Reversing cultural identity in the West: the 1935-1936 International Exhibition of Chinese Art in London: in philosophical perspectiveAbstract:
The 1935-1936 International Exhibition of Chinese Art in London played a pivotal role in reshaping Western perceptions of Chinese cultural identity. This study examines the philosophical and curatorial frameworks underpinning the exhibition, analyzing how the transition from “Japonisme” to a distinctly “Chinese Style” was strategically curated to challenge entrenched Western stereotypes. Through a multidisciplinary approach integrating cultural philosophy, art history and museum studies, the study employs theoretical frameworks from Homi Bhabha’s cultural hybridity, Pierre Bourdieu’s cultural capital and Edward Said’s orientalism to interrogate the power dynamics in the representation of Chinese art. The findings demonstrate how curatorial decisions, deeply rooted in Confucian and Taoist aesthetics, functioned as both artistic and diplomatic tools, reinforcing China’s cultural sovereignty while influencing Western museological practices. This paper contributes to ongoing discourses in cultural diplomacy, transnational art history and the global circulation of aesthetics.
Keywords:
Chinese Art; London 1935-1936; Shanghai Preview; Cultural Identity; Cultural Philosophy
Resumo:
A Exposição Internacional de Arte Chinesa de 1935-1936, em Londres, desempenhou um papel fundamental na reformulação das percepções ocidentais da identidade cultural chinesa. Este estudo examina os quadros filosóficos e curatoriais que fundamentaram a exposição, analisando como a transição de “Japonismo” para um estilo claramente “chinês” foi estrategicamente foi feita com curadoria para desafiar estereótipos ocidentais fortalecidos. Através de uma abordagem multidisciplinar que integra a filosofia cultural, a história da arte e os estudos de museu, o texto emprega quadros teóricos da hibridez cultural de Homi Bhabha, do capital cultural de Pierre Bourdieu e do orientalismo de Edward Said para interrogar a dinâmica do poder na representação da arte chinesa. Os achados demonstram como as decisões curatoriais, profundamente radicadas na estética confuciana e taoísta, funcionaram como ferramentas artísticas e diplomáticas, reforçando a soberania cultural da China, enquanto influenciaram as práticas museológicas ocidentais. Este trabalho contribui para discursos em curso na diplomacia cultural, história de arte transnacional e circulação global da estética.
Palavras-chave:
Arte Chinesa; Londres 1935-1936; Prévia de Xangai; Identidade cultural; Filosofia Cultural
INTRODUCTION
The 1935-1936 International Exhibition of Chinese Art in London (commonly referred to as “the Great Exhibition”) was a cultural milestone for modern China. Despite its brief duration, it has garnered significant scholarly attention. Its two phases - the Shanghai Preview and the London exhibition - were unified under a single curatorial system that reshaped Western perceptions of Eastern art and laid the groundwork for an emerging Oriental cultural identity through dynamic cultural exchange.
During the early 20th century, China was undergoing significant transformations. The presence of foreign powers in Chinese territories and the impact of Western ideas were pressuring China to both resist cultural erosion and assert its own cultural values. Prior to the exhibition, Western audiences had largely been exposed to Eastern art through the lens of “Japonisme”, an aesthetic framework that misrepresented Asia’s vast cultural diversity by reducing it to Japanese forms. In this context, curators of the Great Exhibition undertook the challenge of reinterpreting Chinese art by drawing upon deep-rooted cultural philosophies to forge a new narrative. According to John Turner, people develop an identity through their membership in a particular social group, and drawing comparisons between one’s “in-group” and “out-group” helps one’s self-identification by improving cultural assessment (Turner, 1987). Meanwhile, in the era of globalization, the issue of cultural identity is particularly complex and is often sustained through shared historical perspectives and values. Eric Hobsbawm’s theory of the “invention of traditions” points to the artificial construction that shapes national cultural identities, which is the key to the discussion of case study of this paper (Hobsbawm, 1983). Through selective display, politicized utilization and ritualized presentation, the exhibition not only “invented” a particular image of traditional Chinese culture, but also employed it for the construction of national identity and international political maneuvering.
The Exhibition played a significant role in shaping the Western perception of Oriental cultural identity and contributed to a shift in how Chinese culture was presented on an international stage. For the first time, Chinese art was curated with a focus on showcasing China’s rich historical continuity and cultural sophistication, rather than exoticism or perceived “otherness”. The Chinese art pieces, presented in this exhibition, spanned multiple historical periods and artistic categories, reflecting the balance of time and space in Chinese culture. This diversity and unity in the display align with the Confucian concept of zhongyong (the Doctrine of the Mean), which seeks overall harmony. The philosophy of zhongyong is characterized by its emphasis on balance, moderation and the harmonious integration of opposites. In the context of the exhibition, these principles were uniquely applied to curatorial practices in several ways. First, by emphasizing the uniqueness and continuity of Chinese art, curators drew on the call of zhongyong for equilibrium between tradition and innovation. This meant that, while historical artifacts were displayed to honor their heritage and cultural significance, contemporary interpretative elements were also integrated-thus mediating the tension between the venerable past and a vibrant and modern identity.
