessels in the first lecture, you used words such as "miniature monument" and "monumentality", which were very Westernized, and some viewers on the spot questioned why it is necessary to use Western concepts to prove that China also has different forms of monumentality, how do you respond to this question?
Wu Hong: At first I used the word in English because the book was written in English (Wu Hung published "Monumentality in Ancient Chinese Art and Architecture" in 1995, which was translated into Chinese in 2009). Using the words "monumental" or "monumental" to explain Chinese things is easier for Western scholars to understand, because this is a common concept. Later, the book was translated into Chinese, and the context was different, so we needed to think about what kind of Chinese words could better express the concept of monumentality. To be honest, "monumentality" is also a newly coined and somewhat awkward word in the West. Monument is familiar to everyone, but monumentality is an abstract, newly coined word.
I have two reactions to your question, one is that I think it is a very good question, and we should try to find a good Chinese word. Since such miniature monuments existed in ancient China, there may also be corresponding vocabulary. Later, I thought that in ancient China, there was actually a word that expressed a similar meaning, that is, "heavy weapon". The meaning of "heavy" here is not only that the artifact is really heavy, it may of course be very large and heavy, but more importantly, it refers to the artifact of special importance to society, politics, family and so on.
This group of bronzes excavated from Baoji, Shaanxi Province, preserves a set of ceremonial vessels used in the worship of ancestors
For example, the ancient Chinese "Jiuding" symbolizes the dynasty, according to legend, the founder of the Xia Dynasty, Dayu Cast Jiuding, and later the Xia Dynasty ran out of qi, and the last ruler Xia Jie did not argue, and Jiuding moved to the Shang Dynasty by himself. Therefore, Jiuding is considered to be a divine and symbolic orthodox regime, which is what I call "monumentality", which is not embodied in China in the form of architectural monuments. But then again, for modern people, the word "heavy weapon" may be more difficult to understand than "monumentality."
Sometimes people fantasize about having a complete set of Chinese vocabulary to talk about ancient Chinese things, which may not be realistic. First, many of the words we use now are foreign words, such as "art", "fine art", "aesthetics", etc., all of which came from Japan, and Japan is influenced by Germany. How much of the academic language we use today is truly passed down from ancient China to the present day? Therefore, this fantasy can only explain ancient China in ancient Chinese vocabulary, and it may itself reflect a lack of common sense of the current situation.
I think loanwords can be used, as long as we define them well, explain them well, and let people understand what it is saying. In fact, we use foreign languages every day, not only in art history and art history, but also in science and technology.
Second, I think we should also explore the corresponding concepts of ancient China, such as "heavy equipment" as an example. We should explain it so that it can be understood again in modern life.
Your lecture hopes to answer: How can the art of one region make a special contribution to the history of art in the world, and can you talk about how the art of the region interacts with other regions and has an impact on global art?
Wu Hung: Now everyone understands the meaning of "global art". As a simple example, there is an art museum called "encyclopedic" or "global" art museum, in which the art of the whole world is exhibited. For example, the British Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art are displayed under one roof, showing a variety of art traditions from ancient times to the present. But this interpretation of "global fine art" is relatively simple, emphasizing the coexistence of different traditions rather than a comparative understanding.
We should see that the fine arts of each place are different, and the things created in different regions, the techniques and materials used, the ways of expression, the functions of art, and the history of development are all different. This different understanding is not to distinguish between the superior and inferior and the advanced and backward. The development of art and industry is different, not evolutionary, not from low to high, more and more advanced. The most interesting thing about world art is its richness, its characteristics of every tradition, every period. If you want to study the history of world art, you must preserve this richness. If it is measured by only one artistic standard, it is not interesting.
For example, in the landscape art I'm going to discuss, people who don't understand Chinese painting may think that the landscapes Chinese paintings are the same, and it's almost the same to look at a thousand pictures. That's because he doesn't understand. In the same way, we may not understand foreign art, and when we go to churches in Europe and the Americas, we see all the statues of the Virgin Mary. That's also because we don't understand. That's why we have to understand and learn from each other. This is the big premise to answer the question you just asked: there are many traditions in world art, not only in China, but also in other traditions. I reckon everyone can agree with that. Then we can continue to think about it in this big framework, compare, and from here some research methods have emerged.
In the lecture, I proposed two basic methods of studying global art, the first is the historical approach, studying how the art of various places connects and interacts in time and space, such as how Buddhist art spread from India to China, and here produced Chinese-style Buddhist art. Contemporary art reflects this interactivity even more. The second approach is to study the directions and personalities of different artistic traditions in a more abstract way, rather than specific historical connections. These two broad categories of research can generate many new problems.
