Qi Baishi: A Problem but not a Problem

Name: Chiu Yee Ting Elaine

Instructor: Dr R. Hammers, Fine Arts Department, The University of Hong Kong

14th December, 2017

Qi Baishi 齊⽩石 (1864-1957) is regarded as one of the most admired traditional ink

painters of the 20th Century China in many’s eyes until nowadays. In his paintings, while the

subject matters are far-ranging, many of them are taken from the ordinary and everyday subjects,

for instance little shrimps, fish, fruits and rural landscapes. 1 Qi, as a guohua 國畫 (national

painting) painter that depicts non-revolutionary subject matters in expressive brushwork that

would remind people of the literati traditions, has become a problematic focal point in the

demand and discourse of guohua revival and reformation in the 1940-50s.

Between 1949 and 1979, the Communist Party of China succeeded in eradicating most of

the artistic themes and techniques it disapproved, especially the traditional guohua painting. 2 In

terms of materials, guohua painters often employ ink, brush, rice paper and silk to execute their

paintings. Guohua is a painting mode deeply rooted in and linked to the concept of Chinese

tradition. 3 On the other hand, new painting modes such as Socialist Realism oil and gouache

paintings were given nationalistic duties and elevated to a nationwide prestigious position. 4

Despite the implementation of Socialist Realism as the national form of art advocated by Chairman Mao,

party leaders and scholars, Qi was “left to go on painting in his own way”, 5 and

even encouraged to continue his personal style after the Liberation (the end of October

Revolution) in 1949. 6 What are the factors that made Qi became an exception of the guohua

reform? Are the advocators of reforming guohua at the time contradicting themselves by

recognizing Qi’s artworks? How did different writers from different periods tend to justify Qi as

not a problem or find him problematic?

In my research paper, I would like to investigate the reasons behind the Party’s and the

people’s celebration of the ink traditionalist under such an unfavorable political atmosphere for

conventional guohua painting. Before discussing the arguments put forward by different scholars

on the topic, I would first provide a general situation of Chinese art of that time by tracing the

Party’s policies and its stance on art. It will start by Chairman Mao’s Yan-an talks that marked

the Party’s first public assertion on a national style of art. Then it will be followed by Zhou

Yang’s speech on the national heritage made four years later. By depicting the development and

changes of the Party's attitude, we will be able to contextualize Qi’s case and link up the first

writer to be discussed, Arnold Chang, who talked about Qi in the 1980s, as a unique case that can

be understood and justified with a historical perspective. After that, I will move forward to a

newer author, Julia Andrews, who makes her arguments in the 1990s using a primary source

written by Ai Qing in 1953. Ai is a poet in Qi’s time, Julia Andrews makes her critics towards

the poet’s contradiction she finds in the article. Comparing and contrasting the newer author with

previous writings, Qi’s problematic status is uncovered once again.

The Party’s stance on art

In the 1940-50s, with the new establishment of the People’s Republic of China, series of

talks were delivered by Chairman Mao and other party leaders including Zhou Yang and Jiang

Feng. These talks functioned as an overall guideline for the development of arts, asserting and

struggling for the definition of modern and national form of art that can well represent the state

and help consolidate the party’s rule and philosophy. 7 The content of the talks would be

implemented through the Party’s propaganda department and has a direct effect on artistic policymaking

and eventually controlling artwork production. 8 The talks at the Yan’an conference on

literature and art enunciated by Mao in 1943, as translated by McDougall, reflected the

importance of national art that was valued by Mao:

“Literature and art are subordinate to politics, and the first and fundamental problem in China

today is resistance to Japan…party workers in art should form an alliance…on the issues of

artistic style. We advocate proletarian realism…” 9

Few points can be seen here. Mao saw art and literature as subordinate tools for addressing

national issues, and artists should be united in a style that is advocated by the Party. He has also

outlined six criteria of distinguishing good art from the bad art as included in Chang. 10 Apart

from political aspect of art, Mao has also put equal emphasis on the artistic quality of art. He said,

“Works of art which lack artistic quality have no force, however progressive they are politically.

