Whenever I think of art collection, it comes to my mind that
Qianlong Emperor (r. 1736-1795) in
Qing Dynasty seems to set the standard
of an official institution of art
collecting. Ruling the world’s largest and richest nation, he was known for scholarship and patronage of arts. With a period of prosperity and political
stability, he created the most extensive art collection in Chinese history which formed largely the
collections of the national palace museums in both Beijing and Taipei. He also compiled numerous records and catalogues of the works in his collection
and commissioned compendia of all the
great literary works of the time with
more than 79,000 volumes that covers all the academic fields of ancient China.
But he was not Chinese, but a foreigner, a Manchu that Chinese called it a barbarian. After the conquest of Ming, Qing emperors adopted Chinese culture and system to rule and win the dynastic legitimacy by becoming patrons of art and sponsoring scholarly projects. Qianlong Emperor became the first Manchu ruler to feel completely at ease with both his Manchu and his Chinese identities and wanted to be perceived as a legitimate universal ruler of the multiethnic empire. His art collection was one of the symbols of his mandate.
Impressed by the Qianlong Emperor’s collection and its political metaphor, I had been interested in more the functions of museum related to national identity and political ambitions than the private level of art collection and its tactile involvement with public. But in my first visit to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 20 years ago, I was overwhelmed and sad because of the massive scale of collections from all around the world, even though I was supposed to understand what kind of place it is. It seemed to encounter with a modern Qianlong at the city of Roman Empire. So, it has been interesting for me to watch the difference of the viewers’ experience with between the official institutions and private galleries. Limiting the tactile experience with art objects might be a strategy in some places with some kind of objectives.
But he was not Chinese, but a foreigner, a Manchu that Chinese called it a barbarian. After the conquest of Ming, Qing emperors adopted Chinese culture and system to rule and win the dynastic legitimacy by becoming patrons of art and sponsoring scholarly projects. Qianlong Emperor became the first Manchu ruler to feel completely at ease with both his Manchu and his Chinese identities and wanted to be perceived as a legitimate universal ruler of the multiethnic empire. His art collection was one of the symbols of his mandate.
Impressed by the Qianlong Emperor’s collection and its political metaphor, I had been interested in more the functions of museum related to national identity and political ambitions than the private level of art collection and its tactile involvement with public. But in my first visit to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 20 years ago, I was overwhelmed and sad because of the massive scale of collections from all around the world, even though I was supposed to understand what kind of place it is. It seemed to encounter with a modern Qianlong at the city of Roman Empire. So, it has been interesting for me to watch the difference of the viewers’ experience with between the official institutions and private galleries. Limiting the tactile experience with art objects might be a strategy in some places with some kind of objectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment