NYT article on the treasures of the two Palace Museums, Beijing and Taipei
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 33,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NYT article on the treasures of the two Palace Museums, Beijing and Taipei
Nice article on the preservation of the Chinese national treasures before they were divided between Beijing and Taipei.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/ar...ures.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/ar...ures.html?_r=1
#7
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Museum was completely renovated three years ago, and is just now undergoing a reorganization of how things are displayed. It had been a chronological display, and the galleries will now be organized by material: jade, bronze, ceramic are 'the big three.'
Supposedly, the best pieces, with a few exceptions, ended up in Taipei, but what Taipei has is only about 1/4 of what left the Forbidden City in 1933.
Supposedly, the best pieces, with a few exceptions, ended up in Taipei, but what Taipei has is only about 1/4 of what left the Forbidden City in 1933.
#8
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> Supposedly, the best pieces, with a few exceptions, ended up in Taipei, but what Taipei has is only about 1/4 of what left the Forbidden City in 1933.
The claim that nothing got lost is so ludicrous that only a Chinese official could make it with a straight face, and it was quite astonishing to see it in print (although not the only difficulty with the NYT's account), but I think this figure may be back to front.
When I interviewed the then director of the Taipei museum a few years ago, I was told that of the 19,557 crates of the most important items that were moved, 13,484 cases survived the war. That's 69%, of which all but a small proportion abandoned on the docks at Shanghai, and later supposedly returned to Beijing, made it to Taipei.
The whole issue is so politicised there's very little chance indeed of either side telling the whole truth (as amply demonstrated in the article itself), but the more open account and more open catalogue is assuredly Taipei's.
It's also odd to read that the items might not have been well displayed in Taiwan. On the one hand we contrast a museum purpose-built to display the collection, albeit back in the 1960s, with the situation at the Forbidden City, where until very recently what little could be seen was in ill-lit rooms and only dimly perceivable through windows obscured by smears from the noses of decades of visitors, many of the items on display undoubtedly copies (but not labelled as such in any language). On the other hand the collection in Taipei was well-lit and labelled in English. Only in very recent times has a tiny part of the Beijing collection appeared with modern methods of display.
Refreshingly, the Taipei museum begins (or began, if it's been remodelled?) with an even-tempered comparison of cultural progress, so you could see that when Qin Shi, the first emperor of China, was being buried with his Terracotta Warriors in Xi’an, the Old Testament was being compiled, and while the Ming dynasty was building the Forbidden City, Raphael was painting ‘The School of Athens’ and the Russians were raising the fruit-like domes of St Basil’s in Moscow. Rather different from the nationalistic triumphalism only now starting to depart from some of China's museums.
A few other bits of background: According to other accounts, the imperial collection was transferred to the new republic under the terms of the agreement of abdication, for which the imperial family was to be paid. The sums necessary were neither ever fully assessed, or forthcoming, and the imperial family smuggled many items out before its final eviction from the FC by a warlord in 1924. Other items appeared in Beijing's antique markets through eunuch pilferage, especially following the reform of the household and the expulsion of most eunuchs under the influence of the last emperor's Scottish tutor.
Furthermore, even had the collection survived intact, Jiang Qing and her cronies took items for themselves and as gifts, so it certainly isn't intact now. As it is, the collection grew significantly in size through 'voluntary' donations during the Cultural Revolution, from people terrified of being caught in possession of items that might label them reactionary or counter-revolutionary. Much of the imperial collection is not necessarily imperial. The Taipei museum, however, has almost no funds for acquisition, and has expanded very little since its creation.
Peter N-H
The claim that nothing got lost is so ludicrous that only a Chinese official could make it with a straight face, and it was quite astonishing to see it in print (although not the only difficulty with the NYT's account), but I think this figure may be back to front.
When I interviewed the then director of the Taipei museum a few years ago, I was told that of the 19,557 crates of the most important items that were moved, 13,484 cases survived the war. That's 69%, of which all but a small proportion abandoned on the docks at Shanghai, and later supposedly returned to Beijing, made it to Taipei.