Overall, this exhibition critically challenged Western conceptions of orientalism by presenting Chinese culture as a dynamic and multifaceted tradition, integral to the broader narrative of global cultural heritage.
1 Theoretical of conceptual framework - how identity is shaped: philosophical reflections and review of the great exhibition
The Sixty Years of Display is an early historical text reviewing the Great Exhibition, in which the author reviews the display work and briefly discusses the main process of the 60 years since the establishment of the hospital, discusses the Exhibition, and argues that it is the first exhibition of the National Palace Museum to go abroad. The Exhibition has been quite successful, shown Chinese civilization over thousands of years to the Western society for the first time on a large scale. To Western society, for the first time, large-scale display of China’s civilization for thousands of years, foreign publicity of the Chinese nation’s long history and brilliant cultural achievements greatly enhanced the people’s national self-esteem (Department of Display, 1985). While paying attention to these events, scholars have also begun to review the history of modern Chinese exhibitions, art and museums. Cultural identities are generated at the junction of diverse cultures, as argued by Homi K. Bhabha. Cultural hybridity illuminates how many cultural identities are understood in exhibitions, what could make the understanding of Chinese cultural identity clearer (Bhabha, 1994).
Moreover, not only with the publication of more relevant historical materials improved, but the research on this event has also gradually done. The study of the event has been gradually refined. For example, the article “Only Occupied Land, Not Occupied Culture: The Exhibition of National Treasures in Relocation” discusses the origins, organizers, exhibition and repatriation of national treasures, and includes many photographs, diaries and news reports about the exhibition at the time (Anonymous, 2005). The article “National Disasters and Exhibition of National Treasures - An Intimate Experience of the 1935 London Art Exhibition” is based on Na Zhiliang’s and Zhuang Yan’s autobiographies , who experienced the exhibition at that time, and it is a precious on-site memoir (Na; Zhuang, 2007). The latest global perspectives on cultural exhibitions and contemporary comparative studies have also emerged. Seng discussed the term and the phenomenon of museums, exhibitions and cultural heritage, composing the background music to a recent cultural evolution labelled glocalization (Seng, 2019). Shen discussed the cultural exchanges between China and the Western regions, to the exchanges in modern times, featuring large time span and interdisciplinarity (Shen, 2024).
In terms of the significance of cultural identity, produced by the Great Exhibition, Lin Boxin argues that the exhibition transformed national treasures from memories of disaster into imperial imaginaries, giving them a nominal function of “promoting Chinese culture” and enabling them to produce imaginaries on a spiritual and moral level (Lin, 2002). Guo Zijie focuses on the art exhibition and international relations, arguing that the exhibition gave a great shock to China’s rival, Japan, and led to a series of marvelous exchanges between the national government and the United States, which provoked a “re-conceptualization” of Chinese art in the Western society. It also led to the return of the mainstream of Oriental culture from Japan to China (Guo, 2013). Xu Na analyzed the exhibitions from the perspective of art and literature policy, arguing that art exhibitions were influenced by newspaper publishing, the construction of cultural and museum systems, and cultural preservation policies, which not only allowed China to take advantage of the opportunity to participate in exhibitions to learn about Western exhibition mechanisms, but also made the spirit of Chinese art widely celebrated through art exhibitions and built up cultural self-confidence. The Great Exhibition marked a turning point in the way Western researchers studied Chinese culture and art, solidifying the dominance of Palace Museum, in the field of traditional Chinese art, and earning it the title of the most representative museum of ancient art (The Palace Museum, 2016). Zhang Lu discusses how the Chinese Nationalists government used the exhibition, as a diplomatic tool, to assert cultural sovereignty and navigate the challenge of cultural heritage in international contexts (Zhang, 2023). Scaglia investigates how the exhibition embodied a blend of artistic and political narratives, emphasizing the role of international aesthetics in fostering cross-cultural understanding and political engagement during a period marked by global instability (Scaglia, 2018).
2 Points of cultural identity: differences and similarities in the curators’ cultural identity
In the Great Exhibition, the Sino-British Common Council (hereinafter referred to as the Council) is the responsible organization for the exhibition, presiding over major affairs related to the exhibition. In the Shanghai Preview, the Preparatory Committee of the Great Exhibition is the responsible organization for the Great Exhibition. Specifically, there is a natural difference in cultural identity between the two, thus presenting different cultural interests in the two exhibitions in the East and the West.
