NSSF project shows Chinese aesthetics has 2.5-million-year history
Petroglyphs on the Helan Mountain
The final results of a National Social Science Fund (NSSF) sponsored project on prehistoric aesthetic traditions in China was recently evaluated as “outstanding”, the highest distinction a NSSF project can be awarded. Anonymous peer reviewers for the project, entitled “Prehistoric Chinese Aesthetic Awareness”, asserted that the results have pioneering significance in the field of Chinese aesthetic history, especially in remote Chinese aesthetic history.
Aesthetic awareness emerged long, long ago in China; the reason historians have not traced it back very far has simply been because they lacked materials, explained the project director, Zhu Zhirong. Zhu, who is a professor from the department of Chinese language and literature at East China Normal University, pinned the typical starting point for Chinese aesthetic history as no earlier than the Shang (1600-1046 BCE) and Zhou Dynasties (1046-256 BCE), when in fact, a deliberate aesthetic awareness can be seen in Paleolithic stone tools dating from 2.5 million years ago. Ornamentation and the curvature of these stone tools can be regarded as the unfolding of the first chapter in Chinese aesthetics, Zhu suggested, while the stone tools, pottery and jade made in the Neolithic Age, along with the primitive petroglyphs and mythology, pushed Chinese aesthetic consciousness to a new peak.
“To date, we have many scholarly achievements on prehistoric Chinese art, for example, Art in the Paleolithic Age written by Pei Wenzhong and History of Discoveries in Chinese Petroglyphs by Chen Zhaofu, among others,” noted Gu Feng, a professor from the College of Liberal Arts at Yangzhou University. “Research on prehistoric aesthetics, however, is quite scarce and comprehensive research is even less. This project has filled this dearth and is therefore a significant achievement in aesthetic studies.”
Zhu Liyuan, a professor from the department of Chinese language and literature at Fudan University, commented that the earliest manifestations of Chinese aesthetic thought are not necessarily those present in the morphology of early writing or theories; they could be seen in the prehistoric tools and their relics. By collecting and using those materials, the project explored the origin of the aesthetic awareness, connecting prehistoric aesthetic consciousness with aesthetic thought since the age of civilization. In undertaking such a task, the project has pioneering significance, Zhu added.
In the evaluation statement, the reviewers wrote that the project’s originality is demonstrated not only in its conclusions, but also in its methodology.
Elaborating on the reviewers’ comments, Zhu Liyuan noted that the aesthetic consciousness embodied in the primitive tools is not something that was deliberately and conscientiously channeled, but rather a manifestation of natural reflection and intuitive expression. When combined with Western research in primitive aesthetic consciousness, Zhu believes this project could have worldwide influence in the field of anthropology, in that it may help reveal how human beings’ aesthetic consciousness, proceeding from an innate intuitive sensitivity in the beginning, gradually developed into the disposition of mature aesthetic thought. This is not just a step forward for methodology in terms of building on the extant base of literature and theories, Zhu advocated; this has restored aesthetic consciousness in daily life.
In appraising the project, expert reviewers also observed that results show clear “object-based”interdisciplinary thought: analysis of primitive tools is built on referential knowledge of international and Chinese research in primitive art, anthropology, archaeology, history and cultural studies.
“The project has extended Chinese aesthetic history, adding more than 10,000 years to it,” said Gu Feng. “The idea of building the study of aesthetic history by combining research on cultural relics with archaeology was first proposed in the 1970s by Mr.Zong Baihua, who himself set a very good example of how such a practice might be conducted. Later, Jiang Kongyang was among others to contribute to this school. Now the project has applied this method to studying Chinese prehistoric aesthetic awareness.”
Guided by the philosophy of “object-based” standard, the project team conducted field trips twice investigating petroglyphs in Helankou and Daxifenggou in Ningxia to obtain the first-hand material. They also visited numerous big museums in China and the U.S. comparative analysis on Chinese bronze, jade, and pottery objects.
Aside from incorporating an interdisciplinary approach, the project was conducted with reference to the idea of “proof through the joining of Chinese and Western theories, and the combination of the ancient and the contemporary.” Chinese aesthetic history was after all established with reference to its Western counterpart. For Chinese aesthetics to go further though, Zhu Zhirong iterated the importance of transcending the limits of Western centralism but simultaneously avoiding creating a binary opposition between Chinese and Western aesthetics. Researchers are supposed to have a cross-cultural perspective, Zhu maintained; they should reflect on aesthetic problems in the overall development of human beings. Tolerance toward the objects of research is essential, and this is an attitude researchers should in turn employ toward studying aesthetics in different ethnic groups and regions. They should treat them equally, attaching the same value to them.
Zhu stressed that researchers should preserve the national features of Chinese aesthetic resources while borrowing Western counterparts confidently; to refer to Western aesthetics is not to be bound by it. When researching prehistoric mythology, the project team noticed stark differences between concepts, thinking patterns, value orientations, and even functions embodied in Western and Chinese myths. From this they further analyzed and compared early aesthetic awareness in China and the West. The primitive petroglyphs in China were usually found in open mountain fields, and were in part used in entertainment. European petroglyphs, however, have generally been found in remote caves and are believed to be related to witchcraft. In their morphology, i.e. in terms of the points, lines and surfaces, Chinese petroglyphs show a prioritization of drawing and painting technique, while those discovered in the West show an emphasis on style. Zhu reiterated that while Chinese aesthetics and aesthetic history can borrow methods from Western methods, researchers should avoid strained explanations and mechanical copying; ultimately, the goal is to reveal the aesthetic sensibilities of our ancestors through the intermediation of China and the West.
Huo Wenqi is a reporter from Chinese Social Sciences Today.
The Chinese version appeared in Chinese Social Sciences Today, No. 438, Apr 12, 2013.
Chinese Link:
http://www.csstoday.net/Item/63305.aspx
Translated by Jiang Hong
PRINT
CLOSE