I was very surprised to learn that Chinese art was key in changing the American definition of what art is, and how much of that influence was from American’s lack of distinction between Chinese and Japanese objects. I’d like to think that the U.S. was founded and built through mistakes, but that’s beside the point. Americans during the Victorian era believe that art needed to convey some sort of message about morality, and could not imagine anything else to be more than an abstract and meaningless piece. Americans only appreciate art for its beauty and aesthetic values, understanding it more for its emotional/personal attraction instead of its historical or cultural significance. That is why they were attracted to Japanese objects, which resembled the Gothic style representing “the culminating manifestation of a society unified by religious faith” (78). And because there was a clear appreciation for Japanese art, Chinese objects were seen as the lesser of the two despite many of them being created specifically for Western taste. In the end, the purchase and collection of Chinese objects increased quite a bit as museums all over the U.S. bought more of them to showcase, and the concept and understanding of art was changed forever.
Things I learned this week:
- The Ruskinian paradigm, or Ruskin’s theory of typical beauty, expresses that the beauty of art is found in its aesthetics and that, only by means of direct observation, can an artist represent human nature.
- Japanese art at the time resembled the Gothic style, which was a highly esteemed art style. This helped pave way for Americans to begin collecting Japanese objects and even use the Japanese style.
- It was revealed that, in 1929, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston owned 88,074 Japanese and 4,393 Chinese objects.
Bibliography
Metrick-Chen, Lenore. Collecting Objects/excluding People : Chinese Subjects and American Visual Culture, 1830-1900. Albany N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 2012.
