Collecting Objects / Excluding People

Chinese Subjects and American Visual Culture, 1830-1900

Lenore Metrick-Chen

• Publisher: SUNY Press
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781438443270
• Topic: Art
• Subtopic: History of Modern Art

In Collecting Objects / Excluding People, Lenore Metrick-Chen demonstrates an unknown impact of Chinese immigration upon nineteenth-century American art and visual culture. The American ideas of "Chineseness" ranged from a negative portrayal to an admiring one and these varied images had an effect on museum art collections and advertising images. They brought new ideas into American art theory, anticipating twentieth-century Modernism. Metrick-Chen shows that efforts to construct a cultural democracy led to the creation of unforeseen new categories for visual objects and unanticipated social changes. Collecting Objects / Excluding People reveals the power of images upon culture, the influence of media representation upon the lives of Chinese immigrants, and the impact of political ideology upon the definition of art itself.

ONE

THE POLITICS OF CHINOISERIE

The Disappearance of Chinese Objects

“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”

“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

—Arthur Conan Doyle, “Silver Blaze”

This chapter explores an absence, or more accurately, an erasure. It is an attempt to understand why Chinese art disappeared from an American art discourse in the 1870s. This remains a critical question still, because despite the reemergence of Chinese objects in the art discourse of the 1890s, that almost twenty-year silence has shaped subsequent discussion concerning American art of that time. The significance of Americans' reluctance to acknowledge the Chinese origin of import ware during this period cannot be seen fully by examining the isolated Chinese object. Rather, such an investigation requires a more oblique look, one capable of incorporating the surrounding political as well as the aesthetic context. Reconstructing the surrounding positive space gives shape to the missing discourse: seeing Chinese material culture through the mediating histories of the earlier decades of commerce between China and the United States, through American attitudes toward Chinese people, and, finally, through the contrasting American reception of Japanese people and things.

The juxtaposition of social/political history with the study of material culture assumes a relationship between politics and art. Connections between the two have been elaborated throughout the modern period at least as early as 1798, when William Blake wrote: “The Foundation of Empire is Art and Science. Remove them or Degrade them and the Empire is No more. Empire follows Art and not vice versa as Englishmen suppose.”¹ Blake's statement asserts a relationship that is familiar to us from the Modernist relation of art to politics; art as an “avant-garde,” anticipating and leading social and political change by breaking from societal authority as well as from artistic tradition.² According to art historian Richard Shiff, modernist artists “assume the role of revolutionaries either by introducing change, returning to values long lost … or representing truths in personalized, perhaps deviant, expressive form.”³ In the mid- and late nineteenth century, the use of Japanese motifs often signaled Western artists' membership in progressive, innovative art movements. For instance, in 1880 New York art critic Clarence Cook spoke derisively of previous American arts who “blindly” accepted English standards and conventions, compared to the current “reclaiming of artistic freedom.” For Cook, this revived “freedom” derived in large part from the discovery of the “far more artistic art of the Japanese with freedom and naturalness equally its characteristics.”⁴ Was there a relationship between innovative nineteenth-century art and political advancement? Did this proto-avant-garde art equally signal and promote social change?

And why, then, was there an emphasis on Japanese objects only, and not also on the Chinese things that were also present in the country at the same time? What associations connected Japanese art with freedom that did not apply similarly to the alternatives offered by Chinese art, which would be equally available for scrutiny? After all, Chinese objects had a long history in the United States. They were admired and collected in the colonies in the seventeenth century and exhibited in Salem in 1799; before 1850 two museums were created exclusively for Chinese objects.⁵ The types of objects imported ranged from decorative doodads to exquisitely crafted furniture and vases. While consumable items formed the bulk of Chinese exports to America—silks and tea were the main exports—ivories, fans, clothing, and porcelains were also exported in great quantities. A smaller component of the trade were specialty items such as paintings and furniture and wallpaper, generally of excellent craftsmanship.⁶ But in the 1870s, when Americans first began to discuss Asian objects as fine art, they focused almost exclusively on Japanese objects.

As Arjun Appadurai points out, “Commodities represent very complex social forms and distributions of knowledge.”⁷ Objects are seen in this book to be more than singular things; they are understood as social signs. Each object can be seen as a nexus of encounters, a focal point for societal values. The desirability and significance of Chinese and Japanese objects derived from their social meaning and the social relationships they promised. This chapter looks at these meanings and how they attached to the objects; it examines what associations Americans were buying when they purchased Chinese or Japanese art.

The chapter extends the investigation of objects into a study of the social networks constellating around them. In doing so, it reframes the relationship between art and politics, encountering more complexity than the general assumption of a politically precocious artistic avant-garde. This investigation of the disappearance of Chinese art from America's art historical canon mandates the need for another look at how the art world functions as an instigator, or even a barometer, of social change.⁸ If indeed art is such an indicator, this study suggests that the social change augured by the art might not always be one we hope to find.

The earlier decades in the century are critical in informing both the art and politics of the later decades. Consequently, the investigation of the decades from 1800 to 1870 serve as introduction to the later period and as an investigation in its own right. The second section concentrates on a smaller time period, from 1870 to the Centennial Exposition in 1876. While American relationships to Chinese art and people differ significantly throughout the century, nevertheless both periods were characterized by resistance to accepting Chinese objects or imagery as art.

SECTION I. THE EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY

1. The Presence of Chinese Objects in the United States

By the 1870s and increasing through the last two decades of the century, collecting and imitating Japanese art was an enthusiasm shared by all classes, and promoted heavily by the print media.

