| Original Message: Re: Jade |
|---|
|
Hi will, Your enthusiasm for jade is deliciously infectious. I would raise a few points. In terms of antiquity, and particularly in China, "jade" refers to nephrite—and that is the stone most admired and revered by the Chinese. (This joy is not limited to them, since nephrite was also enjoyed by North and South Americans, New Zealanders, and Western Asians.) When we contrast ancient jades to modern "jades," the waters grow muddy, because of language issues and the practice of (now) calling MANY stones "jade." Sometimes these are cultural differences, but sometimes it is a convenient way to rationalize the sale of a lesser material—to elevate it to have some respect. Some modern carvings are jade and some are not. (I won't go into jadeite, nor the issues of "yu" here.) You mention that in the Ming Dynasty, there was a fad for reproducing the surface effects of earlier jade pieces. This is, of course, a phenomenon that has continued to today. But an important consideration is that by Ming times, artisans copied THE STYLE of jade carvings—meaning subject matter, and types of carving and decoration (in addition to trying to enhance the appearance of greater age). This likewise continues to be practiced. Thus, we find there are Ming Dynasty (and later) copies of particular objects from earlier Dynasties—that circulate and confound collectors. Sometimes, we have to say, "this is a Ching (Qing) Dynasty carving imitating a Ming piece," and the like. The recent pseudo-archaic beads/pendants that have circulated over the past (approximately) ten years are another kettle of fish, but are part and parcel of a longer phenomenon. Jamey
All rights reserved by Bead Collector Network and its users |
|
|