Taiwan Ceramics as a Mirror of Taiwan History

T�~q� �~�x�

Objects, Heritage andCultural Identity��

Edited by Frank Muyard, Liang-Kai Chou and Serge Dreyer

��

With the support of the French Center for Researchon Contemporary China (CEFC), Taipei Office

2 Objects, Heritage and Cultural Identity��

Preface

Acknowledgements

Notes on Romanization

Introduction

i. Frank Muyard ii. �ZL Liang-Kai Chou

Part I: Culture, Heritage, Identity

1. ��I=!��a< Cultural Tradition or Cultural Heritage �ZL Liang-Kai Chou

2. Objects and Memories: Territorial Identities and Heritage (“Patrimony”) in France Thierry Bonnot

3. From Crafts to Arts: Folk Traditions and National Modernity Anne-Marie Thiesse

Part II: Collecting and Collectors

4. Private Collecting, Motives and Metaphors Paul van der Grijp

5. [9&3H � �_&�f Passionate Consumption: On Jade Collection in Taiwan ��O Lee Yu-Ying

6. #S�h,F\ � 6Nb$��>�Vl&`GW�* A Supplement to Tungning Documents: Re ections on the History of Engraving Typography in Taiwan M�E Yang Yong-Chih

7. Identity and Collectors of Antiques in Taiwan Serge Dreyer

Part III: Tangible and Intangible Heritage in Regional Cultural Traditions

8. Puppets and Cultural Identity in Taiwan Jean-Luc Penso

Contents

33

4

927

6

8

45

71

83

103

125

151

169

Contents � 3

9. U�&$�j��JQ � ^U�&+A$��?2WkX The Changes in Oral Art Booklets and Their Signi cance B�' Chen Chao-Nan

10. Peregrination of “New Art” in East Asia: The Case of Taiwan Architectural or “Victorian” Tiles in the Early Twentieth Century Chantal Zheng

11. 5W(� � �lP�C;5�@.&��Y� Tea and Taste: The Designs of Ceramic Tea Set and Cultural Identity in Contemporary Taiwan d#� Hsieh Tung-Shan

12. Capturing Intangible Culture and Ephemeral Manifestations: The Perpetuation of Taiwanese Traditions in Temple Processions Fiorella Allio

Part IV: Museums, History, and Identity

13. )��17/` D%c Constructing a Museum of National History �8T Wu Mi-Cha

14. The Signi cance of Intangibility in the Cultural Af rmation of the Kanaks of New Caledonia Emmanuel Kasarhérou

15. Globalization, Politics of Identity and Heritage Work of the Museums Michel Colardelle

Part V: Nation, Locality, and Politics of Cultural Identity

16. Dressing Up the Miao Nationality: An Anthropological Enquiry into the Politics of the Miao Costumes in the People’s Republic of China. Loeiz S. Pabiot

17. -Ri4]e�gW�i4��c�"0:&��K The Complexities of Cross-cultural Encounters Embodied in Yuanli Grass- weaving Craft and a Local Museum B Chen Yi-Fang

18. Taiwan Ceramics as a Mirror of Taiwan History and its National Culture Shift: The Yingge Ceramics Museum and the Institutionalization of a New Taiwanese Artistic Tradition Frank Muyard

About the Contributors

239

179

285

209

293

221

301

325

373

389

420

Frank Muyard�Taiwan Ceramics as a Mirror of Taiwan History and its National Culture Shift 389

Taiwan Ceramics as a Mirror of Taiwan History and its National Culture ShiftThe Yingge Ceramics Museum and the Institutionalization of a New Taiwanese Artistic Tradition

Frank Muyard

Introduction: Ceramics and national identity in TaiwanStudies of nationalism have shown that culture, alongside history and

language, is a major, if not the major, element of the representation of the nation and of its identity (Anderson 1983; Thiesse 1999; Smith 2001). It may best express and illustrate the speci cities of the society and the place where it develops. In return it is through culture and the conscious construction of its own culture that a nation perceives itself, states its identity, and differentiates from other nations. The culture of one place or territory is not necessarily constructed as a national culture; it can also be perceived and acted as a local, a provincial or a regional culture. Yet, once a state apparatus or a nationalist movement is actively involved in the representation or the shaping of this culture, the question of its nature and status as a specific national culture or its inclusion within a larger national culture inevitably arises.

In the case of Taiwan, because of its peculiar political history and

18

of contemporary Taiwanese culture”Chang Ching-yuan, March 20081

1 Chang 2008: 17.

Objects, Heritage and Cultural Identity��

390

the struggles played out on the island between at least three different nationalisms (Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese) in the twentieth century, both the issue of the existence and definition of the Taiwanese culture and the issue of the national culture in and of Taiwan are still very much in question (Hsiau 2000; Wang 2004; Chang 2004). Both are also at the center of many political debates and public policies of different levels of government trying to in uence and shape the population’s sense of its own identity. Meanwhile, because of the relative autonomy of the cultural and artistic sphere from the political one, transformations within the Taiwanese culture have also influenced in turn the shaping of the national problematique and the de nition of the island’s national culture.

This paper looks into one cultural practice that provides a strong case study of how some artistic and cultural developments can be both mirrors and actors of the overall change in a territory’s culture and history, and eventually become a symbol of the national culture and identity: Taiwanese modern ceramics.

An important factor here is the image and the value universally accorded to ceramics. Throughout the world and history, ceramics have always occupied a particular status in the people’s collective imagination and the nations’ historical memory (Cooper 2000). Perhaps more than any other art or craft activity, ceramics have been perceived as expressing the ‘national character’ of a society or a country. As inscriptions of culture into matter since prehistory, ceramics artifacts and later artworks have been used to classify the levels of cultural and technological advancement of societies and at the same time to indicate the distinctive approaches developed by these societies toward art and culture. Ceramic productions and artworks may therefore express the national ‘aesthetic’ or the ‘national genius’ as much as, for instance, architectural buildings. This is true everywhere, and particularly in East Asia: in Japan, Korea and, of course, China, the birthplace of porcelain and a leading ceramic production center since antiquity.2

2 On the history and development of ceramics in China, see Kerr and Wood 2004.


Because of the significance of ceramics in the Chinese national representation and as a symbol of China – both Chinese and Taiwanese like to underline that porcelain is often simply called ‘China’ (or ‘Chinaware’) in the English-speaking world (Chen Hsin-hsiung 2003) – the issue of a Taiwanese ceramics tradition and culture raises even more questions than in most countries. How can Taiwanese ceramics be distinguished from Chinese ceramics, and on what basis? To what extent are Taiwanese ceramics a result of the Chinese ceramics tradition, or simply a local expression, a mere local style of it, or something unique and different? How may Taiwanese ceramics represent the Taiwanese society and nation at the beginning of the twenty-

rst century?Nations are said to be ‘accidents’ of history since none are

predetermined or predestined to rise, blossom or die, and all are the results of speci c contexts and events as well as the outcome of a series of individual, collective and institutional actions that, all brought together, have shaped these nations as they are now, and therefore leave them susceptible to change or disappear under new contexts, events and actions (Ichijo and Uzelac 2005). In a sense, one point this paper will highlight is that Taiwanese ceramics is also a kind of historical ‘accident’ and a historical outcome that strongly reflects the socio-historical incidents and events that transformed this island into the twenty- rst century’s Taiwan we know today. It will focus first on the image and reality of Taiwan’s ceramics tradition, then broach upon the historical development of Taiwanese ceramics industry and art and its links to socio-political events. Finally, I will showcase the emergence of Taiwan ceramic art as a beacon of Taiwan’s contemporary national culture through the creation of the Yingge Ceramic Museum in Taipei County.

Image and reality of Taiwanese ceramics and its traditionAt the turn of the twenty- rst century, Taiwanese ceramics has reached

a remarkably high level of development in terms of techniques, industry and aesthetics (Hsieh 2005). Indeed, Taiwanese ceramic art and industry appear to be well-entrenched parts of the cultural and economic landscape of the


392

country. At the forefront of advanced industrial ceramic technology, and boasting the creation of one of the relatively few specialized museums on ceramics in the world, Taiwan presents itself as a land of ceramics culture and ceramics tradition on par with the other actors of the international ceramic arts scene.

