<html>
Dear Mike,<br>
<br>
I am no art expert, but my - strictly profane - impression of what is
displayed as "Korean art" in museums is that dominant
subject-matter are mostly highly symbolical motifs, usually provided by
religious/philosophical "master discourses" of the given
period. 18th C. really seems to bring important changes, but before, the
plum blossom in snow the scholar on the picture should look for, really
did not look like representing any physical reality: it was, literally,
an icon of some metaphysical truth. In this connection, may I ask you one
question: did you see, for example, many pictures of artisans at work
before 18th C., or, say, shamans in dance? I do not know much about art,
but, while working with <Samguk sagi> and texts of late Silla
steles, I was really surprised by the amusing absence of any detailed
descriptions of many processes so important for real, non-metaphysical
life. For example, battle descriptions in <Sagi> are brief, dry,
and centered on results and figures (losses, POWs, etc.) - you do not
find rich and ornate narratives of bravery and valor, so characteristic
for Russian chronicles, for example. In a word, <Sagi> text seemed
to have been organized in total accordance with the dominant discourse of
the period: life is painted as fulfillment of metaphysical values, and
also as process of cyclical "rise and fall" of statehood, but
not as physical reality per se. May i suggest that something similar may
be true for the art too?<br>
<br>
Vladimir Tikhonov <br>
<br>
At 16:39 27.04.2002 -0700, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Thanks,<br>
Hyung I. Pai and Vladimir Tikhonov for your kind responses. Although I
am<br>
learning a lot from them, unfortunately they don't help me much in trying
to<br>
find answers to the question (let me restate it): why are there NO motifs
on<br>
Korean ceramics representing any imagery of RICE (i.e., the plant itself,
or<br>
its seeds, rice paddies, bowls with cooked rice, cultural aspects of
the<br>
annual rice cycle, etc)? The closest you'd get is the occasional crane
that<br>
stalks through or flying above a rice field (with only the crane visible
on<br>
a vase). I know the Nonggyeongmun Ch'eongtonggi sherd, have seen it
in<br>
reality, and studied quite a bit about it, as well as the literature
on<br>
decorative ceramics. I have traveled South Korea extensively and<br>
investigated many museums and private collections there (and here in the
US)<br>
without ever having seen anything depicting rice. What's more, none of
the<br>
experts I talked with in Korea ever wondered about this strange
absence.<br>
With the exception of Kim Hong-Do and his fellow "genre"
painters, it<br>
strikes me equally surprising to note a similar absence of thematized
rice<br>
motifs in Korean literati paintings (while, again, in China rice is not
an<br>
image taboo). Don't you think this is peculiar? Rice has been revered
highly<br>
as the center of Korean life at least for the past 2 millennia and
ceramics<br>
as well during the past 10 or so centuries.<br>
Wouldn't rice as a Korean icon deserve to be depicted on the country's
other<br>
icons, namely ceramics, celadon, and paintings? One could argue, that
rice<br>
was "too common," "too plain," or "not
aristocratic enough" in order to be<br>
artisitically depicted. The counter argument is: rice, especially white
rice<br>
was always a luxury staple food. Another round would be: because white
rice<br>
was a rare commodity among the lower classes, it was not considered<br>
important by common artisans. But everybody wanted it desperately,
because<br>
it was (or gradually evolved until the late 19th c. as) a status
symbol.<br>
There's got to be an explanation. I think this is a major issue (it's
about<br>
"power") regarding a question whose answers I don't expect
emanating from an<br>
obscure source let's say a hundred years from now. In other words, this
is a<br>
"knowable" issue, something that people ought to be able to
speak about<br>
today, especially since the question is about a centrally important
cultural<br>
legacy.<br>
Perhaps a related question would provide some clues: who made the
decisions<br>
as to how ceramics were decorated (artisans, customers, yangban, or
upper<br>
royals)?<br>
I hope others will join this discussion - what about you anthropologists
and<br>
art historians out there?<br>
Sincerely,<br>
Mike Reinschmidt<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Hyung I. Pai
[<a href="mailto:hyungpai@eastasian.ucsb.edu" eudora="autourl">mailto:hyungpai@eastasian.ucsb.edu</a>]<br>
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 12:28 PM<br>
To: Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws; Vladimir Tikhonov<br>
Subject: [KS] Negative evidence-rice images on Korean ceramics<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear list,<br>
I will answer this inquiry in three parts based on my opinion as an
<br>
archaeologist: There are three issues involved-<br>
1) who did the collecting of these objects-were they <br>
anthropologists/archaeologists or art historians: This question is
crucial <br>
because the last two hundred years of avid excavations, collections and
<br>
