Wallpaper Panel
Date: 1700 – 1730
Geography: Made in China
Provenance: White, Allom and Company, London until 1914
When I saw the Chinese wallpaper, the first thing that popped up on my head was Wow Beautiful. I personally love Asian art, so the black and white landscape drawing simply made me so happy. After I did research on the object and learning that it was a byproduct of colonialism, the beauty I felt suddenly disappeared and what remained was disgust towards the colonizers. Being from a country that was colonized, the arrogance of the colonizers are revolting. They manipulate the true meaning of one country’s culture to their taste and sort of justify it by labeling it as exotic. The more I did my research, the more disgusted I got. Something that was considered luxurious and exotic was the outcome of endless labor of the Chinese. And the wallpaper itself was not authentic but altered to fit into the houses of the posh English. Then how can this be called art? The Metropolitan Museum of Art said that they do not acquire art that was falsely taken or does not have proof that it was out of the country before 1970. However, what defines falsely acquired art? Is it literally stealing someone’s art or is it also distorting its meaning and value? The latter is the case for this wallpaper. Though the English East India Company has have conducted this acquiring under the name of trade, however, it was not fair and for the colonized it would have been the same as being colonized. Then should this be returned back to China? Honestly, I do not know. Whilst it is something, not English, but at the same time, it is not Chinese. The Chinese were made to make this for the English, regardless of its purpose and context. So I guess it would be plausible to place it where it is, but at a description that beneath this wallpaper there lies something bigger and darker than its beauty.