What we demand is the unity of content and form, the unity of revolutionary political content and

the highest possible perfection of artistic form.” 1 1

According to Arnold Chang, the “harmonious merging” of political correctness and artistic

excellence was seen as the ultimate goal of proletarian art advocated by Mao. 12 Good art should

incorporate the “motive to serve the masses, and the effects that win the approval of the masses”. 13

In the very beginning of the setting up of the Republic, Mao has offered a strong and relatively

concrete guidance on art production of the state. However, in 1953, Zhou Yang, one of the Mao’s

most-supported literary theorists by the time of the Liberation, made a critical speech at the

Eighth National Congress as mentioned in Chang. 14 Zhou recognized the popularization of art,

but at the same time he complained that creative activity had been hindered by “sectarianism” and

“doctrinairism” put forward by the Party, in which the laying down of rigid rules and

commands was not healthy for the development of creativity. He explained that although art

should uphold the same one political idea, the “mode of expression” was free to the artist. This

idea was very radical at the time, quoting from Chang’s book, Yang asserted:

“Regarding style, form, genre and subject matter in art, however, we are for greater variety and

encourage originality. Our principle is the integration of uniformity in political orientation and

variety in artistic styles…only through free emulation among various styles and trends in artistic

creations can socialist art and literature develops in a sound and healthy way.” 15

Traced by Chang, we can see the development and changes of the Party’s attitude towards art

creation here. Mao has imposed a relatively strict rules on style, bounded by Socialist Realism,

and later on Zhou advocated and allowed for variety of styles with political correctness. Chang

generalized in his later chapter on “Art and Artists” that the communists displayed an ambivalent

attitude in the very first stage of its establishment. I will bring together his discussion of the

Party’s ambivalent stance with his justification of Qi in the following paragraphs.

Chang: Qi’s background and the Party’s ambivalence

In his book, Chang tended to justify the unique status enjoyed by Qi by tracing and

explaining the political attitudes and philosophy of the Party. From a political point of view, the act

of not totally eradicating all of the old artists worked in traditional forms was given a

rationale, as Chang put it:

“The communists displayed an ambivalent attitude because they wanted to win the support and

aid of the older, established artist”.1 6

Implied by his statement, Qi was not a unique case as he was categorized into the “older and

already established” artist group. Chang added that the Party was also afraid of the elitist and

effete symbols carried by these artists might harm the communist philosophy. Therefore, the

Party would first, adopt a “passive discouragement” policy to these artists, that these artists

would be allowed to continue working in their own styles but would not be given the opportunity

to exhibit. 17 The seemingly double-standard of the Party’s is explained by Chang through the

political judgement of the Party.

However, when comparing Qi’s prestigious status to other artists that also belongs to the

“older and established” artist group, the author also acknowledged the “better treatment” of Qi

compared to the other. Qi is already old (aged 86 at Liberation), and he was treated with “a

respect and admiration not afforded by other artists”. Chang brought in the examples of Wu

Zuoren and Fu Baoshi, ink painters whom were “encouraged to contribute to the society in other

ways” were given academic positions throughout China instead. 18 In Michael Sullivan, he

mentioned in his book the guohua masters of the next generation of Qi, for example Fu Baoshi

and Pan Tianshou, were under great pressure to reform their art to paint revolutionary subject

matter. 19 The matter of age and generation could make a big difference in whether an artist will

subject to the direct pressure and purge from the Party. It makes sense that if a guohua artist is

active right in the era of the anti-rightist movement, he will suffer more direct pressure from the

Party than those who lived earlier. Nevertheless, it still does not explain why Qi was never

regarded as a bad example for other artists in his own time nor the next generation artists; why is

his reputation preserved and protected all the time?

Chang found the unique working-class background of Qi can be used as a sound reason for

the Party to justify Qi’s art. Qi’s special position was obtained more from his working-class

background than his artistic technique according to the author. Qi was the son of a farmer, he

began his artistic career as an apprentice of a carpenter. Together with his unassuming

personality, the artist was regarded as a “shinning example of succeeding through solely

determination and hard work”, who yet did not forget his humble origins. 20 To the author, Qi’s

subject matter also accounted for his special, protected status. Although the artist was painting

everyday objects such as shrimps, insects, flowers and fruits, there is no revolutionary element

displayed and there are even traces of the literati style to be seen in his brushwork. Even so, the

communists were able to see in his work an “unpretentious and folk-like” quality. 21 By

recognizing Qi’s art, the regime was making a statement that she was willing to allow any styles

to develop if only they were produced by artists from a working-class background. This can be

understood with reference to Zhou Yang’s speech on the variety of art styles in 1953 as

mentioned earlier. In addition, Lu Pen has also noted that both Mao and Qi were from Hunan

province.2 2 The emotional complex of sharing the same origin might have certain effect on

Mao’s personal connection and special toleration of Qi’s art. Different from Chang who regarded

Qi’s background and personalities being the crucial factors, Lu Pen considered that the qualities

of Qi’s art such as “humility, simplicity, cleanness, and a spirit of devotion to art” were also

important features that earned him the approval from the people. In his view, people from

different social sectors liked his art before long, and that the collective approval of the people

acted as a “buffering agent” between the politics and the art circles. 23 Although the two authors

offered different opinions on explaining Qi’s special status, they still tended to justify Qi's unique

case.