A closer look at Taiwan’s ceramic history would show however two significant characteristics. First, that the Taiwanese ceramic tradition is actually just as long as the history of Taiwan itself, not its geological or geographical history, not its prehistory, but the history of the place called Taiwan and its society. Saying that is not as obvious as it seems, as it also means that the Taiwanese ceramic tradition is not simply part of the long Chinese ceramic tradition but has to be analyzed in relation with its singular short history and as a distinct phenomenon.

We must therefore distinguish the Taiwanese ceramics tradition from the history of ceramics in Taiwan. The former starts only in the seventeenth century with the first colonization processes, Dutch, Spanish and Chinese, that helped formed the Han-majority society in the land newly named Taiwan. It covers the ceramics production made since then by people on the island, Han, Aborigines or others. The latter is broader and includes all the prehistoric pottery made by the Austronesian Aborigines and their ancestors before 1624, as well as all the foreign ceramic objects brought to and sold on the island before and since the seventeenth century.3

The second thing we learn from a look at Taiwan’s ceramics history is that the Taiwanese ceramics tradition is not as old and deep as it may seem from the current discourse about it. This is true not only for the ceramics industry but even more for the ceramic arts. Actually, the emergence of a strong ceramics production, industry and institutions in Taiwan is a very modern phenomenon, and for ceramic art, properly contemporary. This development occurred essentially during the twentieth century and is a direct

3 This paper will focus on the Han Taiwanese ceramics history and leave aside the Aborigines’ ceramics modern history, much smaller in scope and development, and which would need a separate analysis (see Shu 2003).


product of the country’s modernization.Indeed, the development of Taiwanese ceramics appears so closely

linked to the country’s modern political history and change, that rather than talking about the Taiwanese ceramic tradition in the sense that we speak about the Chinese or the Japanese ones, or the French, Italian or Turkish ones, as something established and recognized for centuries or millennia, we must recognize that this tradition is emerging now, in our modern and contemporary times. Not that it is an ‘invented tradition’ in the sense of falsification or imaginary invention (cf. Hobsbawn and Ranger 1983), but that on the basis of the spectacular modern development of the Taiwanese society, together with a reconstructed vision of Taiwan’s history as centered on the island’s territory and soil, a strong new or modern tradition of ceramics production, art, and knowledge is presently taking roots in Taiwan.

All of this reminds us of the relative youth of ‘Taiwan’. Taiwan is a ‘new’ society, with a short history, as well as a society of the modern era. Signi cant parallels here must be drawn with the other ‘new countries’ of the ‘new World’ that were built upon the colonization of new overseas territories since the sixteenth century and the first wave of modern globalization of the human society, like the U.S. and all the countries of the American hemisphere, or Australia (Bouchard 2000). They all inherited the culture of their European metropolis (and the European culture as a whole), transferred it onto the new lands, mixed it with the original indigenous cultures, and through their own speci c histories in these lands changed it, indigenized it and ‘re-nationalized’ it under the names of their new nations. Similarly, the majority of the people in Taiwan have a history and a memory on their land and of their land that is no longer than 400 years and for many merely 150 or even only 60 years old, just like most Americans or Quebecers (Muyard 2008). In that sense Taiwan also appears distinct from China, an old country and society with a long history, an ancient tradition and scores of centuries of development, achievements, and institutions.

This is not to say that the Chinese tradition has not had a strong impact on the development of Taiwan, or that there was no tradition (and no ceramics tradition per se) in Taiwan. There are actually four kinds of


394

cultural traditions that feed Taiwanese culture and society: the aboriginal cultural tradition, the predominant Han Chinese traditional culture, and the Western and Japanese “modern” traditions that have been influencing the Han Chinese and Aboriginal societies and cultures since the seventeenth century. Within the main Han Chinese tradition, we may also distinguish several regional cultural traditions transplanted in Taiwan: the Fujian’s Min culture, the Hakka culture, the Jiangnan culture and the Northern culture together with the official Confucian-imperial-state high-brow culture. The speci city of Taiwan’s colonization by Han colonists and their subsequent tumultuous history on a disputed island (cf. Shepherd 1993; Rubinstein 1999) has however put them at the margins of the Chinese high cultural tradition, including the high level Chinese ceramics already developed on the mainland, whose techniques were not passed on nor re-developed in Taiwan under the Qing dynasty. A brief visit into the history of Taiwanese ceramics will help us to illustrate these points.

Brief history of Taiwanese ceramicsWe can roughly divide the history of Taiwanese ceramics into five

distinct periods: 1. The seventeenth century’s beginnings. 2. The Qing era. 3. The Japanese administration. 4. The post-1945 period. 5. The contemporary development since the 1980s.4

The rst period roughly covers the seventeenth century. As with many things in Taiwan, the commercial production of ceramics started with the Dutch colonization and the production of bricks. After an initial phase of importation from the mainland, bricks were made by Fujianese immigrants under contract with the Dutch for the construction of buildings serving the Dutch colony notably in the Tainan area: forts, churches, bridges, and wells.

4 This part is mainly based on the studies by Chen Hsin-shang 1996; Hsiao 1996; Chen Hsin-hsiung 2003, 2004; and Hsieh 2005.


All ne ceramics as well as utilitarian wares5 and tiles were imported from China, especially from Fujian. At that time, porcelain trade between China and Europe was a very lucrative trade and the Dutch were very eager to pro t from it, by including it in a three-way trade with Japan (Jorg 1982). According to historical records, the production of architectural tiles (for roo ng) started in 1665 under the Chengs regime (1662-1683) and quickly

ourished in the following decades. Growth of brick production in the Tainan area also occurred by necessity with the blockade of trade between Taiwan and Fujian ordered by the new Manchu rulers of China in order to coerce the Chengs into submission to their new Qing dynasty.6

The second period covers the Qing era. It did not see spectacular improvements, but a gradual development during the nineteenth century on the basis of Fujian basic pottery techniques and styles. Coarse utilitarian wares were produced for the daily life and economic needs of a still mainly agricultural society, but in quantities and quality insufficient to replace mainland imports. Main centers of production were in Tainan and Nantou. The first potter family in the Yingge area (near present day Taipei) only arrived from Fujian in 1804 and did not develop into a signi cant business before the Japanese rule. One exception to this pattern was the production of a new type of artistic craft at the end of the nineteenth century in the Chiayi area: colored earthenware gurines for temple decorations, later called Koji ware (Jiaozhi ?È or Cochin) by the Japanese (Chen Hsin-hsiung 2003). Its rise was spurred by the growth of religious activities and temple construction accompanying the expansion of a more af uent landlord and trader class in Taiwan and may be seen as the rst development of ceramic art in Taiwan, although of a markedly decorative purpose. During the Qing period, most ceramics, especially ne ones, were therefore still imported from China. In

5 At the exception of Aboriginal pottery, which subsisted for a while but gradually lost its attraction for the Aborigine inhabitants in contact with the Dutch and the Chinese, and was forsaken in favor of more resistant high- red stoneware imported from Fujian, notably the so-called Anping jars (see Chen Hsin-hsiung 2003).6 On the Chengs regime, see Hung 1981.


396

terms of cultural taste, a strong attraction for old wares rather than for new, modern, wares was noticed (Sakura 2007: 205-207), a re ection maybe of the antiquarian culture current among Chinese elites of this century.

The third period is the Japanese administration era (1895-1945). The colonization of Taiwan by Japan had first mainly an effect on the ceramic market in gradually replacing the import of wares from China by Japanese imports. Together with the modernization of the society and the increasing population, new needs and demands for ceramic products also led to the growth in local production of utilitarian and industrial wares as well as of the brick and tile industries. Moreover, under Japanese guidance and with Japanese investment, managers, leading technicians, and teaching, the Taiwanese local pottery and ceramic industry was gradually developed and partly mechanized and industrialized. New kiln designs were imported and the use of natural gas and coal instead of wood was promoted for firing. First essays at producing porcelain in Taiwan are recorded in Beitou. Main centers of production were now in Nantou, Miaoli, Beitou and Yingge. Still, in 1938, the local production represented only 20% of the overall Taiwanese consumption of ceramic wares, with imports almost all coming from Japan (Hsiao 1996). Then under the war, Japanese military needs and the acceleration of the industrialization of Taiwan to support the war effort led to a further expansion of the ceramics industry (Chen Hsin-hsiung 2003).