"The First Lesson: Teaching the History of Chinese Art at Harvard and Chicago" is a collection of lectures by Professor Wu in the first class of the first semester at Harvard and Chicago in the past 30 years, hoping that Chinese readers can rediscover and understand the art and civilization of their own country through his vision.
Why do I keep talking about this now? This is because until now, Chinese art history has mainly done its own thing, and so have Western art historians, who are very familiar with their own research fields, but do not necessarily know much about the outside. Now there is such a trend of "global art history" to break down this barrier, open up a little bigger, and broaden your horizons. This is a good thing.
"Grand narrative and case studies, I think both are needed"
You mentioned breaking down barriers and broadening horizons, this kind of research method on the one hand has high requirements for the researchers' own knowledge reserves, and this grand narrative is also easy to be criticized by people to bring history, how do you think?
Wu Hung: I think you can do whatever you want, and each has its benefits. I can't say that case studies and careful examination are not good, and I am doing it. But that doesn't mean everyone has to do individual cases. It's not fun for everyone to do the same thing. Philosophers' thoughts are the most expansive and abstract, and philosophy cannot always be said to be useless because they do not examine. I don't think it's nice to say that rejection of different perspectives and approaches often reflects a narrow, self-protective view. Different disciplines and methods should respect each other without arguing about each other's superiority or who represents the truth more.
For example, archaeology and art history research often use the same materials, including tombs, artifacts, etc., but the way of doing research is different, and the questions asked are different. We cannot say that one way is right and one is not. Sometimes there are bumps and bumps and mutual criticism, often because they do not understand enough things that others do, so they will feel worthless. I think it's still important to respect other people's research.
Regarding grand narratives and case studies, I think both are needed. Reflections on grand narratives have been influenced by postmodern currents of thought for more than thirty years. But now we are beginning to reflect on postmodern thought. The critique of the "grand narrative" constructed on the basis of the "theory of evolution" in modernism is very important, so the "grand narrative" we are talking about so far does not refer to the original theory of evolution, nor does it assume an absolute, universal value. Therefore, we cannot oppose everyone as soon as we see someone talking about big things, and we cannot think that everyone has to make small propositions and specific cases. Both sizes and sizes have to be discussed. Large-scale research should proceed from specific research, have a basis, and must not be overlooked, especially in the field of historiography. Specific research should be slowly accumulated and gradually developed to a higher level of synthesis.
For example, historians have been talking about the changes between the Tang and Song dynasties for a long time, and this kind of big question cannot but be asked. The development of Buddhist art after its introduction to East Asia, which I mentioned in my lecture, is also such a big problem. We can compare experiences across the place. Japan's original strong burial art has basically disappeared, but this is not the case in China. China found a way for Buddhist art and tomb art to develop in parallel. Look at Luoyang in Northern Wei, to the north is the burial area on the North Mountain, and to the south is the Longmen Buddhist Grottoes. The two religious liturgical cultures interact in parallel. Nowadays, when studying tombs, we often look at tombs alone, and when studying Buddhist art, we only look at grottoes, and in fact, we need to combine these two parts. Without answering these big questions, you won't see the whole picture. So the question is not whether the grand narrative is good or the project research is good, but at which level to do it.
Cave 428 of Mogao Caves is a large grotto built in the Northern Zhou Dynasty, the spacious main room is centered on four pillars decorated with Buddha statues, and the surrounding four walls are painted with Buddhist narrative paintings and many offerings.
Can we think that the large academic background has reached the stage of critique of postmodernity, and that postmodernity opposes grand narratives and opposes totalitarian concepts of individual small and micro, and has also reached the stage of overcorrection, which requires reflection and the need to combine grandeur and smallness to see problems?
Wu Hung: I don't think we can simply look at it that way. When I look at both modernism and postmodernism now, they are both regarded as historical phenomena, and both represent a certain ideological structure at a certain time. Postmodernism also now seems to have great limitations, including the emphasis on fragmentary presentation. But it proposes theories that historians should understand in terms of their historical conditions, rather than as theoretical dogmas. There is no theoretical dogma for historians.
Postmodernism has put forward many important things about contemporary capitalist culture, including architecture and fine arts, but now we can think about the problem without carrying the baggage of those words. What was originally detached from modernism can now transcend postmodern interpretations and think freely. There is no new word for this current state of mind, no "postmodern" term. The degree of postmodern and deconstructivism is very strong, and it has a great influence on literary studies, art studies, and historical studies. In the study and teaching of Western art history, the current state is to go back to the art museum to study specific things, so as to reflect on theory.
"I have always been concerned about archaeological materials and research"
Not long ago, your first book" "Wuliang Temple" was republished Chinese edition, and some people said that this book is a paradigm for studying archaeological data in the way of art history.
