Cultural Diplomacy, Nationalism, and Oriental Arts: The Exhibition of Masterpieces of the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing Dynasties in 1931 Open Access

Abstract

This study explores the intersection of cultural diplomacy, nationalism, and the arts during the 1931 exhibition of masterpieces from the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties in Tokyo. The motivating questions are how cultural diplomacy was employed to mitigate political tensions between China and Japan, and what impact this had on their bilateral relations. The exhibition, held jointly by China and Japan and featuring over sixteen hundred paintings, was a significant cultural event aimed at fostering mutual understanding amid rising political tensions. Funded by the Japanese government under its “Cultural Policy toward China,” it served as a diplomatic tool to enhance Japan's influence in China. The study also includes visual analyses of key paintings exhibited during the joint exhibitions, assessing their stylistic features, provenance, and reception. Finally, the authors examine the modernity of originalist painters such as Shitao, Bada Shanren, and Xinluo Shanren as evaluated by Japanese art circles in the early twentieth century.

Between April 28 and May 19, 1931, the Tokyo Metropolitan Art Gallery hosted an unprecedented exhibition featuring masterpieces from the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties. The exhibition was a significant cultural event, with 1,404 paintings from China and 265 paintings from Japan, symbolizing a major cultural cooperation between China and Japan. Such prominent figures as Wang Rongbao 汪榮寶 (1878–1933), the Republic of China Ambassador to Japan; Kiyoura Keigo 清浦奎吾 (1850–1942), a Japanese cabinet minister; and Masaki Naohiko 正木直彦 (1862–1940), the president of the Tokyo Fine Arts School (Tōkyō Bijutsu Gakkō 東京美術學校; present-day Tokyo University of the Arts) were key organizers, highlighting the political and cultural weight of the event. In the early twentieth century, Sino-Japanese relations were fraught with political and military tensions. To mitigate these issues, the Japanese government initiated several cultural diplomacy efforts, including joint painting exhibitions. The 1931 exhibition was a continuation of this strategy, following the notable 1928 exhibition that had also featured works from the Tang, Song, Yuan, and Ming dynasties. Such cultural initiatives were part of Japan's broader “Cultural Policy toward China,” funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The exhibitions aimed to foster goodwill and mutual understanding, utilizing cultural exchange as a diplomatic tool to stabilize and enhance bilateral relations. In an article for Gaikō jihō, Fujisawa Chikao 藤沢親雄 (1893–1962) argued for a Japanese foreign cultural policy, viewing cultural diplomacy as a “prevention” strategy to foster global goodwill (Fujisawa 1931).

Despite the historical significance of the Sino-Japanese joint painting exhibitions of the 1920s and 1930s (Tsuruta 2004), scholarly research has primarily focused on their organizational aspects and the art pieces themselves (Zhan 2011; Lu 2013). There is a notable lack of comprehensive analysis of how these exhibitions functioned as instruments of cultural diplomacy and of their impact on political dynamics between China and Japan (Kuze 2014). Existing studies often overlook how these cultural initiatives influenced public perception, diplomatic engagements, and the broader narrative of East Asian art history. Furthermore, the nuanced roles played by individual artists, collectors, and political figures in these exhibitions require a more detailed examination to understand their contributions to the cultural dialogue between China and Japan. The most important point is that the operational mechanisms behind these joint exhibitions and their role in shaping modern cultural identities in both countries remain understudied (Wong 2006: 100–121). In particular, there is a distinct absence of scholarly articles on the 1931 exhibition.

This study aims to fill these gaps by examining the 1931 exhibition as a case study of cultural diplomacy between China and Japan. The research explores how this event reflected and influenced the cultural policies of both nations and how it served as a platform for political and cultural dialogue, using a combination of historical document analysis and art historical methods. Archival research focuses on materials from the Diplomatic Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan and contemporary media reports to reconstruct the organizational context and political intentions behind the exhibition. Art-historical analysis will involve a close examination of the exhibited works, their provenance, and the selection criteria. Additionally, this article addresses how early twentieth-century Japanese art circles equated the individualism of such painters as Shitao 石濤 (1642–ca. 1710) and Bada Shanren 八大山人 (Zhu Da 朱耷, 1626–1705) with Western modernity. Historian Cemil Aydin (2007 7–8) highlights that pan-Islamism and pan-Asianism emerged in the 1870s in response to European imperialism and that, despite differing views, most non-Western intellectuals accepted the idea of universal modernity. Consequently, artists’ self-worth was measured by their civilization's “modern” status globally. Japan promoted its culture through world fairs like the Paris World Exposition and the St. Louis World's Fair (Sigur 2008: 26). Similarly, China participated in the Panama-Pacific International Exposition in 1915 to blend traditional elements with modern sensibilities, countering Western perceptions of an unchanging China (Burnett 2010: 15–57). Through these expositions, both nations sought global recognition for their traditional arts and expressions of modernity.

The “Cultural Policy toward China” and Sino-Japanese Joint Exhibitions of Paintings

The Cultural Policy toward China (Taishi bunka jigyō 對支文化事業) was a cultural and educational undertaking promoted by the Japanese government to alleviate the Chinese people's anti-Japanese sentiment after the “Twenty-One Demands” and to comply with the trend of international repair payments linked to the Boxer Fund. According to the Special Accounting Law for Cultural Policy toward China (Taishi bunka jigyō tokubetsu kaikeihō 對支文化事業特別會計法) enacted on March 30, 1923, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan used the “Boxer Indemnity Scholarship,” money Japan had received from the Jiaoji Railway for resolving the “Shandong outstanding case,” and the compensation funds of Shandong Mining Company and the Qingdao Public Property and Salt Industry to fund undertakings regarding China for 2.5 million yen each year (Abe 2004: 5–25). This policy aimed to foster goodwill and promote cultural exchange between the two nations. The activities involved funding education, academic arts, healthcare, and other cultural undertakings in China; supporting similar undertakings organized by the Chinese in Japan; and supporting academic research on China in Japan (Gaimushō Gaikō Shiryōkan 1923: 13–27). In Japan, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs established both the Bureau for Cultural Policy toward China (Taishi bunka jigyō jimukyoku 對支文化事業事務局) and the Association for the Investigation of Cultural Policy toward China (Taishi bunka jigyō chōsakai 對支文化事業調査会). Both entities were overseen by the ministry and operated under its direction and orders. In December 1924, the Japanese government introduced the Department of Cultural Affairs (Bunka jigyōbu 文化事業部) within the Asia and Pacific Bureau, which replaced the previously mentioned Bureau for Cultural Policy toward China. The 1920s were a period of reconstruction following World War I (1914–18), during which European countries faced economic and political challenges. Against this backdrop, Japan gained international influence as it grew into a major power in Asia. The Japanese government intensified its external cultural exchanges and educational assistance to expand its influence in Asia and globally, particularly by increasing its cultural policy funding toward China (Xu 2010: 73). By increasing its cultural investment, Japan sought to gain more influence and say in its relationship with China. Consequently, by the end of March 1926, Japan's resolution on amendments to the 51st Parliament had decided to increase the amount from 2.5 million yen to 3 million yen to fund its Cultural Policy toward China. The specific contents were as follows:

• Founding of research institutes and libraries, such as the Beijing Institute of Humanities Science and Library and the Shanghai Institute of Natural Science

• Financing cultural facilities and organizations run by Japanese people, such as schools in Qingdao, the East Asia Common Culture Association (Tōa Dōbunkai 東亞同文會), the Colleagues Association, and the Institute of Japan and China (Nikka Gakkai 日華學會)

• Tuition fee subsidies for Chinese students in Japan, including general students, selected students, and specially selected students

• Improving preparatory education institutions for Chinese students

• Funding the exchange of lectures and inspection trips for well-known scholars, educators, and artists from both China and Japan

• Funding cultural undertakings toward China, such as Sino-Japanese Joint Exhibitions of paintings, the Eastern Painting Association (Tōhō Kaiga Kyōkai 東方繪畫協會), and the Eastern Archaeology Association (Gaimushō Gaikō Shiryōkan 1927: 137–53)

The adjustment of policies and the increase in funding reflect Japan's strategies and considerations in international relations and geopolitics. In July 1926, Japan established the General Committee for Oriental Cultural Affairs (Tōhō bunka jigyō sōiinkai 東方文化事業総委員会). This committee comprised experts and scholars from both Japan and China. Subsequently, they issued the constitution for the General Committee, and the Bureau for Cultural Policy toward China was formally renamed the Cultural Policy toward China (Tōhō bunka jigyō 東方文化事業). It is essential to note that this organization maintained a specific official structure. This included an annual budget for the project that required approval from the Diet. Legally and politically, it functioned as part of Japan's internal affairs, with its activities in China acting as an extension of those internal matters.

