Chinese History - Assignment Example

Chinese History # Question 1 In Ten Thousand Things, Ledderose starts with a modular system referred to as the Chinese Script. According to the author, the latter is an early modular system in which fifty thousand characters are generated from a structural repertoire of approximately two hundred units. On the other end of the spectrum, is the Chinese wooden construction. This is a form of traditional Chinese architecture, characterized by beam and post construction. In this mode of architecture, the weight of a building, and particularly the roof, get support from vertical columns made of wood and not from partitioning walls. Chinese wooden construction features one of the fundamental principles characterizing classical Chinese architecture, that is, the use of JIAN module. The latter bears some form of semblance to modular prefabrication concept used in modern architecture. Carpenters in traditional Chinese architecture used this module as a standard unit for construction of all buildings. The JIAN constituted a rectangular space characterized by repetition of adjoining structural frames. Unlike the Chinese Script modular system, which, although old, can be described as contemporary architecture, Chinese wooden construction is much older. This system has been in existence for multiple millennia (Ledderose 103). A principal similarity, however, lies in the fact that both modular systems make use of repertoire, or repetitive utilization of standard units, in order to develop the whole. Both systems also constitute methods of mass production in the architectural realm, which apply intricate mathematical formulae and codification of measurement systems, to foster efficiency of large scale construction. The distinctive difference is that Chinese Script is a form of architectural decoration, whereas Chinese wooden construction revolves around creation of an actual building. In regard to development or creation, the Chinese Script begins with the basic elements or single strokes. These are the simplest units in a series, and constitute the character “transformation” (hua) and the character “supreme” (tai). These building blocks grow in complexity from the single stroke level, through the intermediate level, to the complex level featuring complete units of constituent characters. These components, also known as modules, make up interchangeable building units, which can be placed together in various combinations, to eventually create written characters or “Chinese Script”, which is still evident in modern Chinese buildings (Ledderose 10). The Chinese script plays a significant role in transforming speech into a graphic system, hence enhancing both recognition of distinctive spoken characters and aesthetic aspects of architecture. The disadvantage of this modular system lies with the arduous task of creating templates or standard units for replication. On the other hand, Chinese wooden construction adopted the post and beam system, while using the JIAN module, in order to create a wood frame that was strong enough to support the roof, upper stories, and even walls. The latter were only utilized as elements of enclosure or as partitions. This structural system, therefore, allowed for free division of interior space based on the intended needs. Other advantages of the Chinese wooden construction included the economic benefit arising from use of readily available hence relatively cheap timber, since China had large forest reserves at the time. In addition, the timber was less cumbersome to transport, compared to stone. Further, timber was strong, and perhaps most importantly, the construction approach supported creation of modules. The latter translate to higher adaptability of wooden structures not only to design functions, but also to varying climatic conditions (Ledderose 103). The disadvantages, however, lay in depletion of available trees and potential damage of structures in the long run, due to decay and inadequacy of wood preservation knowledge. Overall, the principal advantage of using these module systems in architecture can be discerned from their creation of a system of forms, which makes it possible to produce distinctive units within a mass of large dimensions. These mass production methods are also time and cost saving. Ledderose’s notion of modular production outlines useful insights regarding the Chinese culture. For example, the author shows that Chinese artisans, unlike those in Western cultures, did not simply try to reproduce distinctive nature objects, Rather, they found ways to mimic the ability wielded by nature to produce Ledderose explains that Chinese artists, unlike their Western counterparts, did not seek to reproduce individual objects of nature faithfully, but sought instead to mimic nature's ability to produce an unlimited number of objects. Further, the author counters the common misconception that mass production negates creativity. He achieves this by showing that even though Chinese artisans made use of modular systems in mass production, they still managed to accentuate and uphold aesthetic features of structures. Ledderose emphasizes this, when he states that, "to Chinese artists, mimesis was not of paramount importance; rather than making things that looked like creations of nature, they tried to create along the principles of nature” (7). He goes on to mention that, “these principles included prodigious creation of large numbers of organisms, variations, mutations, changes here and there add up over time, eventually resulting in entirely new shapes" (7). The study, therefore, effectively shows that, apparently polar opposites, mimesis and creativity, artistic inspiration, as well as, modular systems executed by skilled craftsmen, are integral elements of Chinese architecture and overall culture. # Question 2 Buddhist ideals and ideas have in many years guided as well as influenced the lives of human beings in China. According to “The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture” by John Kieschnick, when Buddhism entered China, it first influence was to influence their beliefs, Philosophy and rituals. Additionally, Buddhism had extreme influence over the material world in China. This is because, it did not only bring a vast array of small objects, but it also introduced big things in to the Chinese community. These materials things were considered as part of Buddha’s body. For instance, prayer beads were introduced into the Chinese culture which was mot there before. This shows that the Chinese culture that did not have beads was introduced with a new material thing that was to be used for religious purposes. Monastic clothing was also introduced to the Chinese people. These were the kind of clothes that were used during prayers. All these material things brought about new ideologies regarding objects and how they are supposed to be treated. This means that Buddhism brought about new ways of life especially in their cultural practices and ideologies. Buddhism continues to influence the growth of material culture which is being experience even in the present day. Regardless the fact that many teachings in the Buddhism religion does not support material things it was one of the major culture that influenced sophistication and enthusiasm in terms of material belongings. People embraced the objects and material things as a