Hong Kong, Mar 14, 2025, on-line, https://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk
In this lecture, Pierson traced the development of blue ceramics in China. She started off with the first known appearances of blue pigment under preceding centuries, then Talked about Tang and ended up by adding a bit about the following dynasty, Song.
Blue and white ceramic can be traced back to Tang dynasty (7-9th century AD), but even slightly earlier. Undamaged pieces are very rare to find today. The colour became popular by mass production and export from China to the world in latter centuries.
The origin of colours: Copper (metal/mineral), barium copper silicates (han blue, synthetic), indigo (plant dye), lapis lazuli/azurite (rock), cobalt (metal/mineral).
First blue product were glass beads (eye design). Then colouring of terracotta sculptures (cold painting on top of fired ceramics) and mural paintings. The use of synthetic blue disappears after Han period.
Blue reappears only in 4th century in a Buddhist settings, but with a different material base (lapis lazuli). Blue white fabrics existed since a long time too, likely indigo dyed.
Cobalt blue and lead glaze starts to be used in Tang ceramics/ roof tiles and ceramic sculptures. Tang artisans adding cobalt to already existing ceramic decoration techniques.
Tang Sancai – three colour ceramics (not always three colour), splash technique (lead glaze, low fired ceramics). Green and white (copper) precedes blue and white.
The legacy of Tang design lives on in the splash technique more than in the colour scale used.
Audience question: Tang dynasty – more influenced by nomadic culture, colourful style. Song dynasty – more interest in classical China, more “elegant”. Pierson: little bit biased interpretation of Song art, cannot be said so simply.
Audience question: How about blue ceramics outside of China? Was there an “influence” between China and non-Chinese blue ceramics? There is no proof, but they emerged at a similar time at different locations. Strictly speaking, the Chinese one were first, but that cannot be considered as a proof of causality.
Overall, some interesting bits and pieces, but I was a expecting a trajectory that would trace the cobalt blue designs a bit further in time or in depth. Pierson also barely expanded on the patterns and motives used beyond a mere material causality (“patterns are crude because the glaze was liquid”). Was the selection of colours or shapes associated with a certain meaning or aesthetic? It was a bit shocking to hear Pierson admit to know little about painting, as she is “just” a professor of ceramics. Especially in the light of later developments when the proto-smudges and splashes develop into more elaborate paintings on a ceramic material support. Also in the light of Chinese calligraphy and painting techniques that may well serve as an explanation for a lot of the splash technique once it appears on surfaces on plates and vessels, where, in contrast to polychrome sculptures, it does not serve any practical purpose except a purely aesthetic one.