The Council was established on November 1, 1934. It composed of the Earl of Lytton, a member of the British government, Kuo Taiqi, the Ambassador of the Republic of China to the United Kingdom, Sir Williams Llewellyn, the President of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts, as its Chairman, and Sir Percival David, the renowned art collector, as its Director. In addition, the network gathered the most important European art history research field experts as directors. The names are listed as Leign Ashton, the curator of the Victoria Albert Museum , Laurence Binyon, the curator of East Asian art of the British Museum, Robert Hobson, the director of the department of ceramics and ethnography of the National Museum , George Yumo, the president of the Oriental Ceramics Society , and George Eumorfopoulos, the president of the Oriental Ceramics Society. The Chinese representatives were Zheng Tianxi, Li Siguang and Wang Jingchun, the representative of the Republic of China in Britain. In addition, the French Sinologist, Mr. Bersih, was also invited to join the board of directors (Wu, 2003). However, its curatorial decisions were inevitably shaped by British perspectives and interests, which sought to present Chinese art in a way that aligned with Western aesthetic and intellectual traditions. This resulted in a narrative that emphasized the universality of Chinese art while subtly reinforcing Western paradigms of Oriental culture.
The establishment of the British Council was responsible for the preparation of the exhibition. China organized the Preparatory Committee for the Exhibition (hereinafter referred to as the Preparatory Committee) in 1934. It well organized a special committee responsible for the selection of exhibits, a custodian committee responsible for the custody of them and the Office of the Shanghai Preview Committee responsible for the preparations for the preview exhibition. This system was politically selective because it had to take into account the various rules of engagement and cultural considerations of domestic exhibitions, but the distribution of professional backgrounds appeared to be broader. Wang Shijie, as Minister of Education, was the chairman of the committee. Of the six ex-officio members, five were officials in charge of the Ministries of the Interior, Finance, and Foreign Affairs Ma Heng was the director of the National Palace Museum. The system of division of duties of the Custodianship Committee and the Specialized Committee was more refined and different from the British one, which was expert in purely theoretical studies of art history. They were deeply influenced by traditional Chinese philosophical thought. They emphasized the historical depth, moral values and educational significance of culture, making the exhibition a tool to showcase Chinese civilization. At the same time, they focused on the harmony between art and nature, with the layout and themes of exhibition conveying the natural philosophy inherent in Chinese art. In their decisions, they sought to avoid intensifying cultural conflicts with the West, opting, instead, to highlight the universal values of Chinese culture, embodying the spirit of “harmony without uniformity”.
The organizer is the soul of the museum. The helmsman of the museum has an absolute influence on the way the museum operates. The organizer’s background significantly shapes the direction of museum, evident in its initial exhibition, innovative displays and other distinctive features. Similarly, the participants’ backgrounds influence the various directions of exhibition and how it is presented. Therefore, analyzing the participants is essential for understanding the overall character and approach of exhibition.
The analysis of the Sino-British Council showed that art historians and museum experts dominated the exhibition, and there was no lack of sinologists and scholars familiar with Chinese art. In the process of the exhibition, many of these scholars delivered lectures on Chinese art. The themes were included “Chinese Bronzes”, “Chinese Painting Themes and Their Evolution”, “Chinese Bronze Decoration”, etc., which were enough to prove that the Council has corresponding experience on how to arrange it. The transition from “Japonisme” to “Chinese Style”, in the exhibition, marks a significant shift in cultural identity and self-representation. This proved that the organizing committee had the appropriate experience and academic background on how to set up the Chinese art exhibition in London.
However, according to analyzing the list of the Chinese Preparatory Committee and the previous preparatory meetings conducted by the Committee, it could be found that, from the very beginning, the Chief Executive of the Executive Yuan, and the Undersecretaries of the Interior, Foreign Affairs and Education organized the Preparatory Committee. The government officials dominated the preparatory planning of the entire Shanghai Preview. Although most of them had a certain degree of overseas study, there were not many of them who were engaged in museology, history and art. More of them were senior government executives with legal, political and business backgrounds. Only a few of them were from the legal and business backgrounds (Fu, 1936). There were also some other private collectors, such as Cheng Linsheng, Ye Kungchuo, Wu Hufan, Deng Yixing and Guo Baochang, who joined as custodian members or specialized ones. The organizing committee was led and operated by a group of people who lacked appropriate knowledge of museology and experience in setting up the Shanghai Preview.
Displays were impacted by service, highlighting distinctions in a variety of specialized fields and organizations. The Chinese party was mostly in charge of authorities, administrators and private collectors, while the British party was primarily in charge of museums and art galleries. Thus, it was leaded to the difference between the two exhibitions and, from which, it can be concluded that the Chinese side, led by government administrators, actually handles the exhibition as a diplomatic event, a political one, rather than an art event. By carefully selecting objects from renowned dynasties, Chinese curators emphasized periods associated with cultural and political power.