way of expressing their religious sentiments as well as doctrines (Kieschnick 1-2). The Chinese people were influenced in terms of thinking in terms of things and ideology expression. For instance, the people’s beliefs, doctrines and concepts were influenced in a big way. The people adopted a new way of thinking in terms of karma beliefs and doctrine. Buddhism introduced a new way of thinking especially in terms of praying. For instance meditation while sting and making offering before images was also produced. These were some of the thinking ways that people did not have before the arrival of Buddhist (Kieschnick 2). One of the principal precepts of Buddhism is the renunciation of material wealth. This is an aspect that was brought into China following the introduction of Buddhism into the Chinese society (Kieschnik 5). In accordance with this stipulation, the Emperor Wuzong recommended use of wood and clay to create Buddhist images, stating that these would adequately express practitioners’ respect for Buddha. However, this advocacy to express piety associated with Buddhism was not embraced in the society, since many felt that clay and wood would not be sufficient to show respect for deities in Buddhism (Kieschnik 9). As a result, following the emperor’s demise, the orders to use clay and wood for Buddhist images were repealed, and Buddhism adherents continued to use precious metals like iron, copper, silver and gold, as well as, gems to create the images. Material opulence, as opposed to simplicity, is therefore predominant in Chinese Buddhism. The second most important thing characteristic of early Buddhism in China was the simplicity expected of monks. The latter were expected to avoid all material things that conveyed the message of being opulent. Expression of austerity meant wearing plain clothes, not possessing personal wealth, and living in secluded or simple places stripped of all indicators of richness. Nonetheless, records of Chinese Buddhism show that monks amassed wealth even when living in monasteries, and continued to adorn these places with precious metals and other symbols of wealth. This shows that the precepts of austerity, and avoidance of opulence or material wealth, although embedded in original Buddhist teachings were not strictly observed. Instead, Chinese Buddhist texts describe architecture and art with opulence vocabulary, and not restraint or austerity terms. The Buddhist monks played an important the history of material culture in China. This is because of the fact that they were always ready to lament over the degeneracy of the monastic order in China. In ancient India, the monks were also materialistic because many of the objects discussed were brought by the monks. However, as indicated, monks are only supposed to seek for the truth and not material goods. # Question 3 The Ming era lasted from 1368 to 1644, and it was indeed developing time for the Chinese civilization. The Literature s well as painting thrived in this period and was able to communicate a lot of things about Ming, its culture, things and the past. In the reprints of antiquarian texts about luxury goods in China tells us a lot about their engagement with luxury culture materials. Additionally, the writings also communicate of the principal areas that operated during this time and period. It is imperative to note that the main aspects in this period and time was based on expansion and in trading and manufacture of luxury goods that were accepted in different parts of the world (Clunas 169-170). The texts also discuss on the different aspects of luxury goods and culture of ‘Superfluous things’ and how it led to aristocratic societies and urban patrician elites. The Ming dynasty had accepted and adapted the European culture and appreciated luxury goods. This is because they focused mainly on constant creation of goods and products that will fit the international market. “The growth of materialism in early modern Europe is evidenced by Europeans increasing preoccupation with objects”. Just like Europe, China had adopted the culture of appreciating luxurious goods and economic development. The creation of new modes of luxury goods as well as their circulation in the world showed that culture was taken like a commodity. The literature further depicts that things and ideas were given some degree of attention to attain some level of luxury consumption. This is shows by a wide range of writers in that there was a decline in the state control over the sumptuary. Ming’s ideologies were therefore based on the positive benefit of adopting luxury things. Luxury consumption was associated with development in cultural, economic and social growth and this has influenced the Chinese national identity up to today. Further, writings about Chine and the Ming dynasty shows that the accepted categorization of people’ status from the kind of luxury goods they owned. The Ming dynasty was almost the same with the European contemporary culture. China has been one of the countries in the world that has shows a lot of growth in terms of development as well as appreciation of luxury goods. The degree of consumption of luxury goods also shows patterns of social aspects of the West. The Chinese Ming elites presented a huge fraction of population with behaviors presented by the West especially when dealing with consumption of luxury goods (Clunas 173). The Ming dynasty introduced class in China and played a huge role in the social aspect of life. This is because artisans and luxury products has deep roots in the traditional Chinese economy. In this era, the wealthy people were classified in terms of luxury goods or necessities of survival (140). Luxury goods depicted the standards of people in the region especially in terms of actual consumption, behaviour and growth in commercial prosperity. This is because the wealthier people in the empire were always included in the ruling elite. This showed that if an individual was wealthy and owned luxury goods, they had to have a better life in the society. Therefore, class became part of the dynasty especially in external supervision of life (143). Class can be argued in terms of people’s spending and job creation. Working people in the Ming dynasty were referred to as the middle class. They could be referred to as a better class according to the luxury goods they owned. Artisans in China were referred to as one of the most affluent classes in the region. This is because they usually made articles of no use and gather stores containing luxury goods and accumulate riches. The farmers were exploited by the affluent class. The middle class was exploited in terms of intellect and this was one of the big differences between the exploited classes. In many cases, there was tension in the classes because people were usually exploited to make the rich people richer in their expanse. Class made people have different ways of thinking. Management was done by the middle class compared to the farmers and other low class people. The types of commodities owned by the high class people also had a huge difference in terms of social inappropriateness. The high class attempted to control the consumption of luxury goods in the region which was extremely unacceptable. Everybody in China needed to feel that they appreciated their culture and not judged by the types of commodity they owned (Clunas 147). Read More