Chinese objects excited no comparable response, although they were equally available and affordable.⁹ Because most American art historians do not perceive the presence, even omnipresence, of Chinese objects, they perpetuate a history in which Japanese art presents a sudden revelation of aesthetic possibilities. Historians have meticulously documented and interpreted America's overwhelming enthusiasm for Japanese objects in the early 1870s that continued through the end of the nineteenth century.¹⁰ This concentration on Japanese art exclusively interprets the excitement over Japanese objects as an immediate—and unmediated—appreciation of Japanese aesthetics, without prior foundation.

For instance, William Hosley's perceptive analysis of the Japanese display at the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition in 1876 interprets the Japanese government's approach to its bazaar as both a commercial and a political enterprise. Hosley reports that the Japanese government viewed the Fair as an international trade competition, and he identifies the strategies used to enhance Japanese sales.¹¹ A key factor in marketing and sales was the Japanese government's stipulation that a consortium of its own merchants, rather than foreigners, select the merchandise; further, its expenditure of $600,000 on its exhibition, was more than twice the investment of any other foreign country, and more than the expenditures of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany combined.¹² Japan's investment strategies proved profitable; all its exhibited items sold. Given Hosley's subtle analysis of the business acumen involved in merchandising the Japanese objects, it is then surprising that, like other historians, he too, attributes the impact of the Japanese style completely to its freshness to Western eyes. In Hosley's words:

With the West anxious to enlarge its vocabulary of naturalistic ornament, Japanese art was a revelation that provided a new visual language of birds, animals, sea creatures, and flowers. Monkeys and dragons, cranes and chickens, elephants and eagles, chrysanthemums and cherry blossoms; these are just a few of the motifs that Americans discovered at the Japanese display.¹³

Yet some of these motifs had already appeared in familiar Chinese objects, which also were displayed at the fair.¹⁴ But although few Americans could differentiate between Chinese and Japanese art, comparatively little mention was made of “Chinese” objects journal articles. Not until the last decade of the century did Chinese objects receive the high artistic regard earlier ascribed to Japanese objects, and secure a place of pride within newly created American art museums. And then, unlike Japonisme, they rarely entered into popular awareness of art, but were discussed mainly by Chinese experts and connoisseurs.

The absence of a vernacular appreciation of Chinese objects paralleling Japonisme does not denote their lack of consequence in nineteenth-century American culture. On the contrary, the question why the mania embraced only Japanese things, rather than including Chinese things as well, indicates that these objects resonated with political and cultural concerns.

Most Americans today do not realize how eagerly the United States anticipated the American–China trade, as a source for individual wealth and, perhaps just as much the expectation of material profits, as an international gesture to verify America's independence and nationhood. While a British colony and subject to the monopoly rights of the East India Company, American speculators rankled at England's prohibition of their trade with China, believing that it might be a pathway toward enormous wealth. Within a year of signing the Treaty of Paris, acknowledging the United States as an independent nation, Americans quickly inaugurated direct China trading, launching their first trade ship, the Empress of China, with raw goods from America to trade for manufactured goods in Canton.¹⁵

As early as 1765, Americans brought soybeans from China for cultivation with the anticipation of further trade, and ginseng grown in the United States became the first market export traded to China.¹⁶ Furs and Spanish silver dollars supplemented American exports. Contemporary shipping records report that Americans received in exchange:

tea along with textiles, porcelain, furniture, and fireworks…. mandarin heads, umbrellas, ciphered fans, flower seeds, bamboo washstands, sweetmeats, tea waiters, boxes of paints, ivorywork caskets, sugar, cassia, clay images, paper hangings, furniture, satin, lacquerware, bamboo blinds, floor mats, fans, and whangee canes.¹⁷

Subsequently, the U.S. government created special tariffs and duties designed to favor China traders.¹⁸

The ready availability of Chinese goods by midcentury for consumption by moderate income households is borne out by advertisements found in broadsides and in newspapers announcing the presence of Chinese merchants and merchandise. (See fig. 1.1) One such advertisement appeared in the New York Times, Friday, December 8, 1854, under the title CHINA TEA STORE:

I, TSUNG ZEQUAY, issue my proclamation to the inhabitants of the city of Brooklyn, situated on the beautiful bay of New York, on whose waters sail the great ships bringing the produce of far off lands, that I, TSUNG ZE-QUAY having left my kindred and my nation, and having been led to your goodly land, proclaim my design of offering for sale the products of the Celestial Empire. I have with me much Tea, Coffee, Cocoa, Chocolate, &c. of the choicest gatherings which I will give you for your smallest pieces of gold and silver; and may health, joy and length of day attend you. All you who want the finest, choicest flavored Teas, come to me, and you shall have the purest that China can produce. Also, a beautiful assortment of Lacquer-ware work tables, Lacquer-ware centre tables, Lacquer-ware work boxes, Lacquer-ware Tea-Caddies, Lacquer-ware checkerboards, Lacquer-ware writing desks, flower Vases of every size & elegance, Chinese Pipes for tobacco, Chinese Pipes for Opium, Flowered Fans, Sandal wood Fans, Sandal wood Boxes, Chinese Lanterns, Ornamental Stone figures, Fairies & Toys, Stuffed Birds, Ivory Fans, Pomatum Jars, Buddhist Rosaries, Chinese Shawls, Teapots, Teacups, Chinese chop-sticks, Wrought silver bracelets, Feather Fans ALL FROM CHINA!—My place of traffic is at the corner of Schermerhorn and Court Sts., Brooklyn.¹⁹

And, twenty-two years before that, in New York, an auction was held consisting entirely of hundreds of fans from Canton, listed as:

500 Palm Leaf Fans, 500 painted Silk fans, 500 embroidered do do, 500 Rice fans [?pith paper], 600 cut and painted bone...