The fourth period starts at the end of the war and the transfer of authority over Taiwan from Japan to the Kuomintang (KMT)-ruled China. With the foundations built under the Japanese era, the still burgeoning but recently upgraded Taiwanese ceramic industry was eager to take over the island market opened by the stop of Japanese imports and the limited return of Chinese imports. Then, after 1949, the cutting of all relations with China and the arrival of 1.5 million exiles, civilian and military, in need of everything to build new lives in Taiwan, together with the KMT-state’s economic policy of import substitution, spurred a huge jump in local ceramic production and quality. In a few decades and for the first time in history, Taiwan succeeded in being self-suf cient in most ceramic products. It witnessed the fast development of architectural, industrial and sanitary


ceramics on top of utilitarian and tableware ceramics with the first large-scale production of porcelain in Taiwan around Yingge and Miaoli. It is at this time that Yingge rst became an important center of ceramic production in Taiwan, then the main one when industrial use of coal was banned in cities at the end of 1960s and replaced by natural gas. With state incentives and promotion, the continuous import of foreign modern know-how, technicians, and materials, and under the international subcontracting system, the ceramic industry then turned into a strong exporting industry of ceramic products for industrial, architectural and utilitarian use, as well as producing decorative objects.

Finally, the fifth period that covers the contemporary era since the 1980s is characterized by the climax of the Taiwanese ceramics industry around 1990, its following downfall triggered by the economic opening of China and the transfer of the Taiwanese ceramics industry to the mainland, and the parallel rise of Taiwanese ceramic art, together with a new tourist-oriented use of ceramic sites and culture. This will be discussed in more detail below.

Lessons of history and factors of development As this quickly sketched history shows, a few dominant factors behind

the development of the Taiwanese ceramics industry and art clearly stand out: the impact of political change, the role of the modern state and its economic policies, and the role of international actors and factors (technological transfer, in uence, competition).

The first lesson is that all the major phases of development of the ceramics industry in Taiwan were triggered by changes of political regime and the following cutting of trade relations with the former mainland or metropolis. It is indeed largely because of the slowing down or stopping of Chinese or Japanese imports, rst during the Chengs regime, then after 1895, and again after 1945 and 1949, that the Taiwanese ceramics industry actually had a chance to develop and upgrade and did receive the support of the state.

Under the Qing, no efforts had been made to help build a ceramics


398

industry in Taiwan, either by Chinese ceramic producers, high-level artists, or Chinese officials on the island. Only the transfer of basic traditional techniques from Fujian’s potters (itself an old and major center of high-quality ceramics, including porcelain, both for national use and export) was achieved under natural immigration movements and in response to basic population needs in utilitarian ceramics. Before 1895, ceramic imports from China, with its mature and large-scale ceramic industry, were in fact strong impediments to the development of a local industry in Taiwan. Local production was characterized by lower productivity and lower quality compared to imports. There were therefore no economic or political incentives, nor the technical expertise needed to upgrade it. Local competition was also not encouraged in order to give to the Chinese and especially the Fujianese ceramic producers and merchants a captive market for their own products.

The Japanese period saw a very different kind of state intervention and support. The Japanese colonial power had a policy of development concerning the colony’s local crafts for local use and for export both to Japan and to the international market; however, with the caveat that it did not threaten or compete with Japan’s own products (Kikuchi 2007). Under the Japanese, we may then observe the rst systematic research of clay and kaolin resources on the island, multiple transfers of new techniques and modern technology and management, and a beginning of industrialization (Hsiao 1996; Chen Hsin-hsiung 2003). The Japanese colonization also introduced new aesthetics, both Japanese and modern, that broadened the taste of the Taiwanese and added to the former appreciation of the Chinese ceramics styles and traditions from Fujian, Jingdezhen or elsewhere.7 Finally it promoted a new focus on the Taiwanese local speci cities and ‘color’ as well as local crafts. Because of its own needs, the Japanese empire chose to include and exoticize Taiwan, and the Japanese administration induced the local production of ceramic tableware with pictures of the Taiwanese

7 On Art Nouveau ceramic tiles in Taiwan, cf. Zheng 2009 in this volume.


landscape, both natural and human, and of Taiwanese-specific products of higher quality. That in return reinforced the identi cation of the Taiwanese with Taiwan, even if as a part of the Japanese Empire (Kikuchi 2007). 8 This folklorist trend was pursued by craft artists after 1945, and was for a time even supported by the KMT government in its efforts to de-japanize and reinforce the Taiwanese local industries and identity, but now as a province of the Chinese nation.

Similarly, after 1945, the role of the state was instrumental in supporting the development of the local private ceramic industry.9 From the 1950s to the 1970s, the combination of state support for exporting industries with the dynamism of leading individuals in the local ceramics companies led to the modernization of the production process with new techniques, new materials and full-automated production, all imported from Japan and the West. Among other achievements, this stimulated the production of two new kinds of decorative ceramics. First, high-quality, high-value, antique imitation wares, or reproductions of Chinese imperial wares, were created by some pioneer ceramic companies based in Yingge. Thanks again to foreign specialists and technologies, as well as low labor costs in Taiwan, they succeeded in developing a new market for Chinese-style art ceramics on the island, in the Chinese world and the Asian region, and then in the West. Secondly, mass production and export of Western ceramic and porcelain dolls was developed under foreign subcontracting, especially in Hsinchu and Miaoli. Both had an impact on the concomitant development of ceramic arts in pushing for higher quality, higher craftsmanship, and higher knowledge in forms, glazes and materials, and in an emphasis on aesthetics and re ned products as valuable standards.

In a way, for a few decades, Taiwan took the place of the classic purveyor of export porcelain ware that China used to occupy since at

8 On Taiwanese literature and culture under the Japanese rule, see also Kleeman 2003.9 On contemporary ceramics industry and art in Taiwan, see Sung 1988; Liu and Wen 1995; TCYCM 2005; Hsieh 2005, 2007.


400

least the tenth century, an outcome that could be seen as a success for the official presentation of Taiwan as the real, free and modern China by the KMT dictatorship. Indeed, it fed Taiwan’s Chinese nationalist pride in its competition with PRC China and the rest of the world. But the main, if not only, reason for that success was the closure of China to international trade and modernization. Once China re-opened to the world and emulated Taiwan with an economic policy based on subcontracting and export, the whole production market of low- and middle-value ceramics and porcelain shifted to China, a movement that was largely orchestrated by Taiwanese companies in search of a better cost structure.

Finally, the importance of the international factor, mainly Japanese and Western input and influence, cannot be underestimated as it is present at all the levels of development of Taiwanese ceramics up to the opening of the Yingge Ceramics Museum. Be it the import of foreign masters, teachers, techniques and technologies, the import of foreign machines and materials, including clay and glazes, the impact of international political events, People’s Republic of China (PRC) development and its relations with Taiwan, the international export market, or the influence of foreign ceramic traditions, schools, styles and trends, they all left a deep imprint on every aspect and phase of Taiwanese ceramics. Furthermore, as we shall see, the internationalization of the Taiwanese ceramics industry and art, and the positioning of Taiwan ceramic arts abroad had a direct impact on the new Taiwanese identity bestowed on the ceramics produced on the island.

From Chinese ceramics in Taiwan to Taiwanese ceramic art: the 1970s-1990s shift

Modern ceramic art, as different from ceramic craft, is a phenomenon that has developed in the West and Japan with the studio ceramic art movement revolving around the gure of the individual artist since the end of the nineteenth century (De Waal 2003). It is not found as such in Chinese ancient imperial ceramics where factories and division of labor between anonymous craftsmen were the rule, with the exception maybe of some


well-known zisha teapot masters in Yixing. Modern ceramic art is also different from contemporary art ceramics like imitation ware. Art ceramics is only made for decorative purposes, produced on a large-scale or at least as several identical items, is based on a division of labor between the potter, the glaze specialist, the painter and even the designer of the pot, and is always conceived as a commercial product. At the opposite pole, ceramic art products are unique pieces, created, designed and made by one person, the artist, and ‘his/her own hands’, and with an artistic purpose and vision that also differentiate him/her from the commercial-oriented craftsman and his/her craft products.