classification have determined what kinds of objects are now displayed in
<br>
Ethnographic museums vs Fine Arts Museums.<br>
2) The Criteria for collection_ Archaeologists and anthropologists
were<br>
mainly <br>
interested in studying the past universal stages of the development of
man <br>
throughout the world . As a result, pottery, bronzes, stone tools,
weapons<br>
etc, <br>
and the interpretation of their designs were focussed on so-called
"stage <br>
markers" -primitive vs. savagery, vs civilization. Hence, remains of
<br>
agricultural tools, subsistence activities like shell mounds, or<br>
agricultural <br>
motifs were highly regarded as crucial research materials. And they is
why<br>
such <br>
kinds of objects now belong to Ethnographic collections around the
world.<br>
They <br>
were not interested in beautiful objects but ones that indicated
so-<br>
called "customs, lifestyles and technological
indicators."<br>
3) The Aesthetics of art collections- ceramics on the other hand were
mostly<br>
<br>
collected by art historians, rich bourgesie collectors from Europe
and<br>
America, <br>
and antiquities dealers whose looting throughout the world (still
continues)<br>
<br>
focussed on co-called centers and remains and relics of gret
civilizations. <br>
Their collections were mostly devoted to the aesthetics, age, and
monetary <br>
value of the objects and monuments (if they came from ancient
Egypt,<br>
Greece,or <br>
China etc.) that lent visibility to the museum and the prestige of the
<br>
collections. That is why most of the ceramics, paintings, sculpture (all
<br>
European criteria for arts and crafts) collected in arts museums do not
have<br>
<br>
corresponding relations to anything that the anthropologists were
interested<br>
in-<br>
of course there was overlap and still is some overlap esp in Bronze age
and <br>
Metallurgy periods that were from great ancient civilizations like
Bronze<br>
Age <br>
Chinese bronzes for example.<br>
3) Onggi- is an entirely different category since they were not valued as
<br>
art/folk objects till they started disappearing-they were
utilitarian<br>
purposes <br>
for Korean food storage and kimchee jars for centuries.<br>
Most art and archaeological objects due to the nature of the
preservations<br>
are <br>
from burial remains and so, burial items are rarely functional items
but<br>
mostly <br>
religious and decorative. <br>
So in conclusion, we have to be careful about interpreting the negative
<br>
evidence as some lapse in "life force" or some amorphous
"historical/Choson<br>
" <br>
spirit"-the collections in museums now are all products of the last
century<br>
of <br>
collectors and collections (Colonial Japanese collectors, Korean Chaebol,
<br>
European museums , Christies, Sothebys, etc) whose tastes, deep pockets,
and<br>
<br>
mutual competition have influenced what we now take for granted as
the<br>
"Korean" <br>
cultural heritage."<br>
preserved in museums, universities and art galleries.<br>
Quoting Vladimir Tikhonov <vladimir.tikhonov@east.uio.no>:<br>
<br>
> There is an accepted theory in Korean archeology that the picture on
the <br>
> famous "Nonggyeongmun Ch'eongtonggi" ("A bronze
vessel with <br>
> Agriculture-related design"; dated usually as bronze age
artefact) <br>
> depicting a man (genitalia emphasized) with something resembling a
hoe in <br>
> hands, is actually about either agriculture or some
agriculture-related <br>
> ritual. You may view the object on National Museum's website.<br>
> <br>
> V. Tikhonov<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> At 16:23 24.04.2002 -0700, you wrote:<br>
> >Dear List Members,<br>
> >is there anyone out there (best would be curators and art
historians),<br>
who<br>
> >has any idea why there seems to be a total ABSENCE of rice
motifs on<br>
> Korean<br>
> >ceramics (incl. celadons, onggis, fine wares) of all(?) of
Korea's<br>
> historic<br>
> >periods. Artists depict all kinds of things but never rice nor
any<br>
> >references to rice, rice paddies, or harvest celebrations. Of
course,<br>
> there<br>
> >are countless idiomatic references to rice in Hangul with
many<br>
indications<br>
> >of the importance of rice in Korean life (and even death).<br>
> >I do suspect a cultural taboo, perhaps because of the enormous
"life<br>
> force"<br>
> >believed to be contained in rice, but haven't been able to
figure out<br>
> where<br>
> >such a taboo would have to come from. Why this important
omission, why<br>
the<br>
> >taboo, why is there no indication through the literature or
oral<br>
> >traditions. Or is there?<br>
> >Your comments and the passing on of the problem to pertinent
sources will<br>
> >be greatly appreciated.<br>
> >Sincerely,<br>
> >Mike Reinschmidt<br>
> <br>
> Vladimir Tikhonov,<br>
> Department of East European and Oriental Studies,<br>
> Faculty of Arts,<br>
> University of Oslo,<br>
> P.b. 1030, Blindern, 0315, Oslo, Norway.<br>
> Fax: 47-22854140; Tel: 47-22857118<br>
> <br>
> ----------<br>
> </blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Vladimir Tikhonov,<br>
Department of East European and Oriental Studies,<br>
Faculty of Arts,<br>
University of Oslo,<br>
P.b. 1030, Blindern, 0315, Oslo, Norway.<br>
Fax: 47-22854140; Tel: 47-22857118<br>
<hr>
</html>