These artifacts included bronzes from Shang and Zhou dynasties and Tang-era sculptures, all of which communicated a message of China’s long-standing political and cultural influence. One of the most important one is bronze with the most inscriptions: Mao Gong Ding. Through its form, decorative patterns and inscriptions, the Mao Gong Ding profoundly reflects core Confucian ideas, such as “ritual propriety”, “governance by virtue” and the “Mandate of Heaven”, while also embodying ancient China’s emphasis on history, culture and ethics. At the 1935-1936 International Exhibition of Chinese Art in London, the Mao Gong Ding, as an exhibited piece, showcased the depth of ancient Chinese culture and its philosophical wisdom to Western audiences, serving as a significant medium for cultural exchange between China and the West. According to Jürgen Habermas, the Public Sphere is an independent social space where all participants can express their opinions openly, inclusively and equally based on rational communication (Habermas, 2023).
In the exhibition, the Chinese side took how to show “China’s image” as the main point of the exhibition, while the British side took “Chinese art” as the theme of the exhibition, and also mixed it with “Chinese art that conforms to the imagination of Europeans”. For example, there were screens and tapestries from 17th to 18th centuries in the entrance hall of the Great Exhibition, which were familiar to British people, and the central hall displayed Emperor Song Taizong’s portrait, and so on. At the time, China was attempting to create a unified national identity. This exhibition functioned as a statement of this unity by celebrating diverse art forms as parts of a single and cohesive Chinese tradition. Presenting this unifying identity through the exhibition, and in particular how to present “China” with its enduring history and ongoing cultural system, is extremely culturally rich. Scholars of Chinese art history, including Xu Beihong, have advocated for the inclusion of classic Chinese art forms, such as calligraphy, literati painting and bronzes, even though these were initially overlooked or undervalued by Western audiences. This important corrective is intended to correct the Western bias toward decorative arts or “exotic” works as symbols of Chinese art and culture. By presenting these art forms, curators highlight the rich philosophical and cultural traditions as well as cultural ideals. In contrast, Western art historians have curated exhibitions that emphasize cultural specificity and difference. Their focus tended to be on visually striking, decorative elements: a choice that appeals to Western stereotypes of “exoticism”. The Chinese scholars’ emphasis on “China’s image”, however, meant presenting a China’s portrayal that aligned with the country’s own self-identity and cultural pride rather than Western expectations. This clash in perspectives underscored a deeper negotiation over cultural representation and interpretation, with Chinese curators asserting a narrative that aligned with China’s image of itself as a sophisticated and autonomous culture, worthy of global respect.
3 From Shanghai preview to the great exhibition: the history and meaning of exhibition themes
Since recent times, there have been exhibitions of Chinese art in Europe and the United States (around 1936) for more than ten years, no less than five or six times, but the scale was not very large, and domestic public and private collectors also participated less, but from the winter of 1935 to the spring of 1936, the Great Exhibition was grand in scale and wide in scope. The International Exhibition of Chinese Art, London, organized in England from the winter of 1935 to the spring of 1936, was grand in scale and wide in scope (Zhuang, 1936, p. 12).
The Great Exhibition was driven by official support from both China and the United Kingdom. During the cultural and political upheaval of 1935-1936, despite increasing globalization, cultural identities remained somewhat fixed. For instance, British art historians and audiences were not fully receptive to modernist art, and traditional aesthetic concepts and cultural identities continued to hold significant influence. This resistance to foreign artistic genres and adherence to local traditions are reflected in the content of exhibition. The conflict between the fixity and mobility of cultural identity is particularly evident in the exhibitions. On the one hand, the exhibition showcases diverse art forms and styles, reflecting cultural pluralism and mobility. On the other hand, contradictions and conflicts between tradition and modernity, domestic and foreign, and fixity and mobility are inevitable. Through the exhibition, artists and viewers explored these conflicts and sought new cultural identities through interaction (The Palace Museum, 2016).
In the spring of 1934, the China Committee of the British University contacted Cai Yuanpei for Guo Taiqi, proposing that an International Exhibition of Chinese Art be held in London and hoping that the Chinese government would select artifacts from the Forbidden City for the exhibition. The exhibition, by the Chinese and British governments, officially had a joint supervision. The British Royal Academy of Fine Arts manager of the exhibition set the two heads of state as the supervisors. The two countries’ chief executives were set as the honorary presidents. Political and social leaders, in addition to the ministries of foreign affairs, interior, finance and education, besides other ministries of the Deputy Supervisor, set up a council to manage everything. The Council was chaired by Sir Robert Lytton, with the Vice-Chairman and members of the Council being appointed by half of each of the two countries. All important matters were resolved by the Council meeting. The implementation of specific affairs was carried out with Sir Percival David as the general director. Other groups were set up for selection, display, finance, publicity and publication (Royal Academy of Arts London, 1936). In terms of the collection of exhibits, the Council, on the one hand, wrote to various countries’ embassies , in the United Kingdom, to collect their Chinese works of art for the exhibition. On the other hand, it sent staff to various countries to find the selected items. The Council also sent its staff to other countries to look for selected works. The public and private collections, in the United Kingdom were solicited individually.
