Paintings made at court can be considered as a branch of the larger art of painting. This is the usual approach of art historians. In the Chinese art critical literature, especially from the Ming period on, literati artists were elevated above court artists, and this literature has had a pervasive influence on studies of Chinese painting. Typically, the court is treated as the most important patron of painting from antiquity into the Song period, but after the rise of literati painting, artists outside the court are seen as taking the lead and court painting becoming backward-looking. Scholars regularly highlight the political side of court painting and offer political interpretations of individual paintings.
Court painting can also be analyzed as an element in the court culture of a particular era. Thinking from the perspective of the court encourages us to ask how painting produced at court compared to other things produced there, such as poems, books, music, rituals, buildings, and so on. Did painting offer rulers something they could not get as easily other ways? How did the organization of court painting compare to the organization of literary projects or court rituals? Does an understanding of court politics explain why better paintings were made in one period rather than another? Did emperors' personal understanding or appreciation of painting make much of a difference, or was the institutional structure so sturdy that standards would be preserved even during the reigns of indifferent emperors?
In this chapter, I consider court painting from both perspectives. Most of the texts that deal with court painting frame it as part of the history of painting, but when other types of historical sources are also brought in, the court context can also be taken into consideration. Here, after providing a very brief chronological overview, I pursue a fuller understanding of Chinese court painting by looking more closely at one periodâthe Song dynastyâand at one central issueâthe political side of court paintings.
It should be kept in mind that Chinese courts differed in important ways from the better-known courts in Europe. In the imperial period (roughly from 200 BCE to 1900 CE) upper-level officials were much more important at court than nobles. Those active at court included civil service officials serving in the capital, all of whom would participate in some court ceremonies and celebrations. Among officials, however, it was the higher-ranking ones, the couple dozen who met regularly with the emperor, who had the most influence at court. Over time, birth played a lesser role in determining who rose to high posts, so court society should not be thought of as aristocratic from Song times on. Political favor rather than birth distinguished those inside and outside of court, and who was in and who was out could change radically in a few years with a change of ruler or a change of policy. Princes and imperial relatives could be important elements in the makeup of court society, but this varied over time. For instance, imperial clansmen in Song times were compelled to stay in the capital and line up at major court assemblies, while in Ming times princes were sent out of the capital and played no part in court culture in the capital, instead presiding over their own small provincial courts (Clunas 2013). From time to time empresses were powerful at court, especially when serving as regents for child emperors, but most of the time empresses and other consorts, as well as princesses, did not mix with the men who attended court. Their male relatives, though, occasionally were powers at court. Eunuch palace servants, too, gained considerable power at court in certain periods, particularly in the late Han, late Tang, and late Ming periods. And then there was the emperor himself, the central figure at court, who did hold his post on the basis of birth, unless he was a dynasty's founder. Some emperors involved themselves in the artistic projects of their courts, while others preferred to let their officials or eunuch servants handle such matters for them.
Despite these differences in the social makeup of Chinese and European courts, similarities in the ways courts functioned are still noticeable. Both provided spaces where religion, art, literature, ritual, and politics all intersected and where manners and taste mattered. Those who attended court as councilors, courtiers, religious dignitaries, entertainers, or artists also acted in predictable ways, with rivalries and jealousies recurrent problems. In both Europe and China, spending at court could get out of control, and building sprees provoked both criticisms of irresponsibility and plans to retrench. Those working for courts faced similar circumstances. Compared to artists working privately, painters working for courts had such advantages as steady employment, flexible budgets, access to important art in the possession of the court, and the prestige that comes with royal recognition. The social space of the court could lead to jealousy between painters working there, but could also facilitate creativity as painters picked up ideas and techniques from each other. The types of paintings made for courts also bear some similarities, as rulers often commissioned paintings that made them look good. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in both China and Europe, courts put artists to work on large-scale paintings celebrating the monarch's victories and achievements.
Painting was just one of the arts important at Chinese courts. Since antiquity the arts of poetry and music had been central elements in the performative side of court culture. Luxurious surroundings were expected too: courts employed craftsmen, such as bronze casters, jade carvers, and painters to fashion the palace accoutrements. Although most Chinese courts in the imperial era gave employment or commissions to painters, the institutional arrangements changed over time, as did the types of paintings made. Through the Tang period and into the Song, court painters devoted much of their time to painting murals and screens for palaces, government offices, and Buddhist and Daoist temples funded by the court. In palaces and government offices, a common subject was portraits of famous men admired for their cultural, political, or military accomplishments. Viewers were meant to be inspired by the moral message they conveyed (Murray 2007). Art criticism and art collecting came to influence the type of paintings artists made both at court and outside it, and by Tang times great painters could become famous. In Tang through Song times, a high proportion of the famous masters accepted commissions or appointments from the court, including Yan Liben, Han Gan, and Wu Daozi in the Tang period; Zhou Wenju and Huang Quan in the Five Dynasties; Guo Xi, Cui Bo, and Li Tang in the Northern Song period; and Ma Yuan, Xia Gui, and Liu Songnian in the Southern Song period. By Song times artists at court were spending more time painting portable forms of painting (hanging scrolls, handscrolls, fans, and albums). Song court artists excelled at bird-and-flower painting and were active in the development of landscape painting (see Figure 1.1). Although âscholar-amateur paintingâ developed outside the court in the late Northern Song, one of its key elementsâa close connection between painting and poetryâwas taken up...
