In the discrimination of old Chinese paintings, critics used to depend on some fixed rules that are rather questionable. Firstly, they stick to the peculiarity of a certain painter at a certain period of his life and use it as a general indication to identify all his works. It is true that every painter has his peculiar way of painting and it is a convenient way to identify him through this method. But the work of an artist can be classified into early, mature and later products and he is not unchanging like a mechanic or an artisan. To rely on one of his peculiarities often leads to misjudgment, and many a genuine product has been so overlooked.
Secondly, critics nearly all depend on identification of an artist through the artist's signature and his seal or on the kind of materials on which the picture was drawn, These are, however, only auxiliary means of identification. An artist often uses several signatures, and even the same ones are not necessarily all alike or all comparable with each other like a signature on a check. One has to catch the flourish and spirit of his brush and should not depend on the appearance or form of the signature alone.
Some critics pay special attention to the seals. This is also undependable, not only because one artist may have many seals and it is difficult to recognize them all but also because seals are not impossible to forge and, even when they are genuine, there is no way to prove that they have been stamped by or with the knowledge of the author. While it may be easy to detect a fake painting on which a forged seal has been stamped, it is equally possible that a simulated work may bear a genuine seal or a true work, for some reason or other, may bear a forged seal.
To put undue emphasis on the materials on which the artist drew his picture is also precarious. Generally speaking, Chinese artists mostly use paper or silk and it may be a good way to detect the age of the painting or identify the artist by verifying the quality or make of the materials. But since imperial and aristocratic artists often used materials quite different from those used by the common artists, then how can the age of the painting or the identity of the artist be established by merely examining the materials? If a Sung picture is drawn on the paper or silk manufactured in the Ching Dynasty, it is of course easy to see the fraud, but if an imitator draws a picture by using the paper or silk manufactured in a previous age, then the critic can be easily deceived. Besides, the make of paper or silk differs only slightly between, say a hundred years, during which two or three generations of artists may have lived out their lives already. So it is not always infallible to identify a picture through this method.
The third way on which a critic often bases his judgment is by checking a picture with what is recorded in the art books or catalogues. These books serve their useful purposes because they provide descriptions of famous paintings. By reading them one can learn the legend of particular pictures as well as the appraisal of their merits or demerits by contemporary critics, all of which are good basic knowledge. But to rely over-much on these books is undesirable because the style and qualifications of the writers being uneven, the value of some books are therefore often open to question. Some books may emphasize only a certain point in a picture and readers may mistake this highlight as representative of the whole picture. Some authors might be the owners of the pictures so that they could take their time to examine and write about them carefully, while others might have to write about the picture which they had seen by a casual glance only, or might have to recollect their impressions afterwards in their writings. Besides, the abilities of the writers were not uniform and some of them liked to sublimate or show off their own writing ability by describing fakes as if they had been genuine. Of the latter kind, there are many concrete samples in existence, one of which is "Pao Wei Lu" by Chang Tai-chia of the Ming Dynasty (明張泰階寶繪錄) in which the author described more than 100 fake pictures in this manner.
Modern critics of Chinese paintings should not blindly follow the steps of the connoisseurs of former times. We should use new techniques to present the essence of Chinese art to the world, and we should study this essence to rejuvenate and modernize this Chinese art. Consequently, we should not only pay attention to old famous paintings as mentioned and described in the art books but should also try to explore or discover unknown artists and their works. To reach these objectives, the old methods of criticism are apparently not sufficient, especially in the case of discovering unknown artists; we can use these old methods only for purposes of reference.
It is my view that in order to become a competent critic of Chinese paintings, an aspirant should concentrate on the following points. Firstly, he must familiarize himself not only with the individual work of a famous artist of a particular age, but also with the general trend and style of the art world during that age. In every age there always existed a general trend and style, from the influence of which no artist could absolutely isolate himself. The critic should learn to locate this common characteristic in which the artists of that age all unconsciously revealed themselves.
Supposing that a critic has learned the difference between the characteristics of Tang and Sung artists and has followed it up by studying the gradual change to the Ming and Ching dynasties, he will have mastered a clear impression of the evolutionary outline of old Chinese paintings. With this basic knowledge, he will be able to identify any unknown picture with the age in which it was painted, and, by further research, he may thereby also identify the artist. If he sees a signed picture that differs materially from the general characteristic of the artist's time, he should be alerted to find out the cause or establish the reality of the picture before pronouncing his judgment.
It may seem to the readers that these suggestions of mine are all vague and intangible. But once a student has seen and carefully studied many master works, he will find that to identify a picture is not unlike identifying a piece of wood after knowing the characteristics of the tree. The important thing to remember is that the difference between the characteristics of different ages are never very clear-cut and it will defeat one's own purpose if one tries to identify the age of a picture mechanically.
Secondly, the student must try to remember the special technique of every famous artist. Although the artist, during his own lifetime, gradually improves in finesse and skill as he advances in age, gains more experience, or changes his environment, there is always a technique typical of him alone which runs through all his works. If the student studies the works of an artist carefully and diligently enough, he will soon learn to grasp this speciality; and, if he can further learn to differentiate the various stages of the artist's progress, his discriminating power, when called upon to identify the artist's work, will become infallible. The student must also supplement his knowledge of the artist by reading about and researching into his life, his associates and tutors, his homeland and other environments, all of which often leave deep influences on his work.
So we see that the great secret of learning to be a critic of Chinese paintings is to see and systematically study as many famous paintings as possible. In the old days it was not an easy matter for art students to obtain a view of a large collection of famous paintings, since those treasures were carefully hidden away in palaces or private mansions. It was a rare treat for them to have a chance of occasionally seeing one or two famous works. Consequently, it was out of question for a student of those days to study many paintings. This is now no longer the case. In Taiwan, for instance, every student can go to the art museums to see these famous paintings as often and as long as they like, and they have the further advantage of seeing them properly classified and annotated. It is therefore no longer difficult for anyone who aspires to become a critic of old paintings to acquire an education in this respect.
From the viewpoint of pure art, a student should realize that to be able to discriminate the genuine from the imitations is quite different from appreciating a good piece of work, because not all genuine ones are good just as not all imitations are poor. Of course a master usually does not produce very poor works, but the standard of his products is often not uniform, depending on his mood or his age. On the other hand, some imitations are excellent. This occurs mostly when a good artist intentionally makes an imitation, or when the legend on a master's work has been transformed to pass as the work of some earlier master. Many excellent works by the Yuan or Ming artists have been so transformed to become Sung paintings. These masterpieces have been called "excellent fakes" by our great art critic Mi Fei (米芾) in his "History of Paintings." (畫史)
In conclusion, identification of old Chinese paintings should be based on a thorough knowledge of the artists and their works, supplemented by other tests such as verifying the artist's signatures, seals or the materials on which he painted. At the same time, the critic must not only be well read and learned, but also have an objective and careful mind. All these can be acquired only through long vigilant study and patient research. Then, and then only, can a critic become so expert as to be able to pronounce his judgment almost instantaneously on seeing a picture, to the great wonderment and admiration of the uninitiated.
***Editor's Note: This is a free translation of an article written in Chinese by Mr. Chuang Seng (莊申) in the supplement of the Central Daily News dated February 4, 1958.