From the information provided, it is evident that the exhibition was funded by the Japanese government. This implies that the Sino-Japanese Joint Exhibition was inherently influenced by the Japanese government and, to some degree, under the sway of Japanese politics. Therefore, to gauge the forces behind the Sino-Japanese exhibitions, it is appropriate to analyze them from a political perspective in the context of Sino-Japanese diplomacy during the interwar period. From the 1910s to the 1930s, exchanges between the Chinese and Japanese art circles developed rapidly. The seven Sino-Japanese joint exhibitions of paintings contributed greatly to this development. The exhibitions had their beginnings in the individual exchanges between Watanabe Shinpo 渡邊晨畝 (1867–1938), a painter of nihonga 日本畫; Kungpah T. King 金紹城 (1878–1926), a leader in Beijing art circles; and collector Yan Shiqing 顏世清 (1873–1929). However, after the “Fourth Sino-Japanese Joint Exhibition of Paintings” in 1926, exhibitions received funding from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Chinese politicians such as Xu Shichang 徐世昌 (1855–1939), Li Yuanhong 黎元洪 (1864–1928), and Duan Qirui 段祺瑞 (1865–1936) also participated in exhibitions to varying degrees.

The inaugural Sino-Japanese joint exhibition of paintings, organized by Watanabe Shinpo, Kungpah T. King, and Yan Shiqing, had originally been planned to take place in Beijing in October 1919. However, due to the outbreak of the May Fourth Movement on May 4, 1919, an influential Chinese cultural and anti-imperialist political movement borne out of student protests in Beijing, anti-Japanese sentiment was running high, necessitating the postponement of the exhibition. In June 11, 1919, the Japanese Jiji Shinpō 時事新報 newspaper reported this announcement: “Japan and Chinese painters collaborate in an exhibition. Powerful people from both countries will sponsor the event in Beijing. The aim is to try to warm up diplomatic relations.” The movement toward reducing conflicts and enhancing collaboration within Japanese public opinion provided additional momentum for the first Sino-Japanese joint exhibition, successfully inaugurated on November 23, 1921. The participants were painters and collectors from both countries. At least in the eyes of the organizers, this event signaled a promising beginning for Sino-Japanese friendship and cultural cooperation in the art world.

From 1928 onward, the ascent of the Kuomintang government as China's official ruling body intensified tensions between Japan and China regarding the issue of the Japanese remission. Starting in September 1928, the Kuomintang consistently pressured Japan to reassess its stance on remissions. Finally, on January 23, 1930, Japan released a statement expressing its regret over the Chinese position. The statement emphasized Japan's commitment to elevating the status of Asian culture in the annals of world civilizations. To this end, Japan had prioritized expanding research into Asian culture, aiming to achieve this through collaboration with China (Teow 1999: 84).

The “Exhibition of Masterpieces of the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing Dynasties” discussed in this article was the last of the Sino-Japanese joint exhibitions of paintings, held during the Chinese Civil War (first phase, 1927–37). It symbolized the end of an era of Sino-Japanese cultural cooperation. The seven joint exhibitions were organized with the objective of upholding the spirit of Eastern art while counterbalancing Western art. The exhibition formats can be divided into two broad categories: one highlighting modern painting by Chinese and Japanese artists, and the other presenting ancient Chinese paintings loaned by Chinese and Japanese collectors. The exhibits underwent a transition, moving from modern Chinese and Japanese artworks to ancient Chinese pieces, underscoring the value both countries’ artists placed on traditional Chinese painting in the early twentieth century. This evolution subtly underscored a shift in the Japanese art community's appreciation of traditional Chinese painting in the face of the anti-Westernization movement.

In June 1924, Shidehara Kijūrō 幣原喜重郎 (1872–1951), who advocated for no-force diplomacy with China, served as foreign minister of Japan. Japan's China policy under Shidehara's leadership was leaning toward pragmatism and promoted the development of the Cultural Policy toward China by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The ministry funded the fourth Sino-Japanese joint exhibition held in Tokyo and Osaka in 1926 and promoted the organization of the Eastern Painting Association (Huang 1982: 143–94). Xu Shichang and Kiyoura Keigo served as the presidents of the fourth Sino-Japanese joint exhibition of paintings, which clearly reflected Shidehara's “cultural diplomacy” policy toward China. In 1929, Shidehara served as foreign minister again in the Hamaguchi Osachi cabinet.

Throughout the 1920s, Japan's policy toward China shifted from a focus on power politics and military concerns to a greater emphasis on economics and culture. Economically, Japan's concerns pushed it to drive a hard bargain during tariff negotiations, making it the last major power to settle the tariff issue with China.¹ Culturally, similar concerns prompted Japan to maintain a firm stance, refusing to modify its tariff concession policy in response to the requests of the Kuomintang government (Teow 1999: 91). Japan's keen interest in retaining control over the special account stemmed largely from its skepticism about China's political stability. Japan was deeply apprehensive that if it simply relinquished its remission to China, the funds might be squandered because of China's tumultuous state, with no assurance that the remission would be used as Japan intended. This continuous concern over the international implications of its cultural endeavors in China further underscored Japan's resistance to change (Teow 1999: 193). Under the influence of the Versailles-Washington system, during the “Second Shidehara Diplomacy” (1929–31), in May 1930 Shidehara signed the China-Japan Tariff Agreement, which had remained unresolved for a long time, to ensure Japan's vested interests in the “Manchurian Mongolia issue.” After that, Japan recognized China's tariff autonomy, and Sino-Japanese relations experienced a short-term recovery.

In December 1930, Foreign Minister Shidehara sent a telegraph about holding a joint Sino-Japanese exhibition to the Japanese consulates in Shanghai, Suzhou, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Beiping (present-day Beijing), and Mukden (present-day Shenyang). In the telegram, Shidehara wrote,

Western exhibition culture, particularly the establishment of the museum system and the popularization of exhibitions, contributed to the realization of joint Sino-Japanese exhibitions in the 1920s. However, both nations endeavored to position themselves in alignment with the dichotomy of Eastern and Western civilizations, facing distinct challenges within their art communities. As highlighted in the telegram about promoting Eastern art and bridging the cultures of both countries, these notions probably resonated with the hopes of multiple groups. For Chinese artists, the paramount aim was to counteract Western art movements’ undermining of traditional Chinese artistic values. Meanwhile, Japanese artists, having grappled with a crisis of national art value recognition in the mid-nineteenth century, sought in the subsequent century to cultivate what they termed Tōyō bijutsu (Eastern/Oriental fine arts). They engaged with China, regarded as the cultural fountainhead of the East, to collectively delve into the innate essence of Eastern art, with aspirations of shaping a non-Eurocentric global narrative. For the Japanese political echelons, this collaboration symbolized cultural diplomacy toward China, anticipating that such artistic endeavors would bolster diplomatic ties and enhance Sino-Japanese camaraderie.

Seeking a Shared Tradition: Visits to China and Chinese Patronage

The interplay and mutual influence between Chinese and Japanese painting were a profound and complex historical process. To engage in cultural diplomacy through joint painting exhibitions, Japan first needed to seek the commonalities between Chinese and Japanese painting, and second, had to secure the support of Chinese folk artists and the government. Therefore, on January 15, 1931, Japan dispatched officials Masaki Naohiko, Masaki Tokuzō, and Japanese literati painter Watanabe Shinpo to Shanghai for negotiations.

In the context of international cultural exchanges in Shanghai, Wang Yiting 王一亭 (1867–1938) was not only a significant figure in the art market but also a crucial bridge in Sino-Japanese relations (Lai 2010). His extensive social circle and the banquet he hosted at his residence Zi Yuan 梓園 distinctly demonstrated how cultural activities can become a part of diplomatic strategy. Upon arriving in Shanghai, Masaki Naohiko's and Watanabe Shinpo's first visit was to Wang Yiting. Through Wang's matchmaking, the Institute of Comrades in Chinese Art (Zhonghua Yishu Tongzhihui 中華藝術同志會) held a banquet at Zi Yuan to entertain Masaki and Watanabe. The banquet was attended by Wang Yiting, Di Chuqing 狄楚青 (1873–1941), Zhang Shanzi 張善孖 (1882–1940), Zhang Daqian 張大千 (1899–1983), Yu Jianhua 俞劍華 (1895–1979), and Wu Zhongxiong 吳仲熊 (1899–1989), among a total of about eighteen people, including the Japanese consul general in Shanghai, Murai Kuramatsu 村井倉松 (1888–1953); the head of the Mitsui Bank branch, Hirano Hosuke 平野保助 (1887–?); Nisshin steamship's Yonezato Monkichi 米里紋吉 (?–1938); and Sakai Yosakichi 堺與三吉 (1873–1931) from the Shanghai Institute of Natural Science (Watanabe and Masaki 1931: 390–92).

