Art Reboot

83 emperor owned in the eighteenth century and then thought authentic is now considered to be an early copy. He added a flurry of inscriptions and seals demonstrating his conviction. For close to three centuries this version was considered the original while the real one, albeit also highly valued, was considered the later copy. The imperially-inscribed copy is one of the most famous Chinese paintings in the world, widely illustrated and proudly shown in the Imperial Collection to this day. What is now considered to be the authentic version is the one without the accretion of imperial inscriptions and seals. A comparison of the two suggests that the latter pre-dates the emperor’s painting, so if one is genuine, it is the one previously considered a copy. For a long time, the one mistaken for the original acted in every respect as if it were genuine. It inspired, it was admired, it received the attention of two centuries of ‘worshippers’, and a series of inscriptions was added by the greatest imperial elegant graffitist of all time, along with dozens of his seals and some of imperial descendants who had also enjoyed it. For all the time it was considered genuine, it conveyed its important message through its inner languages and depth of expression. As indeed, did the one that was genuine but considered a copy. Both were treasured because of the message, the meaning they conveyed. Today we can better separate the genuine from the copy at the level of the object, but in Chinese aesthetics the copy still carries part of the meaning intended by Huang Gongwang. Another useful example of the idea is the most famous piece of calligraphy in Chinese history, the Lanting Preface by Wang Xizhi, China’s most revered calligrapher, written in 353 ce