16. Pure and Remote Mountains and Streams An Art History without Masters

Transcript Let us look at this extraordinarily famous work, Pure and Remote View of Streams and Mountains. It is a very large handscroll and was also Professor James Cahill’s favorite. Before his death, he recorded an entire history of Chinese painting on his computer, using many slides and beautiful English to present each era. I strongly recommend it to anyone learning English. “Xishan: A Pure and Distant View” is its English title. His dating was not always correct, because he accepted many forgeries as genuine, but his English was exceptionally beautiful. Our opinions differed, however, and we were very good friends. Pure and Remote View of Streams and Mountains is full of Ming-dynasty characteristics Everyone agrees this is a very good painting. I merely emphasize that it is not from the Song dynasty; it belongs to the Chenghua or Hongzhi era. Look at these trees. A cluster of lines is laid down and the trunks inserted among them. This is not a Song method—it is filled with what are called texture strokes, specifically axe-cut strokes, made by sweeping down with the side of the brush. And the distance is not at all clear. Distance is not what this painting is concerned with. Each local passage is interesting and enjoyable, but the work neither explains a vast landscape nor allows you to travel continuously from here to there. Yet it is painted extremely well—very well by the standards of its time, when everyone painted in this manner. While examining this section, I realized I could identify the period in which it was made. These are all parts of a very long scroll; remember this particular passage. Look how tiny this figure is. Above him are enormous texture strokes, all brushed downward with the side of the brush. The large axe-cut strokes make the rock feel hard; those farther away are paler, and those nearer are slightly stronger. It is indeed a fine painting. C. C. Wang considered it the finest under heaven. I consider it one of the world’s very good landscape paintings, but it is neither by Xia Gui nor from the Song dynasty. Do you see? A rock with large axe-cut strokes, and strange trees standing there—but how do they connect to the landscape behind them? There is no ground plane. The next section has some continuity because it shows water: where nothing is painted, we naturally imagine the ground plane joining together. Continuing along the scroll, we even find Qianlong’s imperial inscription. It is beautifully painted; this is a Ming painter. Please do not worry about the distances among these mountains, because we Ming painters are not interested in that. The viewpoint is high and looks downward. These buildings are all fascinating. Look at this tree, one of those oddly mannered trees. The bridge is interesting too. Ming bridges are not as convincing as Song bridges; we have seen far better ones. This one is simplified. Comparison with Japanese paintings from the Chenghua period I return again to Sessh&#363;. His axe-cut strokes were painted in Japan during the latter half of the fifteenth century. He did not paint them quite so rapidly; the strokes descend more slowly and deliberately, without filling the entire lower area. What about this supposed Xia Gui? We have seen an authentic Ma Lin painting, Clearing Rain over Fragrant Spring. Ma Lin would have addressed Xia Gui as Uncle Xia, because Xia Gui and Ma Yuan were colleagues in the imperial academy. Xia Gui should therefore be earlier than Ma Lin, and his texture strokes should be fewer than Ma Lin’s. A genuine Xia Gui could never look like this. Now let us compare their structures. The perspective is similar: a great rock in front with buildings behind, a composition many artists liked to use. But the connection between one scene and another is unclear. That no longer concerns us. Sessh&#363; does not explain it either; he never shows how one could walk from here to the high building above. It is impossible—you would have to leap there, though you could do so in a dream. Look at these tall trees: Sessh&#363; on the right and the supposed Xia Gui on the left. Do they not look alike? That is because they were painted in the same period. I am not saying the two artists necessarily became friends, though it is possible. I am arguing that the work on the left was painted by a Chinese artist in Sessh&#363;’s time. That is what I want to demonstrate. Now Sessh&#363; is on the left and the supposed Xia Gui on the right. Are they not the same? Look at the texture strokes, the small trees painted with the side of the brush, the identical structure, and the identical handling of space. These features show that the works belong to the same era, in China as well as Japan. It is also quite possible that Sessh&#363; took a long model scroll back to Japan and everyone copied it. That was perfectly ordinary. Without photographs, people copied exemplars: I would lend you mine after I had finished, and you would lend me yours, so that everyone could learn …