From November 28th, 1935, to March 7th, 1936, the Great Exhibition lasted for 14 weeks, with a total of more than 400,000 visitors. During the exhibition period, newspapers and magazines from various countries reported the news of the exhibition in large quantities and published commentaries about China, such as: “China’s achievements in the development of art are comparable to those of other countries in the world, and its long history is far from competing with the Chinese” and “China’s achievements in the development of art are comparable to those of other countries in the world, and its long history is far from competing with the Chinese” (Zheng, 1936). The Chinese nation has been recognized for its great ability in all the arts. In several arts, the Chinese people have been able to express the significance and national characteristics of their natural motifs. The International Exhibition of Chinese Art held at the Burlington House on this occasion represents the first comprehensive assembly of various categories of Chinese art, offering a truly unique opportunity to appreciate this magnificent artistic tradition. There were several cultural repercussions of the exhibition. It had a number of cultural repercussions, including “[…] for a while, tea, Chinese silks, and porcelain sold well, and more than ten Chinese restaurants enjoyed extremely successful business” (Fu, 1936, p. 35). The Queen of England also customized Chinese blue clothing. The Queen’s enthusiastic admiration for Chinese art reflected many Western viewers’ sentiments at the time. Prior to this exhibition, they had neither imagined nor truly understood authentic Chinese art. By attending in person, their stereotypical perceptions of Eastern art were genuinely transformed. The exhibition served as a platform for cultural diplomacy, allowing China to project a renewed image of itself to the world. The exhibition of Chinese culture is the first of its kind in the West (Zhongguo Art International Exhibition Preparatory Committee, 1936).
During the preparatory process for the Great Exhibition, the Chinese committee never formally considered the need for a domestic preview (Zhongguo Art International Exhibition Preparatory Committee, 1935). The root of the problem was related to the relocation of antiquities from the Forbidden City to the south. In the face of the pressure to go abroad for the exhibition, the selection of antiquities was made by the experienced staff of the museum on the inventory of objects discretionary selection list, and a good round of selection was made first. As the original Palace exhibition in Shanghai, the reason for the delay was long and troublesome procedures, lack of suitable venue, among other reasons. Then, you could take advantage of the opportunity to go to the exhibition, and would be selected to go outside the original exhibition of fine art “by the way”.
In addition to this, another important reason for organizing the preview was “[…] to show the letter” (Liu, 2010). As the first officially organized international art exhibition since the founding of the Republic of China, with a focus on Chinese art, the Great Exhibition garnered significant attention. From a cultural identity perspective, it addressed how individuals perceive themselves and are perceived by others. Nationally, promoting Chinese art with its long tradition aligns with political goals. Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital offers a valuable philosophical lens. He argued that cultural capital, such as artistic taste and knowledge, signifies social status and is used by different social groups to distinguish themselves (Bourdieu, 1984). In the Exhibition, the culture of Oriental art can be seen as the formation of a new kind of cultural capital that challenged the monopoly of traditional art and cultural capital. This conflict between the mobility and fixity of cultural capital reflected the dynamic changes in social class and cultural identity.
However, at that time, public opinion was not in favor of the exhibition. The public opposed the exhibition for two specific reasons: first, the national treasures have not yet been appreciated by the country’s people of after the relocation of the national treasures, but first went to other countries for people to read “in the country, what is there”. Secondly, the safety of the national treasures, in short, is the right to choose the exhibits under the domination of the British side, which selects the members of the “theft” image and the national treasures to go to the exhibition.
On December 6th, 1934, the Committee achieved two important matters: (i) selected items shipped to Britain, before the exhibition, should be opened in Shanghai in a preview exhibition. The time was proposed for March of the next year. Items back to China should be exhibited in Nanjing once to show the letter. (ii) Regarding special important articles. The Society reserves the right not to exhibit abroad (Zhuang, 1936). It is not difficult to see that the two resolutions are a formal response to China’s people’s requirements , firstly, to meet the China’s people’s requirements of “reading treasures”, and secondly, to show that we have the right of control over the choice of exhibits.
Finally, the preview opened on April 8th, 1935, at the Bank of China on the Bund in Shanghai, China, and closed on May 5th. During the preview, many people from the political, business and academic circles came to see the exhibition, including members of the central political parties, ministers and officials from various houses, as well as ambassadors and foreign guests from various countries, such as the Italian ambassador, Japan’s and Czechoslovakia’s ministers , Sweden’s chargé d’affaires and the United States’ economic mission, as well as groups from schools, students’ groups, chambers of commerce, governmental departments, clubs, and so on. News media, such as the Declaration (Shanghai), also paid attention to the exhibition, and Shanghai Radio was used to broadcast information about the venue in the middle of the exhibition. Due to the daily limitation of the number of people entering the exhibition, not meeting the needs of the masses to watch the exhibition, the organizing committee also deliberately extended the exhibition period of five days to the end of the exhibition period. Thus, the daily average was of about 2,000 people to visit the exhibition: a total of 50,000 to 60,000 people to watch it. From this, we can see that the preview was a great success with a far-reaching impact.