To summarize Chang, the early ambivalence of the party towards old and established

artists has made the guohua painters of the older generations not being the direct target of

reform. The later openness of art styles as addressed in Zhou’s speech enabled a possible

political environment for Qi to continue working in his own style after Liberation. The modest

and low-key characters of the painter were seen as not harmful to the state. The working class

background and painted subject matter of Qi has gained him a relatively unique status. In the era

of ambivalence, the seemingly contradicting action can be rationalized and justified through the

viewpoint of political history. As an earlier author writing on Qi, Chang acknowledges Qi

Baishi’s exceptional status. Nevertheless, the author also tended to justify Qi’s “problem” with

reasons and attempted to have the problem “resolved”.

Julia Andrews: rediscovering the problem of Qi

Different from the article of Chang, Julia Andrews found Qi a problem when looking at the

contradicting arguments written by Ai Qing that was published in Wenyibao 文藝報 (The

Literature and Arts Newspaper) in 1953. Unlike Chang, Andrews used the primary document to

point out the problem with Qi and has left the puzzle unresolved in the chapter. She thought the

arguments made by Ai Qing was extreme and also contradictory in terms of his theories and

personal taste. However, if we carefully look into the criteria listed out by Ai Qing and how Qi

Baishi can be fitted into his advocations, we can still understand how Qi Baishi is purposively

made not a problem by his contemporary scholars.

Starting off her chapter by describing the poet Ai Qing (1910-1996) as an important

spokesman for the view that “Chinese painting should be thoroughly reformed through synthesis

with western art”, Andrews summarized the stance of Ai Qing in an equally “extreme” manner

that she would later describe the poet. In the chapter, Andrews 24 referred to Ai Qing’s article On

Chinese Painting (談中國畫 Tan Zhongguohua) as her primary document. Ai mentioned that

guohua must be transformed in order to fit in its own time and responding to the living people’s

demand instead of the dead. He put forward two major criteria of the new guohua that he

advocated: (1) new contents and (2) new forms. By saying so, Ai did not advocate getting rid of

the traditions totally. Instead, he recognized the importance of cultural heritage of China:

“But if the contents and forms are both new, won’t it become a Western painting? Only if we

continue the most precious part of our national heritage and then create things with new

contents and new forms can we call this completely new Chinese painting.” 25

New guohua and Chinese-ness were therefore, not seen as mutually exclusive subjects to him in

his advocations of guohua reform. He disliked the term “remolding” and he emphasized the

continuation of Chinese heritage through new contents and new forms. Moreover, the concrete

solutions that Ai put forward in his article, was actually a method already in-effect in Chinese art

academies by the time:

“I think that we must substitute depiction of real objects for copying (old paintings) as the

fundamental curriculum for the study of Chinese painting. To paint figure paintings, you must

learn to paint the nude human body and sketch. To paint landscape, you must go to the wilds

to sketch from life.” 26

The method of xiesheng (寫⽣生 life sketching) Ai introduced, can be traced back to the discussion

of xieyi (寫意 expressive) and xieshi (寫實 realistic) in guohua by Xu Beihong in 1929 and

Wang Cheung-hua in 2011. Wang identified that 27 xiesheng was an approach in Song dynasty for

capturing the atmosphere of naturalistic vividness in flowers and birds, and Xu has repurposed

xiesheng in a sense of realistic Western painting techniques that strives to generate moral realism. 28

The requirements of new guohua identified by Ai Qing can be summarized into few points:

responding to the contemporary needs, having new content and new form, and adopted the

method of sketching from life. Let us compare Ai Qing’s requirements for new guohua and the

application to the case of Qi:

“Qi is not an ordinary conventional painter; he is a painter who is very courageous in creating.