This amalgamation of culture and diplomacy was strengthened by the participation of high-level attendees at the banquet. Their presence not only added political and economic weight to this cultural gathering but also made it a significant node in advancing Sino-Japanese artistic exchanges. Moreover, Wang Yiting engaged in detailed discussions with the Japanese side regarding the exhibition, ensuring that all aspects were thoroughly addressed. For instance, since the Chinese lenders feared that their collections would not be returned, Mitsui Bank undertook to handle the transportation and storage of the masterpieces and to insure them in the event of accidental loss. This demonstrates that the bank supported and played a role in the exchange of art. Through such events, we see that the combination of art and diplomacy is not just a theoretical concept but is realized through actual interpersonal networks and organized activities. Wang's role and actions highlight the individual's influence in cultural diplomacy and illustrate how cultural activities can be used to strengthen international relations. Overall, through Wang's activities and strategies in 1931, we observe how culture and politics intertwine at specific historical moments, not only shaping the relationship between China and Japan but also affecting the broader international cultural and political landscape. This complex interaction of culture and politics is an indispensable component of understanding contemporary international relations.

On January 19, 1931, a pivotal moment unfolded in the realm of Sino-Japanese cultural diplomacy through art, orchestrated by Hangzhou painter Wang Yachen 汪亞塵 (1894–1983). Trained at the Tokyo Fine Arts School, Wang played a crucial role as guide for Japanese officials Masaki and Watanabe during their visit to Hangzhou. Their mission was to explore and potentially secure masterpieces of Chinese painting for cultural exchange purposes, underscoring the intricate interplay between art and diplomacy. During their visit, Wang introduced the Japanese delegation to several luminaries in the Chinese art world, including painters Yu Shaosong 余紹宋 (1882–1949) and archaeologist Ma Xulun 馬序倫 (1885–1970). These collectors facilitated access to significant Chinese artworks for the Japanese delegation, successfully soliciting masterpieces such as Small Birds (Xiaoqin tuzhou 小禽圖軸) by Bada Shanren and Tree Shade in Ink (Shuimo shuyin tuzhou 水墨樹陰圖軸) by Wen Zhengming 文徵明 (1470–1559) (Watanabe and Masaki 1931: 393–94). Educated artists like Wang Yachen, along with Yu Shaosong, leveraged their understanding and appreciation of Japanese artistic methods and cultural nuances to serve as intermediaries. Their education in Japan not only honed their artistic abilities but also equipped them with the cultural sensibility required to navigate and bridge the diverse artistic landscapes of China and Japan. Upon their return to Shanghai, Masaki and Watanabe continued to cultivate relationships within the art community. They engaged with notable figures such as Yu Jifan 俞寄凡 (1891–1968), a representative of the Xinhua Academy of Art (Xinhua Yishu Zhuanke Xuexiao 新華藝術專科學校), and Jin Qijing 金啟靜 (1902–1982), representative of the Art Garden Painting Research Institute (Yiyuan Huihua Yanjiusuo 藝苑繪畫研究所) (Watanabe and Masaki 1931: 395). Their interactions culminated in a significant reception hosted by the Shanghai Japanese Club in Hongkou 虹口, attended by more than sixty individuals, including artists, collectors, and politicians. Not merely a social gathering, the reception also demonstrated Japan's strategy of utilizing Chinese artists with international educations to promote its own diplomatic agenda within the framework of cultural diplomacy. In a historically turbulent period, this approach enriched the cultural dialog between the two countries.

On January 27, 1931, accompanied by Wang Yiting, Masaki and Watanabe went to visit Cheng Linsheng 程霖生 (1886–1943), a Shanghai real estate dealer who was keen to collect antique paintings and calligraphy. They were able to obtain nineteen masterpieces, such as Cold Forest (Hanlin zhou 寒林軸) by Wang Duo 王鐸 (1592–1652), Flower Album (Huahui ce 花卉冊) by Lu Baoshan 陸包山 (1496–1576), and Flower Stone Hall (Hua Shitang fu 花石堂幅) by Chen Chun 陳淳 (1483–1544). Furthermore, Pang Yuanji 龐元濟 (1864–1949) gifted his books Record of Famous Paintings of Xuzhai (Xuzhai minghua lu 虛齋名畫錄; 16 vols.) and Supplement to Record of Famous Paintings of Xuzhai (Xuzhai minghua xulu 虛齋名畫續錄; 4 vols.), totaling twenty volumes, to Watanabe and Masaki. Pang not only possessed financial resources but was also good at evaluating artworks. He was a famous collector of the Republic of China because of his collections of bronzes, porcelains, paintings, calligraphy, and jades. Pang hoped that this Sino-Japanese joint exhibition would make it possible to set up an exclusive exhibition room for “Xuzhai Famous Paintings” to display the works recorded in his books (Watanabe and Masaki 1931: 396–97). One of Pang's underlying goals was to position himself as an informed cultural intermediary, entrusted to champion the values of the intellectual and political elite both domestically and abroad, particularly through his embodiment of the “scholar's taste.” He achieved this notably through his collection and scholarly Xuzhai catalogues. Pang's willingness to share his collection showcased not only his affection for the pieces but also his conviction that his collection epitomized China's cultural heritage, something he believed others should experience (Burnett 2020: 7–25).

To obtain support from relevant departments of the Republic of China, Masaki and Watanabe went to Nanjing on January 30. They visited Liu Zhaohui 柳詔徽 (1880–1956), director of the National Library; Wang Boqun 王伯群 (1885–1944), minister of transportation; Li Zheng 李蒸 (1895–1975), director of social affairs of the Ministry of Education; Xu Beihong 徐悲鴻 (1895–1953), a teacher in arts education at the National Central University; Hu Hanmin 胡漢民 (1879–1936), president of the Legislative Council; Zhang Wohua 張我華 (1886–1938), minister of the interior; Zhang Ji 張繼 (1882–1947), chairman of the Antiquities Preservation Committee; and Ma Fuxiang 馬福祥 (1876–1932), chairman of the Manchurian, Mongolian and Tibetan Committee. Zhang Wohua had exhibited his collection at the previous “Exhibition of Masterpieces of the Tang, Song, Yuan, and Ming Dynasties” in 1928. He believed that paintings and calligraphy of the Peking Antiquities Exhibition Hall, managed by the Ministry of the Interior, should be considered for exhibition (Gaimushō Gaikō Shiryōkan 1931b: 46–47).

As a tool of cultural soft power, painting played a vital role in Sino-Japanese diplomacy. In addition to being a medium of cultural exchange, it serves as a means of conveying political intent as well. A typical example is Watanabe's gift of paintings to Chiang Kai-shek 蔣介石 (1887–1975). The symbolic meaning of these paintings far exceeds their intrinsic aesthetic value and becomes an effective medium for political communication. For example, as early as September 1928, through the introduction of Wang Yiting, Watanabe presented the Double Peacock Peony Manglietia Stone (Shuang kongque mudan mulianshi tu 雙孔雀牡丹木蓮石圖) to Chiang, a symbol of kingship. In February 1931, Watanabe gifted Chiang the White Eagle (Baiying tu 白鷹圖), which depicted an eagle spreading its wings and soaring, symbolizing Chiang's determination and power to push for national unification. The gift of the paintings occurred shortly after Chiang's victory in the Central Plains War (Zhongyuan dazhan 中原大戰),³ and Chiang readily agreed to the exhibition proposal. This fusion of art and politics reflects Chiang's support for Sino-Japanese artistic exchanges, a visionary cultural diplomacy strategy in the context of contemporary politics. Shu Chushi 舒楚石 (fl. 20th c.), the director of the Nanjing Antiquities Preservation Institute under the Ministry of Education, affirmed his support for the joint exhibition in a government document (Gaimushō Gaikō Shiryōkan 1931b: 34), further validating the Kuomintang government's endorsement and encouragement of this form of cultural diplomacy. The close interconnection between art and foreign policy demonstrates how Chiang and his administration adroitly employed cultural initiatives to reinforce their political accomplishments and advance international collaboration.