The analysis of the development of modern ceramic art in Taiwan since the 1960s has largely been done in the seminal works by Hsieh Tung-shan. His ndings and conclusions can be quickly summarized in this quote:

“Modern ceramic art is not part of the pottery manufacturing industry: it is an autonomous art. On the other hand, if there had not been a pottery industry, there would not have been modern ceramics as we know it today. The pottery manufacturing industry in Taiwan had already developed into a self sufficient production and marketing system by at least the end of the 1960s, and its technological know-how and supply networks for equipment and raw materials have paved the way for modern ceramics to be developed unfettered from the 1980s on, a time when the country’s economy was taking off. [The rise of a modern middle-class and the] economic boom in Taiwan led to an increased interest in art and cultural activities, and art news found itself more and more disseminated in mass media. This greater interest saw the rise of of cial ceramics competition and exhibitions, and ceramic works of art increasingly caught the attention of art gallery owners. As a result, modern ceramics was [truly] established in Taiwan in the 1980s.” (Hsieh 2007: 11)

What I would like to highlight then is the influence of international contacts and the shift of national identity in Taiwan that is expressed through


402

the rise of Taiwanese modern ceramic art. Up to the mid-1980s, almost nobody referred to Taiwanese ceramics, but rather to Chinese ceramics. There were several reasons for this. First, there is the overwhelming weight of the Chinese ceramics tradition and achievements that few would dare to question, or ignore. Secondly, there is the obvious lack of a Taiwanese tradition of high-quality ceramics before the twentieth century. Only rough utilitarian wares and Japanese-influenced tableware were produced before 1945, and were more often seen by the KMT government authorities and cultural elites as an example of the low development of local culture rather than something that ought to be recognized and valued. Finally, the ROC and mainlander-dominated KMT’s attachment to China and Chinese artistic traditions, their official cultural policies centered on Chinese high culture and the sinicization of Taiwan, as well as their sino-centric education and ideology (Winckler 1994; Chun 1996) contributed to the perception of Taiwan’s ceramics as a Chinese cultural product.

Therefore when ceramic art rst appeared in Taiwan in the 1960s under the endeavor of a few pioneers, most ceramists looked toward China and its ancestral tradition of imperial wares. For ceramic artists like Wu Rhang-nung Sĩ÷, Wang Hsiu-Kung )�0, later Sun Chao �Ý, a return to the Chinese source of the art was the obvious way and the only horizon, if only to emulate it and innovate within the traditional Chinese ceramic culture (Hsieh 2005, 2007; Sung 1988). As a result, Taiwanese ceramics first remained under the constraints of the Chinese tradition, especially the imperial ceramic styles, with a focus on Chinese traditional forms and techniques as well as on glaze variations and re nement. On the other hand, other ceramists educated in Japan or the U.S., like Lin Pao-chia nñ� or Chiu Huan-tang wí´, or in uenced by these countries’ modern ceramics thinking, like Lee Mou-tsung Y�h or Yang Yuan-tai ë�!, tried to go beyond the Chinese tradition to include other aesthetics, new styles and new artistic concepts in their creations. Together they built the basis for the expansion of studio ceramics, and the ceramic art critiques and exhibitions of the 1970s and 1980s, educating most of the new generation of ceramic artists, and through that, laid the foundations of a distinct Taiwanese ceramic

10 At the same time, new interest in tea culture in Taiwan with the modernization of tea houses and a craze for ceramic teapots and tea sets, particularly of Yixing style and for gongfu cha use, led to the rise of a few craftsmen-turned-artists, like Ah Leon ÌÔz, and later generated a whole sub-sector of ceramic art centered on tea sets, all unique and signed artworks. (Wible 1998; Hsieh 2009 in this volume).


art (Hsieh 2005; Wen 2005).10

An illustration of the slow shift toward a Taiwanese identity is given by the names of the newly founded art ceramics companies and ceramics studios. During the 1950s all had names relating directly or indirectly to China, like China Ceramics Co. (�³ÍÁ�2), Chinese Ceramics Co. (�ÛÍÁ�2) or Lungmen (Dragon’s Door) Ceramics Co. (ėyÍÁ�2). In the 1970s, the creation of ChinaArt Ceramics Co. seemed to follow the same pattern. However, its Chinese name (6£ÍĞ�2) uses a specific Japanese word designating China (Shi-na) created at the end of the nineteenth century and not well perceived in China, adopting therefore a Japanese perspective and indicating some distance from Chinese nationalism. This company, the pioneer of art ceramics in Taiwan, was also the rst to use the term ‘ceramic art’ (ÍĞ taoyi) instead of ‘ceramics’ (ÍÁ taoci) in its name. Then with the creation of the Tai Hwa Pottery Co. (ÿÛĉ) the word Tai representing Taiwan appeared together with the word Hwa indicating the Chinese culture.

A significant event held in 1981 can also highlight the still tentative shift toward a Taiwanese identity at the turn of the 1980s. The “Exhibition of Works by Modern Chinese and Japanese Ceramists” (�'À,ÍĞ�R�¡) was organized at the National Museum of History in Taipei as an of cial cultural and international event by the KMT government. It was the first exhibition in Taiwan to show contemporary Japanese and Taiwanese ceramic art. Here the word Chinese refers to the citizens of the Republic of China (R.O.C.) in Taiwan, not PRC China. The public display of Chinese (meaning Taiwanese) works of obviously lesser quality than their Japanese counterparts came as a tremendous shock and a sort of national humiliation to the of cial cultural circles and ceramist community (Sung 1988; Hsieh 2005). It unleashed a string of ardent calls in the media and the art world to restore

Proof-reader

Proof-reader

Proof-reader

Proof-reader

Erratum: evoques

Proof-reader

widely used


404

the pride of the ‘Motherland of Porcelain’ and improve the level of ceramics artwork in the R.O.C. This atmosphere of Chinese nationalism surrounding the ceramic world was sustained for a few more years, especially in and around the national museums, including the National Palace Museum, and the national and specialized press (still much controlled by the authoritarian government at the time), with the goal to rejuvenate the old Chinese tradition into a vibrant and creative modern Chinese art (see Sung Lung-Fei’s concept of ‘innovation from within tradition’, Sung 1988).

Meanwhile, new political, literary and cultural trends started to emerge forcefully and publicly across Taiwanese society, trends that focused on the expression of the local culture and the speci city of Taiwan, and rejecting the arti cial imposition of an of cial Chinese culture without real links with the local people (Harrell and Huang 1994; Wachman 1994; Hsiau 2000; TFAM 2004). Important cultural institutions were also created during the 1980s that reoriented the emphasis of cultural activities more toward the Taiwanese soil and experience: the Council of Cultural Affairs (CCA) in 1981, with the anthropologist Chen Chi-lu (Ìfï) as rst chairman; the Taipei Fine Arts Museum in 1983, and the Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts in Taichung in 1988 (Chang 2007; CCA 2007).

On the basis of these developments, the de nitive shift of the cultural identity of ceramic arts in Taiwan occurred in the 1990s together with the democratization and the taiwanization of the island’s politics and culture, and with the coming of age of a new generation of ceramic artists aiming to re ect their speci c culture and their particular worldview in their works (Wen 2005; Hsieh 2005). As a result, whereas international ceramics exhibitions organized in or by Taiwan still used the names China or R.O.C. in the 1980s, the rst exhibitions claiming a Taiwanese color were organized after 1990, notably the 1992 “Exhibition of Four Decades of Ceramics in Taiwan” at the Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts (see Liu and Wen 1995). The explosion of the number of ceramics exhibitions, growing from 37 during the 1967-1980 period and 550 during the 1980s to 1711 exhibitions in the 1990s, also turned Taiwan into a new center on the international ceramics map (Hsieh 2005). The combined effects of a focus on local culture and identity and of


the internationalization of the profession – more and more partly educated abroad, especially in the U.S. – accelerated the ‘taiwanization’ of the local ceramic art and its transformation into a new ‘national’ art form. This process is illustrated in particular by the creation of the Yingge Ceramics Museum.

The Yingge Ceramics Museum: the state’s new cultural policies and the institutionalization of Taiwanese ceramic art and culture

The institutionalization of ceramic art in Taiwan is a significant example of the improvement of the whole art scene on the island. It is also a case study for the post-1980 political and social change with the state taking a new active role as cultural policy maker together with a re-orientation of the country’s culture and nationalism.

Modernity, state, and culture

One cannot overemphasize the central role of the state since the advent of modern times in the construction of a ‘national’ culture and its institutionalization. In order to build and strengthen the national community it claims to represent, the modern state since the turn of the nineteenth century has taken the leading role in crafting the nation’s economic, educational, and cultural policies (Gellner 1983; Anderson 1983; Thiesse 1999; Beiner 1999). No national culture exists and strives today in the world without the active input of the state and the cultural elites that in uence it.

Taiwan, as a modern country, has followed the model of the first modern states in Europe and North America with the same emphases and results in terms of nation building, culture and revisiting of traditions. Actually, the linking of local crafts, local industry and national politics has been a permanent feature in Taiwan ever since the Japanese administration. Besides supporting the economic development of Taiwan, each succeeding ruling government also tried to use crafts to promote a specific national ideology: Japanese, then Chinese, now Taiwanese (Kikuchi 2007; Lu 2002). In doing that, these governments acted in similar fashion to the Western


406

(and Japanese) states that strongly competed through arts, crafts and new industrial technologies at the International Exhibitions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, if only to build and assess their national difference and speci city, using crafts as symbols of their nation’s advancement, and at the same time rescuing and reinventing these crafts threatened by modernization and industrialization (see Thiesse 2009 in this volume).

However, a significant difference of the ‘nationalizing process’ in recent decades in Taiwan is that, since the 1990s, for the first time in Taiwan’s history, the state authorities are democratically elected and represent the majority of the local people and its culture (Allio 2007). In order to reverse the past neglect and repression of the culture of the Taiwanese people, new programs of cultural development attempted then to bind the national cultural policies with the local socio-cultural communities, together with strategies for strengthening the local identity and economy (Lu 2002; Tchen 2005; Chen Kuo-ning 2006).

Taiwan’s new cultural policies: community building and local development, and the creation of the Yingge Ceramics Museum

The creation and development of the Yingge Ceramics Museum cannot be understood without referring to a combination of factors and actors: the state’s economic and cultural policies, the 1990s downturn of the ceramic industry and national economic slowdown, the rise of Taiwanese consciousness, the ideology of community building, the DPP’s rise to power in the county governments and then in the central government, the growth of the ceramic arts community, its needs, actions and requests of support, and even the diplomatic battle on the international scene between Taiwan and China.

The creation of the Yingge Ceramics Museum is indeed one of the successes of the state policies centered on local development of the 1980s and 1990s, as well as a result of the localization and taiwanization of the culture in the last 25 years. Two kinds of interest and concern actually coalesced around the Yingge museum project. One is the push for the development of local culture and identity spearheaded by the Democratic


Progressive Party (DPP), and supported by the KMT under Lee Teng-hui (1988-2000) and the main officials in charge of the country’s cultural policies at the CCA (CCA 2007). The other one is the policies of the state to counteract the downturn of the Taiwanese ceramic industry in the 1990s after the 1987 economic opening of China to Taiwan led to the rapid transfer of a large part of Taiwan’s ceramic industry to the mainland and the collapse of the low-cost ceramic production and job market on the island (Hsieh 2005; Hong 2007). These policies had two goals: to upgrade the industrial and high-tech ceramics production, and to use ceramic art and tourism to help former craftsmen to stay in activity (Chuang 2004).

The project of building a local exhibition center on Yingge ceramics was rst proposed in 1988 by the Yingge town council under the CCA policy of “One township, one specialty” (�à�¨L). For budgetary reasons, the project was rapidly managed by the Taipei County government and in 1992 turned into a Museum of Ceramics under the DPP county administration of You Ching ("½) with nancial support from the central government’s “Six years national construction program” (“Second phase of County-level cultural centers development”). After the election of the DPP’s Su Tcheng-chang (ġ�k) as Taipei County Chief in 1995, the project received a strong

nancial backing from the county government and, in association with the CCA’s “Integrated Community-Making Program” (u±ęĨĘÉ), became a agship of the county’s cultural and local development (Chiu 2006).

The creation of the Yingge Museum is therefore also a result of the DPP’s local development policies 11 and was at the beginning essentially conceived as a museum of local culture (Wu 2000; Chuang 2006). It embodied first the institutionalization of the local culture at two distinct levels of the local: G&(difang)/Yingge and 7�(bentu)/Taiwan. This is only later that it also orchestrated the institutionalization of Taiwanese ceramic culture and art, especially after the appointment in 1999 of Wu

11 Actually, the two main successes in building new Taiwanese cultural institutions in the 1990s out of local activities and craft industries were in Ilan county and in Yingge, both under the leadership of a DPP local government (for Ilan see Lu 2002).


408

Chine-Fong (SÞ�), a ceramic artist and critic, as director of the Museum preparatory committee and then the first Museum director. The Museum opened in November 2000 as the first county-level specialized museum in Taiwan. However, together with the upgrade in size and budget, and the opening of an international architectural competition for the building’s design (won by a Japanese architect), its mission of preserving and developing Taiwanese ceramic art and culture tends to push the Museum closer to a national-level or even international-level museum. Still, the Yingge Museum is not an Art Museum nor a Museum of Ceramic Art, but a Museum of Ceramics presenting, researching and exhibiting the whole history of ceramics in Taiwan, including the ceramic industry. It also remains a local museum at the service of the local (G&difang) community, supporting its culture, its industry and its identity.

It is indeed difficult to separate totally ceramic art and the ceramics industry in Taiwan. First, because of the art practice itself. Ceramic art is one of the arts depending most on material techniques, technology and machines (wheel, kiln, clay-making machines, glaze production, etc…) through all the different phases of the creation process. Practitioners also often remain in touch with commercially oriented (pottery) craft activity and industrial ceramics design if only as a sideline to increase their income. Secondly, because Taiwan’s cultural policies, under the lead of the CCA, have at least since 1995 constantly mixed the support for ceramic arts with the objective of commercializing Taiwanese ceramic products in the country and abroad, and with the rescue of a ceramics industry in crisis after the ight of factories to China (CCA nd, 2007). Economic and local development goals, not only cultural or artistic ones, were always included and sometimes preeminent in the formulation of concrete policy projects concerning ceramics. In fact, the CCA’s cultural policies of ‘Community-Making’, apparently eminently cultural and nationalistic, often proved to be mainly new local economic development policies drawn in association with other ministries (transportation, infrastructure, development) around some specific local features with a cultural aspect that could be turned into economic and tourism-oriented opportunities as well as used in identity and community

Proof-reader

Proof-reader

Erratum: Taiwanese


building (often at the request of the local residents not always convinced of the value of cultural policies) (Wu 2000; Lu 2002; Chuang 2004).

Local, national and international dimensions of the Yingge Ceramics Museum

The fact that the Museum is a county-level, and not a national museum, and has a special responsibility toward the development of Yingge, created some tensions with the national ceramic arts community, as well as problems of de nition and image abroad (not unique to Yingge, see France’s Sevres National Ceramics Museum and its separated Manufacture), that are reinforced by the classic tensions between ceramic art and ceramic craft and even the de nition of ceramics as an art or as a craft, which is still not solved for all the actors concerned (Greenhald 2002; Fariello and Owen 2004), even at the CCA (as the CCA’s ‘Taiwan Culture Portal’ website attests).12 Indeed, Yingge is rst a town of the ceramics industry and art ceramics much more than of ceramic art. In term of the number of ceramics studios in Taiwan, the greatest concentration is even not in the Taipei area but in the Taichung area (Hong 2007). This creates some obstacles and limits to the of cial goal of turning Yingge into a national and international ceramics culture and tourist city, like Faenza, Vallauris, Kyoto or Jingdezhen (Chuang 2006).

At the same time, the Yingge Ceramics Museum took an active role in validating, supporting, and promoting ceramic art in Taiwan and is central to the social recognition of ceramics as an art in itself, to identifying ceramic art with the island’s culture, and to finally transforming it into a symbol of the new Taiwanese national culture. The Yingge Museum is indeed the meeting point of all past history and development of Taiwanese ceramics. It is the locus of materialization of the ceramic art as a new Taiwanese tradition. Here the local became national through an exclusive focus on the Taiwanese ceramics experience and history, the af rmation of the speci city of Taiwanese ceramics, and the interaction between the local and the

12 See Taiwan Culture Portal, http://www.culture.tw/index.php


410

international.As it is from the start a local project and local museum, and because

its Taiwanese character was undisputable, nowhere and at no time during the creation and development of the Yingge Museum was there any reference to ‘Chinese culture’ or ‘Chinese ceramics’. But in focusing on local identity and institutionalizing it through the action of the state, the Museum immediately also took on a national dimension, reflecting the shift in political identity of the 1990s and 2000s. The development of the Museum as an expression and a symbol of the Taiwanese national ceramics went hand in hand with the building of a Taiwanese national culture under the Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian presidencies. This is clearly expressed by the name of the exhibitions and international competitions organized in Taiwan or abroad by the Museum: all use the name Taiwan, Taiwanese or Taipei, never the name China, R.O.C. or Chinese (Wu 2002; TCYCM 2005).

According to the first Museum director, the Yingge Museum has indeed three characteristics and directions (Chiu 2006: 62-63). First, it demonstrates a local character in presenting the ceramic and cultural specificities of Yingge, with strong cooperation with the local community, and the goal to promote the local tourist industry and cultural construction. Second, it supports a national character with the goals of improving the research on the national ceramics culture and the art creation environment, as well as providing a space for exhibitions, education, research and human resources oriented toward ceramic creation. Third, it favors an international character with the development of an international outlook, the building of the subjective consciousness of the Taiwanese ceramics culture, and the promotion of mutual knowledge and understanding with the international ceramics community. Similarly, the current director has proposed as the Museum goal the slogan “Local development, global setting,” with the objectives of strengthening the development of both the museum and the Yingge community, and of reinforcing the cultural diplomacy mission of ceramics.

The bridges that the Yingge Ceramics Museum and the Taiwanese state cultural policies created between the local and the international scenes

13 On the importance of the international and global factors on the development of national consciousness and identity in Taiwan, see Wang 2000 and Lynch 2002-2003.


since the 1990s is also what give them a national dimension.13 Without the international interaction, the local stays local or regional. Actually, in the international ceramics scene, which the Museum wants to be part of and help the Taiwanese ceramic arts community to join in, the affirmation of the Taiwanese identity comes not only from the wishes of the exhibiting Taiwanese artists, but is also a practical necessity if only to be recognized, noticed, and valued for itself, and not to be confused with China, Chinese ceramics, and the images and history that go with them. As much as it reacts to the international influences and demand, the Yingge Museum therefore also plays a role, not insigni cant, in Taiwanese cultural diplomacy on the international stage.

ConclusionThe contemporary Taiwanese culture is a modern culture that attempts

to express the speci c history, population, experiences, homeland view and worldview of Taiwan. It mixes old traditions and crafts with contemporary and individual creativity. It (re)invents traditions that are modern phenomena. It (re)discovers speci cities that were forgotten or repressed. And it enters in an international dialogue.

This is never so true than in the case of Taiwan’s ceramics culture and art. To summarize, the development of Taiwanese ceramics and the building of ceramics culture in Taiwan are the results of the following main factors:

1. the need for ceramic products among the local population2. the incidents of Taiwanese political and economic history3. the efforts of private entrepreneurs, craftsmen and ceramic artists4. state support for craft, industrial and cultural development5. the foreign in uence and the international market, both in industry

and in art


412

6. Chinese and Taiwanese nationalisms7. an environment of international challenge and competition that requests and stimulates national identi cations and differencesThese factors gave birth in the late twentieth century to a distinctive

Taiwanese ceramic art that did not exist before and is ultimately the re ection of a specific Taiwanese identity (Wen 2005; Hsieh 2005). Interestingly enough, the building of Taiwanese ceramics was not based on the rejection of China and of its tradition. It is rather the assertion of the Taiwanese local and then national identity as distinct from China while recognizing and even claiming input and in uence from the Chinese ceramics tradition as well as the Chinese traditional culture on Taiwanese ceramics (be it in utilitarian ceramics, in imperial style wares, or in tea culture and ceramic tea wares). Meanwhile, it reckons the signi cant in uence of both Japan and the West, and above all af rms the speci city of the Taiwanese land and unique socio-historical experience of its people.

To describe this process, we may use the concept of ‘appropriation’ of an object that becomes an ‘operator of identity’ by the people who appropriated it (Turgeon 1997: 258). In broadening Turgeon’s idea from objects to techniques and art, ceramics in Taiwan could be defined as an ‘identity operator’ precisely because it is an art and a culture appropriated from China, but also in the twentieth century from Japan and from the West. Chinese, Japanese, and finally Western ceramic traditions, techniques, and styles were all appropriated by the Taiwanese and therefore inscribed in the identity of Taiwanese ceramics, which can then become a symbol of the Taiwanese (multi-) cultural identity. Indeed, to paraphrase Turgeon, it is less the object, or the technique, the art, or the tradition itself, than the act of appropriating it that produces the identity-creating process.


ReferencesAllio, Fiorella. 2007. “Démocratisation et processus électoral à Taiwan”, in M. Delmas-

Marty and P.-E. Will, dir., La Chine et la démocratie, Paris, Fayard: 735-802.Anderson, Benedict. 1983.

of Nationalism, London, Verso.Beiner, Ronald, ed. 1999. Theorizing Nationalism, Albany (NY), SUNY Press.Bouchard, Gérard. 2000. Genèse des nations et cultures du Nouveau Monde. Essai

d’histoire comparée, Montréal, Boréal. Chang, Pi-yu. 2004. “From Taiwanisation to De-sinification: Culture Construction in

Taiwan since the 1990s”, China Perspectives, 56 (Nov. - Dec.): 34-44.Chang, Yui-tan ¹ĤĢ. 2007. “Taiwan de wenhua zhengci yu bowuguan fazhan”ÿīt%��ÙĀÎsĖØ¡(“Taiwan Cultural Policy and the Development of Museums”), Yanxi luntan yuekan �Ãċď(/ (Research Forum Monthly), 73 (Jan.): 28-31.

Chang, Ching-yuan ¹½¿. 2008. “Taiwan xiandai taoyi 30 nian”ÿīÀ,ÍĞ30H(“Thirty Years of Contemporary Ceramics in Taiwan”), in Yiqi zaoyi. Taiwan dangdai taoyizhan “Xiangyue Beijing 2008” ĞĎÉĞ. ÿīî,ÍĞ¡��1_ 2008�(Utensil and Innovative Artworks, Contemporary Ceramics in Taiwan. Meet in Beijing, Exhibition Catalogue), Yingge, Taipei County Yingge Ceramics Museum: 16-17.

Chen, Hsin-hsiung Ìçâ. 2003. Taoci Taiwan ÍÁÿī (Taiwan’s Ceramics), Taichung, Chen-Hsing Press.

Chen, Hsin-hsiung Ìçâ. 2004. “Shilun Taiwan taocishi de yiyi, fenqi yu tezhi”ôċÿīÍÁ3tæð��ÕĀ¨Č(“Essay on the Specificity, Periodization and Meaning of the History of Ceramics in Taiwan”), Taipei xianli Yingge taoci bowuguan yanjiu jikan 2003ÿ1Ē>ĦûÍÁÎsĖ�[ã/ 2003 (Research Journal of Taipei County Yingge Ceramics Museum 2003): 1-20.

Chen, Hsin-shang Ìç�. 1996. “Taiwan taoci fazhan gaishu” ÿīÍÁØ¡ê�(“A General View on Ceramics Development in Taiwan”), Taiwan Meishu ÿī�Æ (Journal of Taiwan Museum of Art), 34 (October): 19-31.

Chen, Kuo-Ning. 2006. “National Cultural Strategy and the New Visions of the Local Museums Management”, paper presented at Intercom 2006 New Roles and Missions of Museums Conference, Taipei (November 2-4), http://intercom.museum/Taiwan2006a.html

Chiu, Ching-chüan wø�. 2006. Cong shehuiqiye guandian tantao difangbowuguan hezuo guanxi – Yi “Taipei xianli Yingge taoci bowuguan” wei li, »uè@éĬě¼®G&ÎsĖERğ| +ÿ1Ē>ĦûÍÁÎsĖ�` (Exploring


414

the Cooperative Relationship among Local Museums from the Social Enterprise Perspective – The Case Study of Taipei County Yingge Ceramics Museum), Master Thesis, Nan-Hua University.

Chuang, Hsiu-Ling ÄZ�. 2004. “Yi wenhua wei ming, chongsu ‘Taiwan zhizao’ de xin weili”+%��D��äÿīāÉtçč�(“In the Name of Culture. The New Charm of the Reshaped ‘Made in Taiwan’”), Taipei xianli Yingge taoci bowuguan yanjiu jikan 2003 ÿ1Ē>ĦûÍÁÎsĖ�[ã/ 2003 (Research Journal of Taipei County Yingge Ceramics Museum 2003): 105-127.

Chuang, Hsiu-Ling ÄZ�. 2006. “Taoboguan xingsu Yingge wenhua zhi juti zuoyong”ÍÎĖVäĦû%��bĨR:(“How the Ceramics Museum Shapes Yingge’s Culture”), Taipei xianli Yingge taoci bowuguan yanjiu jikan 2004-2005ÿ1Ē>ĦûÍÁÎsĖ�[ã/ 2004-2005, (Research Journal of Taipei County Yingge Ceramics Museum 2004-2005): 41-72.

Chun, Allen. 1996. “From Nationalism to Nationalizing: Cultural Imagination and State Formation in Postwar Taiwan”, in J. Unger, ed., Chinese Nationalism, Armonk (NY), M.E. Sharpe: 126–147.

Cooper, Emmanuel. 2000. Ten Thousand Years of Pottery, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.

Council of Cultural Affairs (CCA), Executive Yuan M�¯%��Çg�è. nd. “Taiwan pinpai. Jingyan taoci”, 4ī�Ö�ħĪÍÁ(“Taiwan’s Brand. Astonishing Ceramics”), %�èýª, CCA website, http://web.cca.gov.tw/creative/page/main_12.htm

Council of Cultural Affairs (CCA), Executive Yuan M�¯%��Çg�è. 2007. “Wenjianhui lishi ji wenhua zhengci fazhan mailuo”%�èđ3�%��ÙØ¡«Ú(“History of the CCA and Context of the Development of Cultural Policies”), CCA website, http://www.cca.gov.tw/aboutcca/affairs200710_adm.html

De Waal, Edmund. 2003. 20th Century Ceramics, London, Thames and Hudson.Fariello, M. Anna and Owen, Paula, eds. 2004. Objects and Meaning. New Perspectives

on Art and Craft, Lanham (Ma.), Scarecrow Press.Gellner, Ernest. 1983. Nations and Nationalism, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.Greenhald, Paul, ed. 2002. The Persistence of Craft, London, A & C Black Publishers.Harrell, Stevan and Huang, Chün-Chieh, eds. 1994. Cultural Change in Postwar Taiwan,

Boulder (Co), Westview Press.Hobsbawn, Eric and Ranger, Terence, eds. 1983. The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press.Hong, Yi-chen �ă©. 2007. Taiwan xiandai taoyi fazhan baogao4īÀ,ÍĞØ¡ÑT (Research Report on the Development of Taiwan’s Modern Ceramic Art), CEFC


Taipei, ms.Hsiao, Fu-long ēÒá. 1996. “Rizhi shiqi Taiwan taociye shengchan huodong zhi

yanjiu”'q¥ÕÿīÍÁé9Â�°��[(“A Study on the Ceramics Production in Taiwan during the Period of Japanese Rule”), Taiwan Meishu ÿī�Æ (Journal of Taiwan Museum of Art), 34 (October): 32-44.

Hsiau, A-chin. 2000. Contemporary Taiwanese Cultural Nationalism, London, Routledge.

Hsieh, Tung-shan Ěm�. 2005. Taiwan xiandai taoyi fazhanshi ÿīÀ,ÍĞØ¡3 (A History of Modern Taiwanese Ceramics), Taipei, Artist Press.

Hsieh, Tung-shan. 2007. A Concise History of Modern Taiwanese Ceramics, Yingge, Taipei County Yingge Ceramics Museum.

Hsieh, Tung-shan Ěm�. 2009. “Cha yu pinwei – Taiwan dangdai taoci chaju sheji de wenhua rentong” ¬Ā�e�4īî,ÍÁ¬bÇ�t%�ĂC(“Tea and Taste: The Designs of Ceramic Tea Set and Cultural Identity in Contemporary Taiwan”), in F. Muyard, L.K. Chou and S. Dreyer, eds, Objects, Heritage and Cultural Identity, Nantou, Taiwan Historica: 221-237.

Hung, Chien-chao. 1981. Taiwan under the Cheng Family 1662-1683: Sinicization after Dutch Rule, Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgetown University.

Ichijo, Atsuko and Uzelac, Gordana, eds. 2005. When is the Nation? Towards an Understanding of Theories of Nationalism, London, Routledge.

Jorg, Christian J. A. 1982. Porcelain and the Dutch China Trade, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff. [1978]

Kerr, Rose and Wood, Nigel. 2004. Ceramic Technology, in Joseph Needham, ed., Science and Civilisation in China, Vol. 5, Part XII, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Kleeman, Faye Yuan. 2003. Under an Imperial Sun. Japanese Colonial Literature of Taiwan and the South, Honolulu, University of Hawai’i Press.

Kikuchi, Yuko. 2007. “Refracted Colonial Modernity: Vernacularism in the Development of Modern Taiwanese Crafts”, in Y. Kikuchi, ed., Refracted Modernity. Visual Culture and Identity in Colonial Taiwan, Honolulu, University of Hawai’i Press: 217-247.

Liu, Liang-yu and Wen, Shu-tzy ą\Q, ì¾�. 1995. Sishi nian lai Taiwan diqu meishu fazhan yanjiu zhi yi. Taoyi yanjiu baogao zhanlan zhuanji huibian (xiudingban) 5�HaÿīG±�ÆØ¡�[��. ÍĞ�[ÑT¡ģ¶ĔåĊ��r�(Study on Four Decades of Ceramics in Taiwan. The Compilation of the Research and the Catalogue of Exhibition (Revised Edition), Taichung, Taiwan Museum of Art.


416

Lu, Hsin-yi. 2002. The Politics of Locality. Making a Nation of Communities in Taiwan, London, Routledge.

Lynch, Daniel. 2002-2003. “Taiwan’s Democratization and the Rise of Taiwanese Nationalism as Socialization to Global Culture”, (Winter): 557-574.

Muyard, Frank. 2008. “Nation-State Building in Postmodern Times: Comparing the Cases of Quebec and Taiwan”, in Taiwan Studies in Global Perspectives. Proceedings of the 2007 UCSB International Conference on Taiwan Studies, Taiwan Studies Series, no. 4, Center for Taiwan Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara: 107-137.

Rubinstein, Murray, ed. 1999. Taiwan. A New History, Armonk (NY), M.E. Sharpe.Sakura, Makoto P��. 2007. (Lin Mei-jung ed., n� Ċã), Taifeng zaji. Tairi

fengsu yi bai nian, ÿ�ĝ. ÿ'�{�KH, (Miscellaneous Notes on Taiwanese Customs), Taipei, Taiwan Shufang Publishers.

Shepherd, John. 1993. Statecraft and Political Economy on the Taiwan Frontier, 1600–1800, Stanford (Ca), Stanford University Press.

Shu, Wen-chin ¢%×. 2003. “Taiwan shiqian yu yuanzhumin taoyi chutan”ÿī3}Ā�O8ÍĞv¼(“The Exploration of the Prehistoric and the Aboriginal Ceramics in Taiwan”), Taiwan Meishu ÿī�Æ (Journal of Taiwan Museum of Art), 51 (January): 64-79.

Smith, Anthony D. 2001. Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History, Cambridge, Polity.Sung, Lung-Fei Uė�. 1988. “Sishi nian lai taoyi fazhan zhi huigu”5�HaÍĞØ¡�Fĥ(“The Growth of Contemporary Ceramic Art in Taiwan R.O.C.”), in Zhonghua minguo dangdai taocizhan �Û8³î,ÍÁ¡ (Contemporary Ceramics From the Republic of China, Exhibition Catalogue), Taipei, Council for Cultural Planning and Development, Executive Yuan, R.O.C.: 160-185.

Taipei County Yingge Ceramics Museum (TCYCM) ÿ1Ē>ĦûÍÁÎsĖ. 2005. Diancang Taiwan taoci. Taoboguan changshezhan cĜÿīÍÁ�ÍÎĖ·Ç¡ (Collections of Taiwanese Ceramics. Permanent Exhibition of the Ceramics Museum), Yingge, Taipei County Yingge Ceramics Museum.

Taipei Fine Arts Museum (TFAM). 2004. its Own Reality. ��H,ÿī�ÆØ¡, Catalogue of the Exhibition, Taipei, Taipei Fine Arts Museum.

Tchen, Yu-Chiou Ì�Z. 2005. Taiwan wenhua xin siwei ÿī%�ç�þ (New Thoughts on Taiwan’s Culture), Taipei, Council for Cultural Affairs, Executive Yuan.

Thiesse, Anne-Marie. 1999. La Création des identités nationales. Europe, 18ème–20ème siècles, Paris, Seuil.

Thiesse, Anne-Marie. 2009. “From Crafts to Arts: Folk Traditions and National


Modernity”, in F. Muyard, L.K. Chou and S. Dreyer, eds, Objects, Heritage and Cultural Identity, Nantou, Taiwan Historica: 71-80.

Turgeon, Laurier. 1997. “Le chaudron de cuivre. Parcours historique d’un objet culturel”, in L. Turgeon et al., Les espaces de l’identité, Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval: 239-259.

Wachman, Alan. 1994. Taiwan: National identity and Democratization, Armonk (NY), M.E. Sharpe.

Wang, Horng-luen. 2000. “Rethinking the Global and the National: Reflections on National Imaginations in Taiwan”, Theory, Culture & Society, 17, 4: 93-117.

Wang, Horng-luen. 2004. “National Culture and its Discontents: The Politics of Heritage and Language in Taiwan, 1949–2003”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 46, 4 (Oct.): 786-815.

Wen, Sophia S. T. ì¾�. 2005. “Taoyi xianxiang. Yi ge Taiwan guandian”ÍĞÀÜ��4īĬě(“Ceramic Phenomena. A Taiwan Perspective”), in Taoyi, Taiwan, Xiandai ÍĞ�ÿī�î, (Contemporary Ceramics in Taiwan, Exhibition Catalogue), Taichung, National Taiwan Museum of Fine Arts: 78-134.

Wible, David, ed. 1998. Beyond Yixing. The Ceramic of Ah Leon, Taipei, Purple Sands Publishers.

Winckler, Edwin A. 1994. “Cultural Policy in Postwar Taiwan”, in S. Harrell and C.C. Huang, eds, Cultural Change in Postwar Taiwan, Boulder (Co.), Westview Press: 22-46.

Wu, Chine-Fong SÞ�. 2000. “Taoboguan de jiaose yu dingwei”ÍÎĖt]LĀiN(“The Position and Role of the Ceramics Museum”), 1Ē%� Taipei County Cultural Quarterly, 65 (June): 8-16.

Wu, Chine-Fong, dir. 2002. Taiwan et sa terre. ��ÿī�î,ÍĞ, Catalogue de l’exposition de céramique taiwanaise au Centre Culturel et d’Information de Taipei à Paris, Yingge, Taipei County Yingge Ceramics Museum.

Zheng, Chantal. 2009. “Peregrination of “New Art” in the East Asia: The Case of Taiwan Architectural or “Victorian” Tile in the Early Twentieth Century”, in F. Muyard, L.K. Chou and S. Dreyer, eds, Objects, Heritage and Cultural Identity, Nantou, Taiwan Historica: 209-220.


420

About the Contributors

Fiorella Allio (%B\)Anthropologist, Historian; Permanent Research Fellow, French National Center for Scienti c Research (CNRS) / Institute for Research on South-East Asia (IRSEA), Marseilles / French Research Group on Taiwan, France��zI�{�zI; 7TTI@z?)P6=-?)2?)H

Thierry Bonnot Historian, Anthropologist; Permanent Research Fellow, French National Center for Scienti c Research (CNRS) / Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire sur les Enjeux Sociaux (IRIS), Paris, France��zI�{�zI; 7TTI@z?)P?)H

`�= Chen Chao-Nan r z?); ^��z� *SXWCulture and Literature Studies; Associate Professor, Dept. of Chinese Literature, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan

`1� Chen Yi-Fang��zI; CTh�b�z:j��z*a�E|�Anthropologist; Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Social Anthropology, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

/vk Liang-Kai Chou{�zI; ^��z{�r 9?)2XWHistorian; Professor, Graduate Institute of History and Historical Relics, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan

Michel ColardelleHistorian, Archeologist; General Curator, Director of the Museum of European and Mediterranean Civilisations (MuCEM), Marseilles, France{�zI�$�zI; 7TQ�w>r �N 5a9~~;

Serge Dreyer (G�")Cultural Studies; Associate Professor, Dept. of Foreign Languages and Literature, Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan ?); 6N�z�Ts z*SXW

Paul van der GrijpAnthropologist; Professor, Faculty of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Lyon, France��zI; 7T,4�z��zr:jzzPXW

About the Contributors 421

�6� Hsieh Tung-Shan �]�zI; T��X+�zA]*XWArt Historian; Professor, Dept. of Fine Arts, National Taichung University, Taichung, Taiwan

Emmanuel Kasarhérou Anthropologist; Director of the Agency for the Development of Kanak Culture (ADCK) and of the Tjibaou Cultural Centre, Noumea, New Caledonia (French South Paci c)��zI; 7Ti�,!�- Tjibaou ��

(�m Lee Yu-Ying ?); ^��z{�r 9?)2SXWCultural Studies; Associate Professor, Graduate Institute of History and Historical Relics, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan

Frank Muyard (Yt�)Sociologist; Director, Taipei Office, French Centre for Research on Contemporary China (CEFC), Taiwan:jzI; 7T[��T?)��_��

Loeiz S. PabiotAnthropologist; Lecturer, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong��zI; DfMj�z�J

Jean-Luc Penso (O�K)Puppets Master, Director of Théâtre du Petit Miroir, Paris, France�y�0gR�uo�]I

Anne-Marie ThiesseHistorian; Senior Researcher, French National Center for Scienti c Research (CNRS){�zI; 7TTI@z?)PnZ?)H

'Up Wu Mi-Cha{�zI; T�#��z�� z*XWF*��<T��{�a9~~;Historian; Professor and Director, Dept. of Taiwanese Literature, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan; Former Director, National Museum of Taiwan History, Tainan, Taiwan

l�e Yang Yong-Chih r z?); 6N�z� *&X�L�r}8�.VICulture and Literature Studies; Lecturer, Dept. of Chinese, Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan

Chantal ZhengHistorian; Professor, Dept. of Asian Studies, University of Provence (Aix-Marseille), France{�zI; 7Td�3c�z->z*XW

³�ú§Ė.r�ùMĊ=õ¤

9A298RIO98P=�� '#!.-�1�#,&.�$#��*"��/)./,�)��"#*.&.0��,�*(1�/0�,"��&�*$��&��%+/��#,$#��,#0#,:Q1��44�B@��44�C>;3NU9TS��1�11G��671J<5HDF91�� ML�11��9AE?��98RI��98P=��9K��NU

��

nx;

Frank Muyard, Liang-Kai Chou, Serge Dreyer

�Wº, ëÓ-, Thomas Argiro

>�%�^éI��2

French Center for Research on Contemporary China , Taipei Of ce (p³À,�³�[�#41�Ë)College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Feng Chia University(Ê<�Đ�%uèĐ¯)Taiwan Historica (ÿī%ĠĖ)

Taiwan Historica~X654043Al�ö254ò 886-49-2316881http://www.th.gov.tw

¦ÒBdI��2

December, 2009

NT $400

21271761 (Account Name$D�³3Ėÿī%ĠĖ)

³�§joJy6

416oJö209ò1Ĉ 886-2-25180207http://www.govbooks.com.tw�~%�ĆÐ4�ęj

4�6��ö6ò 886-4-22260330http://www.wunanbooks.com.tw

1009803758

978-986-02-1225-9 (üó)

Publication Director ØM��

Editors *Ċ�

Copy Editing µMĊĔ�

Graphic Designed by �ĊÇ��

Sponsors *ĕÏN�

Published by .r�

Printed by Bd�

First Edition vr'Õ�

Price iĄ�

Postal Remittance ßć¸ò�

Bookstores ¡²Å�

GPN�

ISBN�

Objects, Heritage andCultural Identity��

Taiwan Ceramics as a Mirror of Taiwan History

Documents

Transcript of Taiwan Ceramics as a Mirror of Taiwan History