Wu Hung: I disagree. The portrait stone materials of Wuliang Temple are not archaeological materials, they are not excavated, they have been recorded since the Song Dynasty, and they are not directly related to archaeology. Ancient China limited art to calligraphy and painting and did not include architecture and sculpture, and there is still a tradition of art history centered on calligraphy and painting. Maybe because that book is not about calligraphy and painting, some people think it is talking about archaeological data.
Wu Hong, "Wuliang Ancestral Hall: The Ideology of Ancient Chinese Portrait Art" (translated by Liu Yang Cen He, Life, Reading, and Xinzhi Sanlian Bookstore, 2015)
In fact, I think that the main object of dialogue in "Wuliang Temple" is the history of ideas and sociology, as shown by the subtitle, the ideological nature of ancient Chinese portrait art. We are talking about Xiangrui in the portrait stone, the concept of mandate of heaven, the three principles and five constants, and the concept of historiography. In the past few days, I am still talking about the idea that if you want to understand historical knowledge, you must read books, which are both the source of knowledge and the evidence of research. But what Wuliang Ancestral Hall hopes to do is to use pictorial materials to understand society, thought, gender, and so on. In terms of explanatory methods, it is to use the methods of iconography and iconography to contact social history and intellectual history. Some of my other books use a lot of archaeological material, such as "The Art Under the Yellow Spring" and "The Art of Etiquette", but there are not many new archaeological materials in "Wuliang Temple".
Are you interested and interested in the archaeological discoveries of recent years?
Wu Hong: I have always been very concerned about archaeological materials and research. I have never felt that art history and archaeology are a relationship of controversy and opposition, and both are aimed at understanding historical relics. Archaeology uses stratigraphy, typology and other methods to record and analyze the overall remains, and the study of art history is closer to picking some special relics and things, paying more attention to social and ideological content, emphasizing more visuality, rather than making large-scale quantitative research on materials, so archaeology is complementary.
Archaeology is closer to anthropology, statistics, and even the natural sciences. But I feel that archaeology should still be an important foundation for the study of ancient art history.
Mawangdui No. 1 Han Tomb unearthed screen
In the study of Chinese art history, "Chinese and Western scholars should complement each other"
When you talk about Chinese painting and calligraphy, from a macroscopic point of view, to what extent has the West studied Chinese painting and calligraphy, and is there a misreading in it?
Wu Hong: The Western study of Chinese painting and calligraphy began at the beginning of the twentieth century, or even earlier, and after accumulating, the level reached was still very high. People like SuLlivan, Gao Juhan, Ban Zonghua, etc., are all first-class art historians, and many scholars in China feel inspired by reading their books and respect their academic level.
Western researchers generally don't do as much at once as Chinese researchers do. Because of the limitations or encouragement of their linguistic and academic background, they tend to choose focused topics that can be done in depth. For example, if a thesis is written for seven or eight years or even more than ten years, it only studies an ancient painter. There are some Chinese who go abroad, including Li Zhujin, Fang Wen, etc., as well as myself, mainly working in the West, and sometimes it is difficult to say whether the learning is Western or Chinese, and it may be on both sides.
If there is a deficiency in western research on Chinese art history, it is still relatively narrow, after all, the number of people is small, for example, Harvard and Yale University are just a professor teaching Chinese art history, and they have to be managed for four or five thousand years. Schools with more researchers, like our university (University of Chicago) and Princeton, are only two or three, which is incomparable with the domestic research force. Therefore, the research in this area cannot be done very widely abroad. Some special topics can be done, but there is no way to make a comprehensive investigation of so many new archaeological materials and documentary materials. This defect is also a natural phenomenon that requires exchanges between all parties to complement each other.
Another point, which is not necessarily a disadvantage, is that foreign scholars are in the academic research environment of foreign ideas, and their research methods and interpretation methods will inevitably be affected by this environment. The focus of Western research and domestic emphasis is not necessarily the same, and sometimes the study of Chinese art history will follow the research direction of Western art history, such as the emphasis on patronage in Western painting research in the 1980s and 1990s, using sociological research methods. Therefore, people who do Chinese art history, such as Li Zhujin and Gao Juhan, also have some patron research. Put these studies in that big circle to understand their ins and outs.
Of course, the study of patrons is only a special aspect of the study of art history, and this kind of research emphasizes not the originality of the artist. Now we can also think about whether the issue of patrons is emphasized too much, resulting in the impression that artists are completely powerless and become the sounding board of social forces. Therefore, when reading research works on Western art history, I don't necessarily imitate it as a model. You can take a look at it and understand its impact on the study of Chinese art history in the West.
The past was exotic
Can you exaggerate a little, because you are Chinese, you have more personal understanding of the pen and ink itself when facing traditional Chinese painting and calligraphy. For foreigners, it is more from the perspective of the painter's social relations than from the perspective of the painting itself, so it is difficult to appreciate the beauty of the painting itself.