The Chinese and British visually constructed a macro-cultural and philosophical image of “Chinese art”, showing the game between Chinese and Western cultures and the different conceptions of “Chinese art”. Edward Said’s theory of orientalism helps us to understand the construction of cultural identity, especially the cultural othering of the East by the West (Said, 1978). Prior to this exhibition, the dominant influence of Japonisme had long shaped Western interpretations of Asian art, with many critics and collectors predominantly associating the aesthetic of the East with Japanese motifs and sensibilities. However, the London exhibition catalyzed a significant paradigm shift, heralding the emergence of a distinct “Chinese Style” that challenged these entrenched notions.
4 The conceptualization and revelation of art exhibitions from a holistic perspective
Through the introduction of the above cases and the comparison of the curators’ different cultural identities , it is not difficult to realize that China still lacked considerable experience in organizing international exhibitions at that time. During the planning stages of the Great Exhibition, it became evident that China lacked experience in arranging and participating in exhibitions under the circumstances of the time, had a hazy understanding of exhibitions and only saw them as a means of spreading political ideas. As a result, China was unable to participate in the planning of the Great Exhibition, which ultimately had the effect of having little impact on the field of Chinese art - aside from elevating the stature of the Republic of China’s government - and did not alter the exhibition system in China. It did not produce much impact and did not manage to change the foreigners’ consistent perception of Chinese art and cultural identity.
In addition to this, the gap in the development of museology between the two countries can also be seen. At that time, China not only had few museums, but also lacked the corresponding personnel working in museums. There were only 168 museum practitioners in the whole country, therefore, they needed to rely on the private collectors’ help in order to complete the work of antiquities appreciation. They did not pay attention to the museum staff’s status , who were only responsible for the implementation of exhibitions rather than the planners, and were only in charge of the role of selecting, storing and protecting the exhibits, and welcoming the guests.
The Chinese side also lacked a museum to display. The British side has specialized in international exhibitions of the Royal College of London, the Brampton Hall, while the Shanghai Museum was still under construction. The Preparatory Committee could only look for the imminent demolition of the Bank of China on the Bund as the address of the exhibition. The selection of this address is still through the mayor of Shanghai City, Wu Tiecheng, who assisted to complete the completion of the address. All the signs show that there was still a big gap between the development of Chinese museums and the development of the Western countries’ ones. The 1930s were the initial development stage of China’s museums. The development was still relatively slow. The Forbidden City had only just changed from the private property Qing Palace to a museum open to the public. The development was not perfect, the curatorial concept of display was not familiar with, but simply with the classification of the items, the chronological order of the display cannot be produced to become a systematic and meaningful organization.
Also by examining some of the key pieces more closely, we can better understand how the exhibition aimed to shape cultural identity and influence Western perceptions. A selection of blue-and-white porcelain from the Ming Dynasty showcased China’s artistic innovation and influence in the global luxury market. Highly prized in Europe and the Middle East for their intricate patterns and vibrant cobalt blue underglaze colors, these porcelains demonstrate the heights of ancient Chinese craftsmanship and artistic innovation. For Western audiences familiar with Chinese porcelain, as a symbol of luxury and culture, these works are tantamount to reinforcing known images of Chinese art history and aesthetics. In addition, the porcelain symbolizes China’s influence on global material culture. This has helped to reinvent China as a leader in Oriental art, rather than as a distant producer of “exotic” goods. The textiles from the Qing Dynasty demonstrate the craftsmanship associated with the Chinese royal family. These costumes were often decorated with dragons, phoenixes and other auspicious symbols. This is not only an expression of great skill, but also a symbol of social hierarchy and power. The curators’ inclusion of these textiles in the exhibition highlights the complexity of China’s social order and the embodiment of Confucian values in its material culture. The naturally fine embroidery and luxurious fabrics also demonstrate the great control over resources that the Chinese empire had. This can be interpreted, by Western audiences, as a symbol of wealth and order in China. All of these selected artworks emphasize the continuity of Chinese culture, reflecting the strong resilience and continuity of a traditional civilization. Rather than a simple showcase of artifacts, these objects worked together to convey a China’s image as a nation with a continuous and independent heritage, filled with philosophical, aesthetic and technical achievements. This carefully curated narrative challenged stereotypes, emphasized China’s contributions to global culture and invited Western audiences to see Chinese art as part of the broader tapestry of human cultural achievement.