The whole issue is so politicised there's very little chance indeed of either side telling the whole truth (as amply demonstrated in the article itself), but the more open account and more open catalogue is assuredly Taipei's.
It's also odd to read that the items might not have been well displayed in Taiwan. On the one hand we contrast a museum purpose-built to display the collection, albeit back in the 1960s, with the situation at the Forbidden City, where until very recently what little could be seen was in ill-lit rooms and only dimly perceivable through windows obscured by smears from the noses of decades of visitors, many of the items on display undoubtedly copies (but not labelled as such in any language). On the other hand the collection in Taipei was well-lit and labelled in English. Only in very recent times has a tiny part of the Beijing collection appeared with modern methods of display.
Refreshingly, the Taipei museum begins (or began, if it's been remodelled?) with an even-tempered comparison of cultural progress, so you could see that when Qin Shi, the first emperor of China, was being buried with his Terracotta Warriors in Xi’an, the Old Testament was being compiled, and while the Ming dynasty was building the Forbidden City, Raphael was painting ‘The School of Athens’ and the Russians were raising the fruit-like domes of St Basil’s in Moscow. Rather different from the nationalistic triumphalism only now starting to depart from some of China's museums.
A few other bits of background: According to other accounts, the imperial collection was transferred to the new republic under the terms of the agreement of abdication, for which the imperial family was to be paid. The sums necessary were neither ever fully assessed, or forthcoming, and the imperial family smuggled many items out before its final eviction from the FC by a warlord in 1924. Other items appeared in Beijing's antique markets through eunuch pilferage, especially following the reform of the household and the expulsion of most eunuchs under the influence of the last emperor's Scottish tutor.
Furthermore, even had the collection survived intact, Jiang Qing and her cronies took items for themselves and as gifts, so it certainly isn't intact now. As it is, the collection grew significantly in size through 'voluntary' donations during the Cultural Revolution, from people terrified of being caught in possession of items that might label them reactionary or counter-revolutionary. Much of the imperial collection is not necessarily imperial. The Taipei museum, however, has almost no funds for acquisition, and has expanded very little since its creation.
Peter N-H
#9
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Peter. Your posting is fascinating. I was a docent at the Museum (in Taipei) for three years, but certainly never heard anyone admit that all the crates might not have survived the war.
Looting by the eunuchs and private sales by the Imperial Family are, I believe, a given and it was partly to stop this that a commission was set up to establish what was in the Forbidden City and catalog it.
The latest display in the NPM (begun this year with a new ceramics gallery) will be completed in October with new jade galleries. The number of items on view has increased substantially. Two separate galleries hold the two most popular items: the jade cabbage and the Mao Gong Ding.
However, the crowds are uncomfortably large right now and the NPM is exploring ways to handle the increase in visitors, mostly tourists from the Mainland.
I do miss the chronological format, only because I think it is easier for foreigners to view. I understand that, from a curatorial standpoint, this new organization may be preferable, but I still think it is less comprehensible to a Western visitor.
I haven't been to the Beijing museum yet -- thanks for this great report.
Looting by the eunuchs and private sales by the Imperial Family are, I believe, a given and it was partly to stop this that a commission was set up to establish what was in the Forbidden City and catalog it.
The latest display in the NPM (begun this year with a new ceramics gallery) will be completed in October with new jade galleries. The number of items on view has increased substantially. Two separate galleries hold the two most popular items: the jade cabbage and the Mao Gong Ding.
However, the crowds are uncomfortably large right now and the NPM is exploring ways to handle the increase in visitors, mostly tourists from the Mainland.
I do miss the chronological format, only because I think it is easier for foreigners to view. I understand that, from a curatorial standpoint, this new organization may be preferable, but I still think it is less comprehensible to a Western visitor.
I haven't been to the Beijing museum yet -- thanks for this great report.
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Bo2642
Asia
29
Jul 20th, 2012 07:41 AM