After receiving authorization through a government document from the Nationalist regime, Watanabe embarked not on a return to Japan but on a significant journey through northern China, visiting cities such as Beiping, Tianjin, Lüshun, and Mukden. This was not merely a personal or exploratory visit; it was a purposeful diplomatic and cultural mission, underscoring the strategic use of cultural diplomacy by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. During his travels, Watanabe met with such notable figures as the railroad commissioner Guan Mianjun 關冕均 (1871–1933); painter Jin Kaifan 金開藩 (1895–1946); the grandson of Prince Gong, Puru 溥儒 (1896–1963);⁴ the deposed emperor Puyi 溥儀 (1906–1967);⁵ Puyi's tutor Chen Baochen 陳寶琛 (1848–1935); renowned Qing loyalist Luo Zhenyu 羅振玉 (1866–1940); and the young marshal Zhang Xueliang 張學良 (1901–2001) from Mukden, securing their commitment to lend exhibits for cultural display. Watanabe's journey in China highlights his travels across the coastal and adjacent regions, specifically targeting major cities known for their rich historical and political significance. These locations were pivotal not only for their strategic and cultural value but also for their role in the broader context of the Kuomintang government's efforts to consolidate cultural heritage and national identity. After the Kuomintang government established its capital in Nanjing in 1928, it undertook significant efforts to protect China's cultural patrimony, culminating in the implementation of the Antiquities Protection Law (Guwu baohu fa 古物保護法) in June 1930. The main points are as follows:

Chinese cultural relics continued to flow overseas in the early twentieth century. This law was a direct response to the ongoing challenges of protecting national treasures from being lost overseas, emphasizing the government's proactive stance in safeguarding its cultural assets. This suggests that the Kuomintang government recognized the importance of cultural education and its role in fostering a sense of national identity and pride. Furthermore, Watanabe's extensive interactions with various sectors of the Chinese society, ranging from former royalty and political leaders to educators and artists, highlight the interconnectedness of art, education, and politics during this era. By examining Watanabe's and Masaki's extensive travels and their engagements with key figures across the China, we can see the impact of cultural diplomacy as practiced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. This approach not only involved the art circles of the China but also included strategic engagements with educational institutions and government officials, thus integrating cultural diplomacy into the broader framework of national and international politics.

Shared Traditions, Divergent Visions: Perspectives on Ancient Painting

On April 23, 1931, a delegation of Chinese artists left for Japan. Led by Wang Yiting, head of the inspection mission for the exhibition, this group comprised twelve distinguished members, including renowned artist Qian Shoutie 錢瘦鐵 (1897–1967). This group joined other prominent attendees such as Zhang Daqian, Wu Hufan 吳湖帆 (1894–1968), Jin Kaifan, and Liu Xiangye 劉驤業 (1887–?), illustrating the exhibition's broad appeal and significant cross-cultural participation (Yomiuri shinbun 1931). The exhibition's grand opening on April 28 at the Tokyo Metropolitan Art Gallery marked the pinnacle of cultural diplomacy between China and Japan. Reported on extensively by Jiji Shinpō, the event highlighted the Japanese government's high level of commitment, evidenced by the attendance of elite Cabinet members such as Foreign Minister Shidehara, Minister of Home Affairs Ichiki Kitokurō 一木喜德郎 (1867–1944), and Minister of Education Tanaka Ryūzō 田中隆三 (1864–1940). The ceremony featured opening remarks by Masaki Naohiko, followed by congratulatory speeches from Chinese representatives Wang Yiting and Yuan Siyong 袁思永 (1880–?) (Gaimushō Gaikō Shiryōkan 1931b: 63–69). Okabe Nagakage, head of the Asian Bureau of the Foreign Ministry, and Wang Rongbao, the Republic of China's ambassador to Japan, underscored the event's diplomatic significance. This exhibition was not just an effort by the Chinese and Japanese art communities but a profound gesture of cultural diplomacy by the General Committee for Cultural Affairs of China and Japan and the Kuomintang government in an attempt to strengthen bilateral relations through cultural exchanges.

According to the Catalogue of Ancient Paintings from the Exhibition of Ancient and Modern Sino-Japanese Paintings (Nikka kokin kaiga tenrankai koga mokuroku 日華古今繪畫展覽會古畫目錄) and Catalogue of Modern Paintings from the Ancient and Modern Sino-Japanese Exhibition (Nikka kokin kaiga tenrankai gendaiga mokuroku 日華古今繪畫展覽會現代畫目錄), the Preparatory Committee for the exhibition collected 1,669 paintings loaned by various collectors: 686 ancient paintings and 718 modern paintings from the Republic of China, and 237 ancient paintings and 28 modern paintings from Japan (fig. 1)⁶—most of the Chinese paintings had never left China before. Table 1 shows the total number of paintings by dynasty, not including the 39 paintings with unclear dynastic origins. By comparing the number of paintings exhibited from each era (table 1),⁷ we know that the number of paintings loaned by China, ranging from the Tang dynasty to the Republic of China period, was higher than the number loaned by Japan. Among them, the gap in the number of paintings from the Tang to Song dynasties was relatively small, and the gap increased after the Yuan dynasty.

The Chinese painting exhibition cleverly traced the evolutionary process from the Tang and Song dynasties to the Qing dynasty, especially the changes in the styles of landscape, flower-and-bird, and figure painting. Starting with the Song dynasty, such notable artists as Song Huizong 宋徽宗 (1082–1135), Zhang Zeduan 張擇端 (1085–1145), and Li Tang 李唐 (1066–1150), and others like Liu Songnian 劉松年 (ca. 1155–1224), exemplified the imperial-court professional works that set a precedent for later artistic innovations. As the exhibit transitioned into the Yuan dynasty, it underscored the shift toward literati painting (wenrenhua 文人畫)⁸ with celebrated figures such as Qian Xuan 錢選 (1239–1299) and Zhao Mengfu 趙孟頫 (1254–1322). This period also introduced us to the “Four Masters of the Yuan dynasty” (Yuansidajia 元四大家): Huang Gongwang 黃公望 (1269–1354), Wang Meng 王蒙 (ca. 1308–1385), Ni Zan 倪瓚 (1301–1374), and Wu Zhen 吳鎮 (1280–1354), who were instrumental in furthering the literati style. The Ming dynasty continued this tradition with the works of the Wu school (Wumenhuapai 吳門畫派) by masters like Shen Zhou 沈周 (1427–1509), Wen Zhengming 文徵明 (1470–1559), Tang Yin 唐寅 (1470–1524), and Qiu Ying 仇英 (ca. 1494–1552). The inscriptions on a Wu school painting were typically written in the form of a description or explanation of the work. They were often viewed as a vehicle for expressing the artist's own ideas. The Qing dynasty introduced new artistic dimensions with the “Six Masters of the Qing” (Qingliujia 清六家): Wang Shimin 王時敏 (1592–1680), Wang Jian 王鑒 (1598–1677), Wang Hui 王翬 (1632–1717), Wang Yuanqi 王原祁 (1642–1715), Yun Shouping 惲壽平 (1633–1690), and Wu Li 吳歷 (ca. 1632–1718). The period was also marked by the “Four Monks” (siseng 四僧), such as Bada Shanren and Shitao. Their works changed the artistic narrative of the Qing by emphasizing the intimate relationship between personal expression and nature.

Moreover, the exhibition showcased the impact of regional schools such as the Yangzhou school (Yangzhouhuapai 揚州畫派) with such artists as Hua Yan 華嵒 (Xinluo Shanren 新羅山人, 1682–1756) and the Shanghai school (haipai 海派) represented by painters such as Zhao Zhiqian 趙之謙 (1829–1884) and Wu Changshuo 吳昌碩 (1844–1927). These schools contributed to the rich tapestry of Chinese painting by integrating local influences with broader artistic movements. This extensive exhibition not only charted a timeline of Chinese art history but also celebrated the individual artists who had shaped the landscape of Chinese painting through their unique interpretations and contributions to various artistic movements across dynasties.

In a remarkable cultural event during the “Exhibition of Masterpieces of the Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing Dynasties,” the Tokyo Imperial Household Museum showcased an exclusive collection of twenty-eight “national treasures.” These treasures were displayed at such locations as Tōfukuji 東福寺 Temple, Myōshin 妙心寺 Temple, and Daitoku 大德寺 Temple. These masterpieces were mainly Zen (Chan 禪) paintings and “imperial-court professional paintings” (yuantihua 院體畫) by Mu Xi 牧谿 (ca. 13th c.) and Lü Ji 呂紀 (1477–?), whose paintings were introduced to Japan during the Song and Yuan dynasties. These masterpieces also included influential works from the Kanō school, Kaihō school, and Maruyama school, represented by Kanō Masanobu 狩野正信 (1434–1530), Kanō Motonobu 狩野元信 (1476–1559), Kaihō Yūshō 海北友松 (1533–1615), and Maruyama Ōkyo 圓山應舉 (1733–1795). In particular, what attracted the attention of the Chinese and Japanese journalists was that on May 16, the Japanese Empress Dowager visited the Tokyo Imperial Household Museum and the Tokyo Metropolitan Art Gallery. Wang Rongbao, Shidehara Kijūrō, and Okabe Nagakage gave detailed explanations of “national treasures,” lasting three hours (je11631540C33Tōkyō Asahi Shinbun 1931). This engagement illustrates what appears to be a deliberate attempt to downplay the geographic differences between China and Japan, emphasizing the historically strong exchanges and connections between the Chinese and Japanese painting traditions and reinvigorating the mutual appreciation of the shared painting heritage between the two countries.