Naturally, he has suffered from some limitations of his time, and he has not reflected the life of

the people. But he still deserves to be called a great Chinese painter of today…He does not paint

things he never seen…His painting often adopt an original approach.” 29

Andrews regarded it as highly paradoxical that Ai Qing brought in his personal appreciation for

Qi into the same article advocating the guohua reform. However, as Ai continues justifying Qi’s

case:

“The government rewards Qi Baishi for precisely this sort of creative labor…We hope that many

artists of rich creativity like Qi Baishi will oppose blindly imitating and plagiarizing.” 30

The “imitating” mentioned by Ai can be referred to the learning method of “manual copying”

that was traditionally used and prevailed in the Shanghai school at that time. The Mustard Seed

Garden Painting Manual (芥⼦子園畫譜 Jieziyuan huapu), for example, is a book of sample

model images for the study of guohua which Qi once used as a student. 31 We can also trace back

to Xie He’s Sixth rules “transmission through copying” back in the fifth century. 32 To Ai, Qi’s art

was different from other conventional guohua painters because he adopted an original approach

in his art. The importance of originality of artworks was evidenced in the late Ming period as

identified by Katherine Burnett, that one should imitate the “best quality of the old masters,

which is being their originality”. 33 Originality was also encouraged by Zhou in his speech

addressed in the same year.

Andrews described that Ai Qing “explicitly defends the government’s double standard in

lionizing the octogenarian painter even though his work was neither socialist nor realist”. 34

However, as Lu Pen has addressed, the “elderly change of style” of Qi was a response to the

growing acceptance of Western influences on the people. In his later change of style, Qi moved

away from depicting the “seasoned rusticity” to render ordinary subject matters in brushwork

and color that ordinary people can understand. In his later works, he de-emphasized the “refined

and high-minded” literati subject matter and shifted to the depiction of rural scenes and objects.

By doing so, he presented his art to urban viewers in the xieyi style that was once belonged to

literati painting. Then, isn’t Qi's “elderly change 35 of style” responding to the living demand of

the working people, fulfilling one of the requirements of new guohua laid out by Ai? Moreover,

the intentional shift reflects Qi’s “motive to serve the masses”, and the successful effects that

“win the approval of the masses” that were proposed by Mao.

At the very end of her article, Andrews thought that Ai Qing’s defense went beyond the

orthodox party dogma by claiming Qi’s creativity, originality and quality deserved recognition.

She thought the article was not only a defense for Qi Baishi himself, but all talented artists

including Ai Qing himself. Further interpreting, by saying political standards can be waived for

great and talented artists, Andrews considered Ai Qing used the double standard and

individualistic attitude as a way to safeguard also his interest. 36 Qi’s case was used as a counterargument

for Ai’s own advocations, as well as a symbolic representative of artists working

creatively like the poet himself.

The problem of Qi Baishi can be purposively “resolved” if one explains it through the

political historical perspective of the regime at that time. The advocators of guohua reform at the

time did not necessarily contradict themselves by recognizing Qi’s artworks if we look into the

requirements of new guohua. However, as an author writing relatively new, Andrews

rediscovered the problem in the nature of Qi that was tended to be pacified and justified by

previous scholars.

Bibliography

Andrews, Julia F. Painters and Politics in the People’s Republic of China, 1949-1979. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1994.

Andrews, Julia F. and Kuiyi Shen. The Art of Modern China. London: University of California

Press, 2012.

Burnett, Katherine P. “A Discourse in originality in late Ming Chinese painting criticism.” Art

History, vol. 23, no.4 (2000): 522, 538-547.

Chang, Arnold. Painters and Politics in the People’s Republic of China: The Politics of Style.

Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1980.

Guo Ruoxu 郭若虛. Kuo Jo-Hsu’’s Experiences in Painting (T‘u-hua chien-wên chih): An

Eleventh Century History of Chinese Painting. Washington: American Council of

Learned Societies, 1951.

Hui Lai Ping. Famous Modern Chinese Painters. Hong Kong: Han Mo Xuan Publishing, 1992.

Lovell, Julia. The Real story of Ah-Q and Other Tales of China, The Complete Fiction of Lu Xun.

England: Penguin Classics. 2009.

Lu, Pen. A History of A in 20th-Century China. Milano: Edizioni Charta, 2010.

McDougall, S. Bonnie. Mao Zedong's "Talks at the Yan'an Conference on Literature and Art": A

Translation of the 1943 Text with Commentary. Center for Chinese Studies: University

of Michigan, 1980.

Sullivan, Michael. The Arts of China. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

1984.

Wang, Cheng-hua. “Rediscovering Song Painting for the Nations: Artistic Discursive Practice in

Early Twentieth Century China.” Artibus Asiae, vol. LXXI, no. 2 (2011): 211-46.

Zhou Yang, “The Important Role of Art and Literature in the Building of Socialism.” In Painters

and Politics in the People’s Republic of China: The Politics of Style, edited by Arnold

Chang, 43. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1980.