Compared to international art exhibitions of the same period, the cultural identity of Chinese art is particularly prominent. For instance, the “Modern Architecture: International Exhibition”, held at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1932, introduced the international style of architecture, emphasizing functionalism and minimalist design, which had a profound impact on American modern architectural aesthetics. Similarly, the “Degenerate Art Exhibition”, held in Munich in 1937, aimed to mock modernist and avant-garde art, but, instead, sparked public interest in these art forms, promoting the appreciation and preservation of modernist works. These exhibitions also emphasized artistic perspectives, symbols of cultural identity, and even reshaping an era’s views . Such comparisons help to deepen the understanding of the close connections among art, cultural identity and philosophical reflections.
The shift in Western perceptions from Japonisme to Chinese style, during the 1930s, was influenced by various social, political and cultural factors. At the turn of the century, Japanese art and aesthetics were highly influential in Europe and America, largely due to Japan’s rapid modernization during the Meiji Restoration and its successful diplomatic efforts to promote its culture internationally. However, by the 1930s, Western interests were increasingly drawn to China, partly because of the evolving political landscape in East Asia, which reshaped cultural preferences, diplomatic relations and Western intellectual curiosity.
Clearly, this transformation was made possible by the exemplary growth of the scientific archaeological enterprise in twentieth-century China, especially with the four major discoveries: the Oracle bones from Anyang (Yin Ruins), the Simplified Documents of Han Dynasty in Juyan, the Ming and Qing Archives, and the Dunhuang Studies. These findings have fascinated Western historians, who have begun to re-examine China’s place as the cradle of civilization. This Great Exhibition provides a structured narrative of China’s long history and, more crucially, demonstrates a refined artistic and philosophical tradition very different from that one of Japan, which, for quite some time, was seen as the sole representative of Eastern culture.
Many Western reviews have begun to focus on the historical depth of Chinese art, marking a significant shift from previous Orientalist narratives that tended to exoticize or marginalize Chinese culture. Western critics have described Chinese artifacts as not just beautiful works of art, but as witnesses to a civilization with deep and continuous traditions. This recognition has helped Western audiences begin to see China as a complex and advanced civilization with its own unique intellectual and artistic heritage, rather than as a “mysterious” or “exotic” culture. This reorientation has influenced Western art critics and collectors, fostering a higher appreciation and demand for Chinese art as part of a broader canon of art. Western art historians pointed to the spiritual and philosophical qualities inherent in Chinese artworks, such as the Taoist theme of harmony with nature, expressed in landscape painting, and the Confucian ideals, embodied in calligraphy. Exposed to these interpretations, Western audiences began to appreciate Chinese art not only from an aesthetic point of view, but also with an eye to the cultural values it represented. Publications, such as Ta Kung Pao, provided background notes on these values, explaining their importance in Chinese culture and, thus, helping Western audiences gain a more nuanced understanding. Many scholars have begun to explore the cultural philosophies behind Oriental art, beyond a Eurocentric perspective. Publications helped Western audiences appreciate Chinese art not only as beautiful, but as intellectually and culturally rich, contributing to a more sophisticated and respectful view that shaped future Western scholarship, collecting and diplomacy.
5 Findings and future discussions: the domestic and international impact of the 1935-1936 international exhibition of Chinese art in London and its cultural significance
The 1935-1936 International Exhibition of Chinese Art in London was not merely a significant event in the history of art collection, but also a milestone in the exchange of human civilization. For the domestic impacts, it promoted the socialization and popularization of traditional artworks, also enhanced public art appreciation and education, facilitated the construction of modern art museums and drove the traditional Chinese society’s artistic transformation . For the international impacts, it redefined the image of Oriental culture, shifting both the professional art historians’ and the general public’s focus from Japan to China, served as a crucial milestone in the internationalization of Chinese art and cultural identity. What is the most important: it significantly increased the global recognition and acceptance of Chinese art.
The year 1935-1936 marked a pivotal moment in China’s modernization, as Chinese intellectuals recognized the importance of asserting national cultural identity amidst internal and external challenges. This period saw a shift from “Japonisme” to the “Chinese Style,” shaping the future direction of Chinese art toward internationalization. The exhibition highlighted the essence of ancient Chinese art, spanning painting, calligraphy, ceramics, bronzes and jades, establishing a unique cultural identity on the global stage and redefining China’s position in the world cultural map. It not only reshaped Western perceptions of “Eastern style”, but also facilitated China’s cultural globalization, reflecting China’s redefinition of its cultural identity in the face of modernization. Chinese philosophy, with its unique thought system and universality, plays a significant role in global cultural exchange. Through art exhibitions, it influences Western perceptions of Chinese culture and redefines cultural identity in an inclusive manner, fostering East-West interaction. The emphasis of Confucianism on “Harmony and Difference” promotes respect for diversity, providing a foundation for global cultural coexistence. Taoist philosophy, with its focus on the unity of humanity and nature, offers insights into contemporary challenges, like ecological crises and sustainable development. Through art exhibitions and cultural activities, China has transformed its traditional philosophy into a global resource of wisdom, promoting cultural integration worldwide.