Among the Chinese exhibitors, the main representatives were Shanghai's Pang Yuanji (22 paintings), Wang Yiting (17 paintings), and Zhang Shanzi (7 paintings); Beiping's Puru (9 paintings), Zhou Zhaoxiang 周肇祥 (1880–1954) (9 paintings), Jin Kaifan (7 paintings), and Qi Baishi 齊白石 (1864–1957) (5 paintings); Mukden's Zhang Xueliang (17 paintings); Tianjin's Xu Shichang (10 paintings) and Puyi (5 paintings); and Lüshun's Luo Zhenyu (16 paintings). As a noteworthy aside, Pang Yuanji, also known as Pang Laichen 庞莱臣, was a wealthy businessman and collector. For the late Qing, Pang can be considered among the group of merchant-collectors active in Shanghai. Pang not only amassed extensive collections but also meticulously cataloged them. These catalogs provide valuable insights into the tastes, values, and attitudes prevalent during their respective periods. The paintings from the Four Masters of the Yuan Dynasty, Wu school, and Six Masters of the Qing exhibited by Pang embody the artistic canon of the Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties. These works reflect the dominant values of the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries, which significantly influenced foreign collectors and scholars, shaping their understanding of Chinese culture. As highlighted by Katharine P. Burnett (2020: 23), these collections mark a transition from the late Qing dynasty to the early Republican era, illustrating how these periods were perceived and valued internationally.

Among the exhibited works, Night-Shining White (Zhaoyebai tu 照夜白圖) (fig. 2), loaned by Puru and attributed to Tang dynasty painter Han Gan 韓幹 (fl. ca. 742–56), was the oldest work. Han Gan's horse was not only realistic in appearance but also vivid on paper. A “Puru appraisal calligrapher's seal” could be found in the paintings. After the exhibition, it was recorded in the catalog Overview of Famous Chinese Paintings from Song Yuan Ming and Qing (Sō Gen Min Shin meiga taikan 宋元明清名畫大觀). Currently, Night-Shining White is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. This painting entered the Qing imperial household department in the Qing dynasty and was deeply favored by Emperor Qianlong 乾隆 (1711–1799), and there are a large number of Qianlong's inscriptions on the scroll. After the Revolution of 1911, cultural relics such as paintings and calligraphy hemorrhaged out from the Qing Imperial Household Department, and Night-Shining White belonged privately to Puru. According to an entry in Watanabe's “Diary of Travel to China,” dated February 11, 1931, Watanabe visited Prince Gong's mansion and submitted a prospectus of the exhibition, requesting Puru to be a patron of the exhibition (Watanabe and Masaki 1931: 403). Thus, in May 1931, Night-Shining White was exhibited at the Tokyo Metropolitan Art Gallery. In 1936, the painting was acquired by a collector in Shanghai named Ye. It was subsequently purchased by Percival David (1892–1964), a prominent British collector of Chinese artifacts. Douglas Dillon, who had served as the US secretary of the treasury and later as the chairman of the board of trustees at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, decided in the early 1970s to address what was then a significant gap in the museum's collection: Chinese paintings and calligraphy. To this end, he established the Dillon Foundation, which acquired the painting from David's estate and donated it to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1977, where it continues to be a significant piece in their collection.

Among the Japanese exhibitors, distinct groups included bureaucrats, representatives of zaibatsu (family-controlled conglomerates, 財閥), industrialists, painters, and scholars. While there was some overlap among these categories, each played a unique role. The bureaucrats were typically government officials involved in policy making and international relations, such as Okabe Nagakage. Representatives of the zaibatsu, like Sumitomo Kan'ichi 住友寬一 (1896–1956), eldest son of Sumitomo Shunsui 住友春翠 (1864–1926) and president of Sumitomo Corporation, exemplified the influence of family-controlled conglomerates in Japan's economic and social spheres. Sumitomo Shunsui was the fifteenth head of the Sumitomo family, one of Japan's four major zaibatsu conglomerates. Industrialists in the exhibition included figures like Abe Fusajirō 阿部房次郎 (1868–1937), president of Tōyō Bōseki 東洋紡績 Ltd., and Fujii Zensuke 藤井善助 (1873–1943), manager of a fiber manufacturing company, who represented the operational and entrepreneurial spirit within Japanese industry. The category of painters was highlighted by individuals such as Watanabe Shinpo, a member of the Japan Art Association, who contributed their artistic talents to the cultural showcase. Scholars like Naitō Konan 内藤湖南 (1866–1934), a professor at Kyoto Imperial University, provided academic perspectives and research insights into the exhibit. The following section presents a list of three individuals who made notable contributions to the 1931 exhibition.

Abe Fusajirō, a prominent industrialist, was also renowned for his profound interest in collecting Chinese paintings and calligraphy, especially his “Abe collection.” Abe was born in the first year of the Meiji era (1868–1912), and before that, the Edo Bakufu had implemented a policy of seclusion orders to prevent European missionaries from spreading Christianity. The policy resulted in restrictions on Japanese travel abroad and the entry of foreigners into the country. This made it challenging for Japanese collectors to procure Chinese paintings and calligraphy. After the Meiji government lifted the ban on foreign travel, many collectors were able to travel to China in search of paintings and calligraphy (Little 2014: 41). With his early business trips to China, Abe was able to buy paintings and calligraphy directly from China, and in the early twentieth century, when drastic changes in Chinese society led to the dispersal of cultural artifacts overseas, many Chinese painting and calligraphy collectors, such as Luo Zhenyu, Lianquan 廉泉 (1868–1931), and Yan Shiqing 顏世清 (1868–1928), carried their collections eastward to Japan in search of a market for their paintings and calligraphy. Abe advocated the importation of Chinese artifacts of Oriental art to counteract Japan's excessive Europeanization, and for twenty-five years, from 1911 to 1936, he purchased some two hundred paintings and calligraphies from Chinese collectors through the intermediary of the Japanese antique art dealer Hakubundō 博文堂 (Qiu 2023: 80–81). Today, the Osaka City Museum of Fine Arts houses 160 Chinese paintings and calligraphy from Abe's collection.

The Chōkaidō 澄懷堂 collection was amassed by Yamamoto Teijirō 山本悌二郎 (1870–1937), a prominent politician who served as the minister of agriculture under Prime Minister Tanaka Giichi 田中義一 (1864–1929) during the late Taisho period (1912–26). Similar to Abe Fusajirō, Yamamoto acquired works directly from China in his early days. He visited China in 1916, and a series of letters exchanged between epigraphers Wang Guowei 王國維 (1877–1927) and Luo Zhenyu indicates that he purchased ancient Chinese paintings from Shanghai industrialist Pang Yuanji and Cheng Bingquan 程冰泉 (fl. 20th c.). These acquisitions included pieces by Dai Jin 戴進 (1388–1462), Dong Qichang 董其昌 (1555–1636), and Wang Shimin. Yamamoto later sold some of these paintings to other Japanese collectors (Little 2014: 42). Yamamoto was once the largest collector of Chinese paintings and calligraphy in Japan, with as many as two thousand pieces. In addition to hosting Chinese collectors, Yamamoto's 1931 exhibition featured seven works, including Scroll Painting of Pipa Player (Pipaxing tuzhou 琵琶行圖軸) by Wen Jia 文嘉 (1501–1508) and Boneless Landscape Scroll (Mogu shanshui tuzhou 沒骨山水圖軸) by Xinluo Shanren.

Sumitomo Kan'ichi, as an emerging collector during the Taisho and Showa periods in Japan, exhibited eleven collections, ranking first among Japanese exhibitors. Sumitomo's interest was collecting paintings from the Ming and Qing dynasties. His Album of Eight Views of Mount Huang (Huangshan basheng huace 黃山八勝畫冊) and Viewing the Waterfall at Lu-shan (Lushan guanpu tu 廬山觀瀑圖) exhibited by Shitao were designated as “important cultural properties” by the Agency for Cultural Affairs Government of Japan in 1953 and 1954, respectively. Also particularly notable, Abe Fusajirō exhibited the sketch scroll One Hundred Horses (Baijun tu baimiao gao juan 百駿圖白描稿卷) by Giuseppe Castiglione (Lang Shining 郎世寧, 1688–1766), a Jesuit missionary serving the Qing court, originally collected by the Qing Imperial Household Department and recorded in the first edition of Shiqu baoji 石渠寶笈 in the Qianlong period (1736–1795). One Hundred Horses, the hand scroll line drawing (baimiao 白描)⁹ in traditional ink and brush style, is now in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Furthermore, another of Giuseppe Castiglione's One Hundred Horses, in ink and colors on silk, is in the collection of the National Palace Museum in Taipei. There is no collector stamp on One Hundred Horses of the Metropolitan, but it has the inscription “exhibited by the Exhibition of Ancient and Modern Sino-Japanese Paintings” (Nikka kokin kaiga tenrankai shuppin 日華古今繪畫展覽會出品) at the top right (fig. 3a and b), which also serves as direct evidence that this work once appeared in the exhibition. This label must have been added later by the exhibition organizers to facilitate the numbering and identification of the works. The organizers used preprinted title labels inscribed with the dynasty, artist, and title, much like a traditional title slip. However, no numbers were appended to the preprinted text on the right. While this reflects the modern orientation of the organizers in terms of allocation and museum storage management, the attempts to modernize traditional connoisseurial practices appear to be incomplete.

After World War I, the growth of industry and commerce in Japan directly spurred its import-export trade and foreign investment. The art market flourished with this economic boom. Armed with substantial financial means and favorable opportunities, Japan's burgeoning affluent class eagerly invested in Chinese art. Many of the collections highlighted in the 1931 exhibition catalog had previously been featured in Japanese art magazines, including Kokka 國華. In particular, Japanese enthusiasts showed significant interest in collections from Pang Yuanji and Puru. The 1931 exhibition not only served as a valuable reference for the calligraphy and painting markets in Japan and perhaps the West but also furthered Japanese cultural endeavors toward China. Essentially, the exhibition both promoted Chinese art and artifacts and disseminated expertise on Chinese arts and cultures.

For the Chinese, calligraphy and painting transcend mere cultural heritage; they epitomize the esteemed literati class. Possessing such cultural treasures equated to entering the esteemed circle of renowned literati. Acquiring a piece by a culturally significant figure was akin to ascending to an elite social echelon. Owning a celebrity's artwork not only elevated one's social standing but also drew the admiration and envy of peers, ensuring a spot in China's cultural and social annals. The prominence of the artist often took precedence over the work's intrinsic quality and its visual impact on the viewer. Similarly, in Japan, the creation and transfer of art collections bestowed immense social prestige. The eagerness of Japanese lay buyers, unfamiliar with Chinese painting and calligraphy, to invest in these artworks underscored the rivalry over the possession of Chinese cultural heritage.

Chinese painting was promoted in the 1931 exhibition, but its motives and issues were complex. The exhibits span from the Tang dynasty to the Republic of China, and the age and authorship of some works remain disputed. Some exhibits might even be tainted with counterfeits, particularly among the Song and Yuan pieces, some of which are suspected to be Ming and Qing imitations or forgeries. The motivations of the exhibitors were diverse. Beyond public displays and political objectives, there is a possibility that the exhibitors, whether Chinese or Japanese, aimed to sell their collections, elevate their stature as collectors, attract potential buyers, or, in cases like Luo Zhenyu during his exile in Japan (1911–19), blend genuine pieces with forgeries in exhibitions and sales packages (Su and Qiu 2022: 117–30). Such behavior not only affected the authenticity and value of paintings and calligraphy but also reflected the complexity and uncertainty of the art market at the time.

The exhibition showcased numerous paintings from the Qing dynasty. Naitō Konan, a renowned historian and Sinologist and prominent figure from the Kyōto school, was an ardent advocate of Qing dynasty paintings and delved deep into his study of them. Naitō spent the first half of his life as a reporter for the Asahi Shinbun and was a famous “China expert” in the Japanese press in the mid- to late Meiji period; he taught at Kyoto Imperial University from 1907 to 1926. Naitō propounded the “theory of the movement of the cultural center” and also advocated the restoration and promotion of Japanese and Oriental culture, opposing the invasion of European culture. He authored “Paintings of the Qing Dynasty,” which was serialized in the Ōsaka Asahi Shinbun in August 1916. The main inspiration for the serialized article came from the “Exhibition of Qing Dynasty Paintings and Calligraphy” held in August 1915, when Naitō was teaching at Kyoto Imperial University. In his article, Naitō meticulously curated the collection, categorizing representative figures and painting styles chronologically, contrasting them with Edo paintings of the same era. Naitō used Dong Qichang's so-called Theory of the South and the North as a benchmark for art history. Dong's theory divides Chinese painting into the Southern school (literati painting as an amateur hobby of Chinese scholars) and Northern school (court painting created by professional painters), and he regarded Southern painting as the orthodoxy of fine art.

Naitō made a significant observation regarding the transmission and evolution of artistic style from the Song and Yuan dynasties to the conclusion of the Ming dynasty. He asserted that this style was perpetuated and refined by the “Four Wangs, Wu, and Yun”: the Six Masters of the Qing Wang Shimin, Wang Jian, Wang Yuanqi, Wang Hui, Yun Shouping, and Wu Li. These artists were designated as the orthodox school of painting in the Qing dynasty, which emphasized brushwork and ink. They dedicated themselves to emulating antiquity, pursuing a minimalist and refined artistic style and domain of painting. As Naitō noted, painters in the initial period of the Qing dynasty placed greater emphasis on technical proficiency and minutiae, striving to attain a pinnacle of technical accomplishment. This style, however, saw fewer exceptional successors over time. In the latter half of the Qing dynasty, the style of painting transformed, with a greater focus on the expression of the painter's personal preferences and individuality. For instance, Jin Nong 金農 (1687–1773) and Zheng Banqiao 鄭板橋 (1693–1765) eschewed the display of their abilities. Jin's paintings bore a resemblance to those of the Japanese Rinpa 琳派 school, whereas Zheng employed uncomplicated brushstrokes to depict orchids and bamboos, both of which were untamed and intriguing (Naitō 1938: 166–67). Although this shift may appear to be a regression in technical terms, it resulted in a more concise and accessible style of art that was more readily comprehensible and appealing to the general public. In other words, it reflects the popularization of painting styles during this period.

In contrast, Naitō pointed out, the Japanese art world is overly commercialized, meaning that painters create works to cater to the market. He argued that, leaving aside the merits of the paintings, the Japanese style of painting lags behind that of China. There was a difference in taste in painting between China and Japan. The Japanese preference was not for orthodox schools of painting such as the “Four Wangs, Wu, and Yun.” Instead, they favored regional styles such as the Zhejiang school 浙派, the Jiangxi school 江西畫派, and the Minnan school 閩南畫派, which originated from rural influences and featured strong local colors (Naitō 1916). This disparity in preferences may stem from the differences in time and space between the creation and dissemination of paintings, leading to misunderstandings or one-sided understandings of certain aspects of Chinese painting by Japanese artists. A good example of this is the fact that five of Shen Quan's 沈銓 (1682–1760) works were featured in the 1931 exhibition. While Shen, a painter from the Qianlong period, did not get much attention in China, his works were sought after by the Japanese and significantly influenced their style.

The exhibition also prominently featured contemporary Chinese paintings from the Republic of China. The goal of Chinese patronage was to conserve the essence of the nation by fostering a deeper connection between modern artists, collectors, and art from their country's rich history. The participating artists and collectors were closely associated with two calligraphy and painting societies aimed at preserving the national essence (guocui 國粹). The first was the Shanghai Calligraphy and Painting Research Society (Shanghai shuhua yanjiuhui 上海書畫研究會), led by the renowned calligrapher and collector Li Pingshu 李平書 (1854–1927), which was established in 1910. This society ardently promoted guohua 國畫 (traditionalist Chinese ink painting) by showcasing traditional art in expansive exhibitions. The second was the Chinese Painting Research Society (Zhongguo huaxue yanjiuhui 中國畫學研究會), founded in Beijing by Jin Cheng 金城 (1878–1926) and Zhou Zhaoxiang. This society actively collaborated with Japanese traditionalists, predominantly those practicing Japan's literati painting (nanga 南画)¹⁰ and Japanese-style painting (nihonga 日本画). Their joint efforts led to the organization of international exhibitions in major cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Tokyo. During the 1920s and early 1930s, members from these societies pooled their artistic and organizational talents for Sino-Japanese joint exhibitions. These events elevated numerous Chinese artists to national acclaim, simultaneously underscoring the enduring vigor of China's traditional art on a global stage (Davis 2009: 114). Thus, this exhibition prominently displayed a plethora of contemporary works, underscoring the mission to preserve and bridge the connection to ancient artworks.

Oriental Taste: An Icon of Modernity

Due to the disintegration of the traditional Hua-Yi system (Huayizhixu 華夷秩序)¹¹ in the nineteenth century and the influence of the Meiji government's policy of “Leaving Asia, Entering Europe” (Datsua Nyūō 脱亞入歐), Japanese fine arts also experienced a trend of overall Westernization as did Japanese society, and some intellectuals trumpeted “Europeanization” and “De-Asianization” and further turned to the contempt and rejection of Oriental art. To illustrate, Okakura Tenshin 岡倉天心 (1862–1913) was the spiritual leader of modern Japanese art. He was one of the founders of the Tokyo Fine Arts School and served as its second president, training a large number of masters of Japanese painting, such as Yokoyama Taikan 橫山大觀 (1868–1958), Shimomura Kanzan 下村觀山 (1873–1930), and Hishida Shunsō 菱田春草 (1874–1943). His ideas and thoughts on art have influenced generations of Japanese artists. Furthermore, Okakura and his American teacher, Ernest F. Fenollosa (1853–1908), both inveighed against bunjinga 文人畫, a genre that rose to a prominent position in the Yuan and Ming dynasties, and dismissed it as a fruitless rehashing of old models, arguing that literati paintings of the Yuan and Ming were just reproductions of the Tang and Song dynasties (see Okakura 1980).

However, the changes brought about by the Meiji Restoration did not manifest simultaneously across all facets of life. In terms of Japanese artistic taste, members from both the old and new elite admired and collected traditional Chinese and Japanese art. They also acknowledged the significance of authority in the arts, viewing it as a symbol of legitimate and robust leadership. They recognized the role of artistic tradition in fortifying national identity well before the conservative shift in the latter half of the Meiji era. Additionally, companies like Mitsui Bank fostered the arts, particularly those related to the tea ceremony (chanoyu 茶の湯), as a means to promote company values and business interests (Guth 1993: 129–43).

After the Boxer Rebellion and the Revolution of 1911, many Chinese officials and elites fell into economic difficulties amid political upheaval, warlord melees, and the expulsion of the deposed emperor Puyi from the Forbidden City. In addition to the imperial collections of the Qing Imperial Household Department and Prince Kung's mansion, a large number of private collections belonging to nobles, officials, and businessmen were sold to new collectors and museums (Tomida 2002). Consequently, a fresh corpus of Chinese calligraphy and paintings that began to enter Japan during the Taisho period were called “new importations” (shinhakusai 新舶載). The stronghold of importation was the Kansai region in western Japan, which aroused the deep concern of the Kyoto circle represented by Naitō Konan and the Sinologist Nagao Uzan 長尾雨山 (1864–1942). The intermediary was Luo Zhenyu, a former Qing dynasty official who had resided in Kyoto for eight years following the 1911 Revolution. Hundreds, possibly thousands of Chinese paintings and calligraphy were imported to Japan through Luo, whose chances of finding a buyer in Tokyo in the 1910s were relatively low, as many entrepreneurs in Tokyo competed to own “old migration” (kowatari 古渡) artworks, which were mainly court paintings and Zen paintings imported from China before the seventeenth century. These individuals were practitioners of the way of tea (Sadō 茶道) and were keen to obtain items that had been used or displayed in renowned tea ceremonies sponsored by shoguns or daimyo (local lords). Even those who collected imported art showed a greater interest in European Impressionism and Postimpressionism than in Chinese “new importations” (Maeda 2012: 218). However, this phenomenon changed dramatically in the 1920s and 1930s. The new importations, unlike the old collections in the Edo and Meiji periods, contained a large number of paintings attributed to notable literati, whose works were important in the history of Chinese painting. These included works that appeared at the 1931 exhibition, such as Lakeside Villa in Clear Summer (Huzhuang qingxia tu 湖莊清夏圖) by Zhao Lingrang 趙令穰 (fl. 1070–1100) (now in the Museum of Fine Arts Boston), Autumn Mountains with a Remote Temple (Qiushan xiaositu tuzhou 秋山蕭寺圖軸) by Wang Meng, Snowy Vastness (Qiankun xueyi tuzhou 乾坤雪意圖軸) by Shen Zhou, and Floral Album (Huahui ce 花卉冊) by Yun Shouping (now in the Abe collection). Additionally, entrepreneurs in Kansai acquired paintings recognized as masterpieces in the history of Chinese painting, such as Viewing the Waterfall at Lu-shan by Shitao and The Scrolls of a Roc (Dapeng tuzhou 大鵬圖軸) (now in the Sumitomo Collection of Sen-oku Hakukokan Museum). These masterpieces were indispensable for the development and style of subsequent bunjinga.

Now that we have analyzed Naitō’s research on Qing dynasty painting, let us consider his scholarship concerning the history of Chinese painting. In summary, the Kyōto circle led by Naitō believed Western culture lacked beauty and spirituality. They opposed China's export of cultural treasures to the West. Naitō argued that Japan, as the “Leader of the East,” should collect Chinese paintings and calligraphy to reduce their flow to the West. In doing so, Japan would be preserving Chinese cultural heritage, thereby confirming his “theory of the movement of the cultural center” (Naitō 1924: 61). When evaluating the Kyōto circle in the context of early twentieth-century art history, it is evident that Naitō played a pivotal role in both the canonization of literati painting (“Nanzong painting”) in Japan and its subsequent recanonization in China. The endeavors of its members started largely with importing antiquities from the Qing Imperial Collection along with various scholar-official collections. These collections reflect the later evolution of literati painting. The dispersion of the Qing collections abroad may have helped dissociate literati painting from its Manchu connections, paving the way for its later reimportation as the core of China's “national painting” (Maeda 2012: 227). Therefore, the venue of the 1931 exhibition was set in Tokyo, partly out of the consideration that Tokyo was the political and economic center of Japan, and partly because there was probably a market of potential buyers in Tokyo. In a sense, the Kyōto circle acted as an apologist for literati painting (“Four Wangs, Wu, and Yun”) during a period when it was criticized as a symbol of the Manchu court. Among Japanese intellectuals, there was a strong urge to view East Asia as a cultural entity and to explore Chinese art as the origin of East Asian fine art. Naitō once argued in a lecture that nanga was the most orthodox of the world's fine arts, transcending the Oriental, and compared the evolution of Japanese and Western art with that of China (Naitō 1938: 215–33). This was in contrast to the cultural hierarchy of the Meiji period, which was based on the idea of “Leaving Asia, Entering Europe,” and placed China at the forefront of art history, Japan second, and the West last. It might be argued that Naitō’s argument contributed to the nationalism of Chinese culture.

To sum up, the exhibition of 1931 not only showcased a large number of mainstream literary paintings such as those by the “Four Masters of the Yuan dynasty,” the “Wu School,” and the “Six Masters of the Qing” but also showcased a fresh corpus of works by Shitao, Bada Shanren, and Xinluo Shanren, many of whom were scarcely known in Japan before the Taisho period. A characteristic shared by Shitao and Bada Shanren was that their works were eclectic and had distinct individualism. In Shitao's works, what is presented more is a sense of the guai 怪 (strange, uncanny), pursuing the bizarre and exhibiting a varied style, but amidst the grotesque and ever changing, there is much order and discipline. In the works of Bada Shanren, what is more prominently displayed is a sense of qi 奇 (lit., different, odd); he is renowned for his paintings of seemingly psychotic birds and fishes. Many interpret these birds and fishes as a commentary on his social predicament (Burnett 2013: 298). The two shared many similarities in their life experiences: they both originated from the Ming dynasty royal family but became remnants of the past due to the fall of the Ming and the rise of the Qing, and later took monastic vows as Buddhist monks. As Aida-Yuen Wong (2000: 323) points out, “In the eyes of twentieth-century Japanese and Chinese admirers, Shitao and Bada possessed qualities that matched the modern sentiments of the European avant-garde. To what extent these two artists affected the practice of painting in both Japan and China is still a question that awaits more research.” Shitao's paintings are often regarded as a challenge to traditional Chinese landscape painting. His style and techniques were considered a manifestation of liberation from the constraints of tradition at the time. In New Theory of Fine Arts (Bijutsu Shinron 美術新論) in June 1931, painter Kanai Bunken 金井文彦 (1886–1962) wrote, “The Album of Eight Views of Mount Huang [Sumitomo Kan'ichi's collection] by Shitao is a famous album. The album is painted with light colors and the scenery is realistic. Judging from the arrangement and wrinkling and rubbing skills of the rocks, it breaks away from traditional techniques and returns to nature” (Kanai 1931: 82–88). The phrase “breaking away from traditional techniques” here encompasses two meanings: one is innovation based on tradition, and the other is originality. Burnett (2013: 56) concludes that the painting and calligraphy produced during the long seventeenth century is most appropriately called “originalist” rather than “eccentric” or “individualistic.”

