“The Insides and Outsides of Recent Chinese Painting.”
Mills College Lecture 1987
Introduction. Title. Theme. Much written on inside and outside; haven't seen any serious attempt to illuminate relation. between. Will attempt this large and ambitious topic tonight. Subject becomes more interesting in recent years, as two parts of this bifurcated tradition draw closer. To oversimplify plan of my talk tonight: will show how tradition splits, 1949; each part splays or ravels; later, some coming together, more and more interweavings. Time to reconsider relationship. Another reason difficult before: political. In the interest of Chinese in Taiwan to argue that they were preserving China's cultural heritage, and allowing artistic freedom, and that no good art possible on mainland. Could argue so, while cut off. Ca. 1970? conference organized at College of Pacific, with late Chang Ta-ch'ien as central figure, on "future of Chinese painting." We were all supposed to say that future was among certain expatriates, Chinese who chose to live overseas, like Chang himself. I was put off by this, said: future of Ch. ptg. in China, where always has been. Hard to argue then; easier now. So I want to look tonight at how Chinese painting inside and outside China pulled apart; how two parts coming together now, like healing of schism. Don't mean this as metaphor for political situation; have no more idea than anybody else whether P.R.C. and Taiwan coming closer to reuniting in other ways.
Must say at outset that this will be highly incomplete account, and very personal view. Will look only at Chinese call guo hua, sometimes rendered "trad. ptg" but not necessarily that. Paying no attn. (except side-glances) to oil ptg, or artists outside academies working in what they take to be avant garde styles, imitating new trends in West, etc. I'm historian of Chinese art, interested in how that history continues into our time.
My colleague Peter Selz recently spent several months in China, came back having found only one artist to admire (Rauschenberg-like young man). What would please NY critics. I think there are other valid criteria for judging value in contemp. art, will show things tonight, and express admiration for them, which would make Peter, or Rosalind Kraus, shudder. Whether that's my problem or theirs you can judge for yourselves.
S. CCW/Cheng Shifa ptg. What's wrong with this picture? (explain) Not unprecedented, but-- I offer as kind of symbol of reconciliation of inside and outside; but could equally be symbol of what caused them to diverge in first place. Can be used to represent initial perception on divergence of inside and outside of Ch. ptg. (to use short terms).
S,S. Ptgs of C.C.Wang (1961), Cheng Shifa (1960), separately. "Pure" landscape, with a few simply-drawn houses at most, no figures, no narrative content; other: figural, with "human interest" element. (Leaving out bird and flower subjects for now; will introduce them briefly later.) Former, "pure landscape, makes up big part of "outside" Ch. ptg.; and strong pull toward abstraction, disappearance of recognizable figural subjects. Figure ptg. not much done by leading artists. Inside: concerned with human themes, much of the time; even when subject seems to be landscape; figure ptg remains strong, "pure" landscape relatively rare, abstract or non-objective art impossible, at least until recently.
So, for a long time, real divergence; neither side had much understanding or respect for other. When exhib. w. Cheng Shifa ptgs shown at our UAM in 1974, critics found his ptgs "sweet" or "sentimental" or characterized them derisively as "good greeting-card material." Failed utterly to see beyond their subject matter to their strengths, power of line and forms. More recently, C.C.Wang's old friend Xu Bangda, w. whom he was assoc. closely in 1930s-40s, as part of group of ptrs and connoisseurs in Shanghai, has said that he can't understand Wang's later ptgs. Misunderstandings, or lack of understanding, in both directions. Ptrs themselves can sometimes be more broad in their tolerances and tastes: it was C.C.WAng who first, in the early 1960s, told me that Cheng Shifa was an artist to watch, and showed me an album by him he'd bought; and Cheng told me, after seeing exhib. of American ptg from Boston M.F.A. in l982, that he especially admired ptgs of Franz Kline.But, for moment, let's accept these as contrary directions, follow them separately, beginning in 1950s and 60s, as brief background for consideration of more recent developments.
S,S. In Taiwan, some continuation of very conservative ptg styles, carried on by old, established artists such as Huang Chun-pi (teacher of Mme. Chiang) and P'u Hsin-yu, member of Manchu imperial family. LS by P'u on right dtd. 1948. To trace this strand in recent Ch ptg through followers in Taiwan would be kind of dead-end, I think, like this kind of ptg itself. But something of it survives, e.g. in ptg of Yü Ch'eng-yao, old self-taught artist, former soldier, military man, recently acclaimed and exhibited in Taiwan. LS ptgs, elaborate in composition, richly textured, large in scale.
| 
