Adorning the dimly-lit, vitrine-lined, gray-walled gallery spaces for Chinese Painting and Calligraphy at the Metropolitan Museum of Art are approximately ninety stunningly preserved objects from the garden sanctuary constructed by Emperor Qianlong (1711-1799) of China’s Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). The traveling exhibition, “The Emperor’s Private Paradise: Treasures from the Forbidden City,” organized by the Peabody Essex Museum (PEM) in Salem, Massachusetts in partnership with the Palace Museum in Beijing, presents museum-goers with a visual feast. The confining, rectilinear gallery spaces at the Met are figuratively bursting with impressive items inspired by materials found in nature, many objects which abruptly halt the viewer and inspire awe – in many cases, due to the sheer size of the items. Massive carved cabinetry, beautifully lacquered panels and jade inlaid screens, and gnarled rootwood furniture, in particular, an eye-catching throne with root-like tendrils that sprawl organically across the floor – as if the throne is alive – fill the interconnecting gallery spaces surrounding, quite fittingly, the Met’s own constructed indoor garden sanctuary, Astor Court.
The art objects on display at the Met once filled the Palace of Tranquility and Longevity in the northwest corner of the Forbidden City, a potential retirement home for Emperor Qianlong. Qianlong designed the interior of the sanctuary to reflect his adventurous and unconventional tastes – now sometimes compared to modern-day perceptions of Victoriana. The walls of Qianlong’s sanctuary were covered with trompe l’oeil paintings (or illusion paintings), European clocks and other Western novelties adorned the walls, and false doors and see-through partitions separated each room. These Western-influenced items were directly contrasted by more traditional items, such as miniature Buddhist shrines and elaborate mandalas, as well as naturalistic works inspired by Daoism.
Qianlong never retired to his garden sanctuary. In fact, despite dedicating time and effort to prepare his retirement quarters, he spent little time there. For many years after his death, the sanctuary remained empty, unused, and eventually fell into disrepair. The Chinese government did not have the funds – or the desire – to conserve Qing culture. The Forbidden City has since become a tourist destination, and the building exteriors have been maintained to uphold the outward appearance of historic preservation. The interior of the sanctuary, however, has been left untouched – providing a time capsule of past curiosities, if you will.
Rather than attempting to mimetically recreate the palace architecture with the items in situ, as the PEM had previously attempted, the Met uses its existing gallery vitrines and places objects in close proximity to one another in effort to pose tensions between the traditional and non-traditional, the man-made and the natural, the real and surreal. Such a decision honors the sanctity of the Forbidden City and creates an entirely new experience for the viewer, one that is starkly different in comparison to an excursion to the authentic site in Beijing. And, this is precisely the beauty of an exhibition such as this one. The display at the Met does not attempt to simulate the authentic place or genuine use of these objects, but rather the exhibition presents a new narrative – one of contradictions, contrasts, and visual play.
The New York Times art critic, Holland Cotter, explicates the possible intentions for developing a traveling exhibition with objects from Qinglong’s garden sanctuary in the Forbidden City in his raving art review (February 3, 2011), “A Man of Contradictions, With a Collection to Match.” According to Cotter, through the development and display of this fantastic, previously unseen collection, the organizers of the exhibition aim to bolster international partnerships, enhance conservation efforts, and increase tourism to mainland China. Visitors are enticed to witness the massiveness of Forbidden City and the restoration projects that are currently underway on site, such as the work on the Qianlong Garden Sanctuary, which will open to the public in 2019.
The conservation efforts have indeed been affected, and in many ways prompted, by the development and momentum of this exhibition. To provide an example, positioned in the center of one of the gallery enclaves is a case with conservation images and narratives explaining the painstaking efforts involved in preparing these objects for view. In some ways, this information detracts from the awe one feels while viewing these “authentic” objects – a nagging feeling prods the viewer suggesting that these objects have been tampered with. Yet, in other ways, the inclusion of these images provides the visitor with a greater appreciation for the work that is being conducted at the Palace Museum and garners support for the larger nationalist project. Cotter is correct in this regard. Like most museum exhibitions, the intentions for developing “The Emperor’s Private Paradise” are much more complex than simply appreciating the aesthetic value of these eighteenth century objects.
Throughout his review, Cotter expresses his appreciation of the visual illusions and posed contrasts present throughout the exhibition. Many of the murals in Qianlong’s garden sanctuary trick the eye and present three-dimensionality. The play between objects and illusion animate the gallery space. The Met has set one of the gallery enclaves aside for a large screen projection a digital tour of a Qianlong Garden building that was fully restored in 2008. Although Cotter values this addition to the exhibition, one must question the necessity of such an intrusion of twenty-first century technology, which detracts from the stimulating interplay between authentic objects and images, as well as trivializes the experience of traveling to the Forbidden City by creating unnecessary simulacra. One must question: are the authentic objects not enough in the modern-day world?
In addition to promoting tourism and conservation efforts, Cotter contends that the exhibition additionally provides China with “an agreeable self-image to sell.” Although he states the need for “an agreeable self-image,” the content of the exhibition is anything but agreeable, coherent, or comprehensive – in the best possible way. Cotter himself concurs that the exhibition’s strengths are in the surprising contrasts, opposites, and contradictions. He states “contradiction is also the animating dynamic of the art in the Met show created to adorn the various buildings – reception halls, studios, libraries, Buddhist shrines – in the Qianlong Garden.” And, later in his review, Cotter further argues that “this kind of interplay between opposites – the unnatural and the natural, the grotesque and the spiritual – powers the show.” Proposing, then, an agreeable self-image to sell to the world has not been accomplished by this exhibition; rather, this show has effectively nuanced Western perceptions of Chinese art and culture prompting further curiosity and wonder.
WHAT: “The Emperor’s Private Paradise: Treasures from the Forbidden City.”
WHEN: February 1 - May 1, 2011
WHERE: Metropolitan Museum of Art; (212) 535-7710, www.metmuseum.org
Cotter, Holland. “A Man of Contradictions, With a Collection to Match.” The New York Times 3 Feb. 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment