Review of John La Plante's Asian Art

★★★★★ A small book packed with insights, May 29, 2018

I read the 1968 (first) edition. This little book attracts my attention with a bold statement in the preface, "Korea, Burma, Thailand, ... are not included [in this book], since they were, for the most part, cultural recipients, rather than disseminators, of fundamental changes in Asian thought and art." I want to see what other interesting words this Stanford-trained Dr. La Plante has to say. Indeed, my pencil marks and underlines are everywhere in the book. The following are a selection (some with my comments):

• "It [Buddhism] is the only common meeting ground of Asian cultures." (p3)
• "American Indians, some aspects of whose cultures bear the strongest surviving similarity to those of Shang [of China c.1600-1046 BC]" (p19) It's a recurring theme in Chinese discussion forums that claims some Shang people migrated to the Americas, and certain historians e.g. "Betty Meggers of the Smithsonian Institution argued that the Olmec civilization originated due to Shang Chinese influences around 1200 BC" (Wikipedia).
• "[During the Han Dynasty, 206 BC-AD 220] The export of silk along the Silk Route to the Middle East and thence to Rome was a primary source of wealth for the growing merchant classes." (p26) I doubt that's true. Most merchants at the time should be earning their living by local trade only.
• "[In Japan] When a tree was felled its Kami [spirit] must be given a chance to escape... The tree was allowed to rest a certain length of time before it was sawed into timber... It is this reverence for nature which has been the foundation stone of what came to be called Shinto" (p36) Interesting! A pre-scientific belief coincides with science.
• "the White Huns invaded in the early sixth century and stamped out Buddhism from this region [India] forever" (p56) I think Buddhism still existed until the Turkish Muslim conquest in the 12th century.
• "Hsiung-nu (Huns)" (p57). Identifying Huns as Hsiung-nu is no longer a consensus among the majority of historians. "Indian emissaries probably arrived at the Ch'in court in 217 B.C." (p57) Not sure what the original Chinese source said about this extraordinary event.
• "The Chinese, however, despising the Ch'in tyranny, have preferred to call themselves the men of Han." (p58) Is that so?
• "Mahayana doctrine continued to evolve until by the end of the [Gupta] Dynasty it was scarcely distinguishable from Hinduism." (p75)
• "Now [during the Sung Dynasty] China was tired... the Neo-Confucianists should try to re-establish the harmonious political and social patterns... [it is] a synthesis of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Thus the practical (Confucianist), romantic (Taoist), and metaphysical (Buddhist) aspects were subtly and unintentionally fused" (p112) followed by the author's comment on how a landscape painting exemplifies these three ideologies.
• "Perhaps the greatest of all was the painter Fan K'uan (ca. 990-1030)... the finest single landscape..." (p113) An odd praise. Fan Kuan is quite an unknown figure in pre-1900 records of Chinese painting, and only gained some reputation in the past 50 or 70 years.
• "Fan K'uan was a Taoist,... this painting is fundamentally Confucianist in concept. Each part is logically related to the other" (p114) An interesting observation, but possibly an over-interpretation.
• "they could not convey Ch'an insights by means of words and found painting to be the most direct expression" (p116) Ch'an or Zen limits or forbids usage of words, leaving imagery as a proper way of expression. This reminds me of Kenneth Clark's remark about lack of "profound thought" by the Renaissance Italians and so great paintings flourished. (see his Civilisation)
• Speaking about Liang K'ai, ca. 1170-ca. 1245, a "Ch'an painter", the originator of "Xie Yi" style cutting the details down to the minimum, "With him it is still virtue, not virtuosity." (p118) An witty but accurate remark!
• "One of the greatest Ch'an paintings ever produced has as its subject Six Persimmons. It was painted by Mu Ch'i" (p118) Mu Ch'i or Muqi Fachang is little known in the history of art in China, but had great influence on Japanese art.
• "the Japanese sculptures [of the Early Heian period] were left unpainted so as not to impair their fragrance [the natural aroma of the wood]." (p127)
• Chapter 13 "The Moslem Conquest of India: The Mogul Dynasty (16-18 Century)". All human faces are sideways for some reason. I wish the author had given an explanation.
• "[Genghis Khan and his army in China] destroying the land behind him by sowing salt in the fields" (p140) Really? "It is estimated that 50,000,000 Chinese were murdered, almost half the total population." (p140) This is likely a miscount. According to Destruction under the Mongol Empire, the reduction from the 120-million population to 60 million after the Mongol invasion includes a significant amount of under-reporting in the latter census.
• "There is less interest in Nature than in scenery [in Huang Kung-wang's paintings]; less in specifics than in generalities of natural form." (p141) Nature=specifics vs. scenery=generalities?

Overall, except for poor printing quality of the pictures, this is an excellent book on Asian art. According to Memorial Resolution: John La Plante on stanford.edu, Dr. John La Plante is a painter himself, a fact that particularly appeals to me as I believe the historian of certain subjects such as art and philosophy must be well versed in the subject to say anything other than any layman can also say. The author must be a humble character judged by his late promotion to professorship and by Stanford's acknowledgement that "His combination of uncommon talents fell outside the institution's evaluation system". In my view, he deserves as much fame as Kenneth Clark if given a chance to talk on BBC or its US equivalent.

To my CNNotes Page