Future research can expand the scope of this art exhibition by exploring horizontal comparisons of early 20th century Chinese art exhibitions abroad and domestically, offering new cultural perspectives. Analyzing differences in the curatorial approaches and the audience’s perceptions across contexts can reveal how Chinese cultural identity was interpreted and adapted for diverse audiences and diplomatic goals. Additionally, focusing on specific artworks, such as ancient bronzes, ceramics, or literati paintings, can illuminate how display methods shape perceptions of Chinese culture. This comprehensive cultural case study could examine exhibition contextualization, catalog descriptions, display techniques and curatorial commentary, delving into the symbolic meanings of artworks and their representation of Chinese identity, intellectual heritage, spiritual culture, or technological achievements. These directions aim to transform this compelling case into a multifaceted study.
Conclusion
The 1935-1936 International Exhibition of Chinese Art in London marked a transformative moment in redefining Western perceptions of Chinese cultural identity. By strategically curating the shift from “Japonisme” to a distinct “Chinese Style,” the exhibition challenged entrenched stereotypes and asserted China’s cultural sovereignty. Grounded in Confucian and Taoist aesthetics, the curatorial framework not only served as an artistic and diplomatic tool, but also influenced Western museological practices. This study highlights the enduring significance of exhibition in cultural diplomacy, transnational art history and the global circulation of aesthetics, offering a model for understanding the interplay among art, identity and power in cross-cultural exchanges.
References
- ANONYMOUS. Selected treasures of bronzes, porcelains, paintings and calligraphy from China’s participation in the International Exhibition of Chinese Art in London in 1935. Chinese character culture, n. 2, p. 38, 2005.
- BHABHA, K. H. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994.
- BOURDIEU, P. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Trans. R. Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
- DEPARTMENT OF DISPLAY. Sixty Years of Display. Journal of the Palace Museum, n. 3, p. 17-27, 1985.
- FU, Z. L. Visiting Records of the International Exhibition of Chinese Art. Beijing: National Palace Museum, 1936. p. 68-70.
- GUO, Z. J. A Brief Discussion on Art Diplomacy in the Republican Period. Nanjing: Nanjing University, 2013.
- HABERMAS, J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Trans. T. Burger; F. Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989 [Taylor & Francis Group, 2023].
- HOBSBAWM, E. Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press, 1983. p. 1-10.
- LIN, B. X. The “National Treasure” Tour: Disaster Memory, Imperial Imagination, and the Palace Museum. Chinese and Foreign Literature, v. 30, n. 9, p. 230, 2002.
- LIU, N. N. Selected Historical Materials on the Participation of the National Palace Museum in the International Exhibition of Chinese Art in London. Republic of China Archives, n. 3, p. 64, 2010.
- NA, Z. L.; ZHUANG, Y. The national disaster and exhibition of national treasures - 1935 London art exhibition experience. Forbidden City, n. 3, p. 108-207, 2007.
- ROYAL ACADEMY OF ARTS LONDON. International Exhibition of Chinese Art. Royal Academy of Arts London, p. 10, 1936.
- SAID, W. E. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1979. p. 15-20.
- SCAGLIA, I. The Aesthetics of Internationalism: Culture and Politics on Display in the 1935-36 Chinese Art Exhibition. Journal of World History, v. 26, p. 105-137, 2018.
- SENG, E.-M. Museum, exhibition, cultural heritage: changing perspectives from China to Europe. Boston: De Gruyter, 2019.
- SHEN, F. W. Cultural Communications Between China And The Outside World Throughout History. Trans. R. Lyu. Shangai: Shanghai People’s, 2024 [Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan].
- THE PALACE MUSEUM. The early history of the Palace Museum 1925-1949. Beijing: Forbidden City, 2016.
- TURNER, C. J. Rediscovering the social group: a self-catergorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987.
- WU, S. Y. China in exhibitions: taking the 1961 exhibition of Chinese ancient artifacts to the United States as an example. Taiwan: National Chengchi University, 2003.
- ZHANG, L. Staging the Chinese Good Will: Cultural Diplomacy, Art Mobility, and the Challenge of Repatriation in the 1935 London International Exhibition of Chinese Art. Presented at the Asian Studies Days at the University of Turku, 2023.
- ZHENG, T. X. Report on Participation in the International Exhibition of Chinese Art in London. Ta Kung Pao. 10. ed. p. 45, August 17, 1936.
- ZHONGGUO ART INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION PREPARATORY COMMITTEE. The Catalog of Products Produced at the International Exhibition of Chinese Art in London. Royal Academy of Arts London, p. 2, 1935.
- ZHONGGUO ART INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION PREPARATORY COMMITTEE. Participation in the International Exhibition of Chinese Art in London, Volume 1-4. Shanghai: The Commercial Press, p. 69, 1936.
- ZHUANG, S. Y. The International Exhibition of Chinese Art in London. Beijing: National Palace Museum, 1936.