Wu Hung: I am against this. There's a saying in the West that I've always loved: "The past is a foreign country," which I translate as "past is exotic." For example, when we study Tang Dynasty paintings, in fact, the brush and ink of the Tang Dynasty people have nothing to do with us.
Our generations of Chinese have basically grown up in the Western ideological system and material environment, and have been educated in a globalized, modern background. Our relationship with traditional Chinese painting is ambiguous.
Some students also write with a brush, or relatives are calligraphers and painters, but these are relatively accidental factors, not enough to form a whole spiritual and ideological environment. Speaking of modern Chinese naturally understand the artistic and cultural sentiments of ancient China, which I think is a bit exaggerated.
But one thing that is very important is the text. Through writing we have a direct connection with the ancients. As modern people, we still read some ancient poems and read ancient novels, which is related. This contact foreigners do not. But that's not to say they can't make that connection. Some foreign scholars have studied Chinese characters very deeply, and sometimes their understanding of Tang and Song poetry may be more sophisticated than ours. The sinologist Such as Yuwen Soan is an example of this, and I am very inspired by his book.
How do you evaluate the similarities and differences between art history studies in Taiwan and mainland China, and the relevance of the Institute of Art History of National Taiwan University to the West?
Wu Hung: The Institute of Art History of National Taiwan University is a very strong academic base in this field, it is basically established according to the American model, Mr. Fang Wen's influence is very large, and his students Shi Shouqian and Chen Baozhen also played a great role there. There are also some universities in Taiwan that also have art history departments, which are closer to the art history in mainland art academies. Putting art history in a research institute and building it in a comprehensive university is the American model. After its establishment, it also absorbed scholars with other academic backgrounds, such as Xie Mingliang, who took a doctorate in Japan, and also played a great role there. Therefore, at present, this institute is not completely American-style, in fact, there is the academic influence of the "Academia Sinica". I think they did a good job, formed their own style, and did solid research. I think this institute can be used as a reference for us to establish a department or major in art history here.
Professor Zhu Qingsheng mentioned in an interview about China's hosting of the 2016 World Art History Congress that Mr. Hidemichi Tanaka, former president of the Art History Society of Japan, has always believed that China is not qualified to host the World Art History Congress, on the grounds that Chinese mainland does not have an art history major as a science discipline, and China's art history is still confused with art. Under China's current cultural and museum system, traditional cultural relics and art history intersect, but many scholars of cultural relics themselves do not necessarily understand and agree with the research methods of Western art history, can you talk about how Chinese universities should build art history disciplines in the future?
Wu Hong: Art history is a discipline that is developing rapidly and has an increasing influence. Western history departments, sociology, etc. need to deal with a lot of visual and material materials, so now many not only students, but even professors will learn research methods from art history. In addition to knowledge and methods, as a discipline, a discipline structure is required, including a process from the Ministry of Education down to each university, and there must be a teaching and research plan, so that there is a question of whether to build Chinese art history or world art history.
I would rather recommend doing world art history. As for where this institute is placed, there are different models in the world, and the main tendency after World War II is art history as a humanities discipline to take it out of art academies. Because art history is primarily about the past, it is closer to history in terms of character. Although art history is generally a separate department in the West, if it has to be put together with a certain discipline, the history department is also a good choice.
Can you understand it this way, do you think that compared with the Academy of Fine Arts, the construction of the discipline of Chinese art history should be placed more in the history department of a comprehensive university?
Wu Hung: This needs to consider the historical context. I don't think there would be any harm in the Academy of Fine Arts now, and I could continue to develop and establish relationships with other universities and disciplines, but at the same time establish the study of art history at a comprehensive university. At present, many people do not understand this discipline, and often think that it is something that talks about art and beauty, and does not hurt or itch. I also hope to introduce this discipline to more people and let them see the relevance of art history to their own fields of study.
You also dabble in the collection and curation of contemporary art. How do you see Chinese contemporary art in the eyes of the West, and is there a tendency to be facialized or politically pop??
Wu Hong: "Western" is actually very complicated and cannot be generalized. Some Westerners walk around the 798 gallery and feel that a lot of Chinese contemporary art is copied from the West, and I don't think this should be taken too seriously. In addition, some people think that Chinese contemporary art is a very interesting phenomenon, there are so many people who are vigorously doing it, they will ask some questions more seriously, and this kind of Westerners are also learning. We also have some artists who have a tendency to self-profiling, and there will be some stereotyped things. But I think some of the more serious Western critics or art historians will look at Chinese contemporary art beyond these superficial phenomena and deny its entire value because of individual facializations.
END
Print Culture
Achieve living thoughts