The Qing dynasty critics deliberately established official aesthetic values. Although initially some people still supported the values of “originality,” the majority seemed to belittle them, ignore them, or completely disregard them. Such evaluations even influenced Japan in the same period, and it was not until the early twentieth century that Japan developed an appreciation for Shitao. In The Oriental Review in August 1931, Hayami Ikkō 速水一孔, a former Japanese consul in Hangzhou, wrote, “Shitao's painting has obviously been recognized by our country in recent years and he is now the most popular central figure. It is a delightful thing to exhibit so many works this time. It is also the first time I have seen so many works of Shitao since I was born. I always feel that this exhibition was held for Shitao” (Hayami 1931: 124). This assessment indicates that Shitao was not initially recognized in Japan, but his paintings later transcended cultural and national boundaries, becoming capable of inspiring empathy and appreciation among Japanese audiences. In fact, thirty-four paintings by Shitao from Chinese and Japanese collectors were exhibited in the 1931 exhibition, the largest number of paintings by a single artist on display. Overall, the above two comments convey two messages: first, Shitao's painting was considered to be highly individualistic, with unconstrained rules, and second, after Shitao's work spread to Japan, it was gradually accepted by those with Japanese aesthetic tastes, and it became a model for Chinese modern artists in Japanese art circles and also became the embodiment of the national aesthetic standard in the Japanese Empire. In addition to Shitao, Xinluo Shanren and Bada Shanren have also been reevaluated and appreciated by Japanese art circles for the uniqueness of their works in expressing personal emotions and artistic concepts. In Chūgai Shinbun 中外新聞 on April 29, 1931, art critic Togari Soshin'an 外狩素心庵 (1893–1944) wrote,

Togari's perspective reveals a turning point in culture, where the traditional appreciation model of the Edo period was challenged and gradually replaced by a renewed perspective. Integrating the aforementioned comments, it can be seen that Shitao, Bada Shanren, and Xinluo Shanren liberated themselves from all conventions and rules and expressed their personal disposition and “wildness.” Their works made them a new paradigm of bunjinga in the eyes of the Japanese, and these artists even went beyond the “Four Wangs, Wu, and Yun” and were able to be reexamined and reconstructed in Japan, where they also became an icon of modernity. Between the Taisho period and the beginning of the Showa period, an important feature of Japanese art was the revival of bunjinga and the impact of Western Impressionism. The Japanese art circles had resisted overly exaggerated paintings produced by Western-style or Japanese-style artists because these paintings were created to attract judges’ attention at public art exhibitions, while Chinese literati painting, with its subdued pigments and ink as well as blank areas, was seen by some critics as more thoughtful and had once again attracted reviewers’ attention (Taki 1927: 155–56). As early as 1920, Komuro Suiun 小室翠雲 (1874–1945), a leading proponent of Japanese literati painting (nanga), had offered his version in the pictorial Bijutsu shashin gahō 美術寫真畫報: “People do not really comprehend the spirit of nanga and try to evaluate it with the same standards as the realistic art of the West. This is a grave misunderstanding” (Komuro 1920). Komuro disagreed with the notion of defining the modernity of bunjinga based on the criteria of Western modern art. Literati painting (bunjinga), as the embodiment of “Oriental Modern,” was mistakenly taken by many as a globally applicable and universal standard for measuring modern art. Both Komuro and Watanabe Shinpo were the leading proponents of the 1931 exhibition. They attempted to correct Japan's previous narrow understanding of literati painting (bunjinga) by providing a rich array of examples from the originalist painters’ works.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, Japonaiserie became a fashion in European countries like Britain and France. However, in the early twentieth century, Chinese paintings were exported to Europe in various comprehensive expositions and exhibitions with the opening of China, and they gradually attracted the attention of Western academia. Europeans realized that the center of Oriental culture was not in Japan but in China (Liu 2012: 48–49). Nevertheless, after the Russo-Japanese War, Japan prided itself on being the “Hegemon of the East Asia.” Consequently, the Japanese intellectual community, in an effort to alter European perceptions, sought to construct a narrative of the modernity of East Asian art. To achieve this goal, on the one hand, they first needed to identify common traditions within Oriental arts; on the other hand, they sought an art form within Oriental arts that could stand alongside Western art.

Moreover, in response to the impact and influence of Western culture, a widespread anti-Westernization consensus emerged among intellectuals in Chinese and Japanese art circles. This consensus spurred them to diligently search for and define their own modernity within Oriental arts. Throughout this process, the concept of Oriental taste was distinctively reflected in the cultural exchanges between China and Japan. In a broad sense, Oriental taste denoted an aesthetic sensibility of ethnic arts in East Asia that set itself apart from Western aesthetics, with a focus on painting and calligraphy. In a more specific sense, it pointed to the modernity exemplified in the works of originalist painters such as Shitao, Bada Shanren, and Xinluo Shanren. Therefore, following the conclusion of the 1931 exhibition, a catalogue emphasizing the works of the originalist painters, titled Overview of famous Chinese paintings from the Song Yuan Ming and Qing (Sō Gen Min Shin meiga taikan 宋元明清名畫大觀) was published in Japan. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs approved a plan to purchase 160 volumes of the illustrated catalog for 3,500 yen, which were gifted not only to Chinese sponsors and exhibitors but also to university libraries in China and Japanese embassies across European countries (Gaimushō Gaikō Shiryōkan 1931a). This decision demonstrated the Japanese government's efforts to enhance cultural diplomacy through art exhibitions. It aimed to promote Oriental arts and, at the same time, sought to integrate traditional Chinese painting into the framework of Japan's national cultural identity.

It is undeniable that understanding Japan's cultural policy toward China in the 1931 exhibition also means recognizing the importance of reciprocity in international cultural relations. Sino-Japanese interaction was a prominent feature and integral component of the development of Japan's cultural policy toward China in the 1920s. This environment, which emphasized economic aspects over geopolitical concerns, promoted the formulation of a Japanese cultural policy directed at China. In addition to the many opportunities for Sino-Japanese contacts provided by the activities of the Bureau for Cultural Policy toward China, interactions between the citizens of the two nations also increased in cultural and educational fields. Japan consistently attracted a flow of Chinese students, averaging around two thousand annually during the 1920s. For instance, the Lingnan school 嶺南畫派, pioneered by Gao Jianfu 高劍父 (1879–1951), Gao Qifeng 高奇峰 (1886–1933), and Chen Shuren 陳樹人 (1884–1948) after studying in Japan, fused traditional Chinese art with Japanese and Western artistic concepts to create a school of art characterized by modernity. Drawing inspiration from the Kyoto Shijō school 四条派, the Lingnan style specialized in paintings of landscapes, birds, flowers, and animals. It masterfully blended elements of realism and romanticism (Teow 1999: 89). This demonstrates that modernity played a key role in crafting and disseminating national identities. Due to the considerable differences in identity and self-positioning between modern China and Japan in Asia, the 1931 exhibition increasingly became a competitive stage for painters from both countries to revitalize their traditional cultures. Specifically, the Chinese side aimed to guide the development of Chinese painting by reconstructing the study of Oriental traditional painting, while the Japanese side sought to redefine the essence of Oriental painting. Japan intended to challenge China's dominant position in the cultural domain by promoting the modern aspects inherent in Chinese traditional painting, thereby asserting a new cultural influence based on the modern interpretation of traditional art.

Conclusion

The 1920s marked a time when Sino-Japanese cultural relations were relatively harmonious. Despite the overarching bilateral relationship characterized by conflicts and hostilities, moments of Sino-Japanese cultural goodwill and cooperation were evident. Japan has preserved essential aspects of China's cultural and artistic heritage for centuries, integrating them into its own culture (Little 2014: 44). In the early twentieth century, various international cultural exchanges vividly illustrated the intersection of art, politics, and diplomacy. The 1931 exhibition was not just an artistic event; it was a calculated diplomatic initiative aimed at improving Sino-Japanese relations through cultural engagement.

Through meticulous archival research and art historical analysis, this study has shed light on the exhibition's organizational context, political motivations, and its wider diplomatic and cultural significance. This exhibition, organized under Japan's broader Cultural Policy toward China, showcased an impressive collection of artworks from both nations and aimed to mitigate political tensions by leveraging cultural exchange. Key organizers like Wang Rongbao, Kiyoura Keigo, and Masaki Naohiko, as well as such influential figures as Watanabe Shinpo and Naitō Konan, highlighted the political and cultural importance of the event. The nuanced contributions of individual artists, collectors, and political figures underscored the complex interplay between art and politics. The exhibition, which successfully integrated traditional and modern elements, illustrated that painting is both a cultural artifact and a tool for diplomacy. Naitō’s influence was particularly significant in this context. As a prominent historian and Sinologist, Naitō’s advocacy for Qing dynasty paintings and his research on literati painting played a key role in shaping the exhibition's narrative. His study shed light on the technical and aesthetic qualities of Qing dynasty art, contrasting it with Western artistic traditions. Through this comparison, he promoted Qing dynasty paintings as a cornerstone of East Asian cultural identity.

Furthermore, the exhibition played a pivotal role in addressing and promoting the concept of modernity in East Asian art. The paintings of Shitao, Xinluo Shanren, and Bada Shanren were shown in the 1931 exhibition, which challenged the Western-centric notion of modernity by merging traditional painting ideas with modern sensibilities. In general, the exhibition exemplified the inherent tensions and competitive dynamics of Sino-Japanese cultural exchanges, where both nations sought to project their versions of modernity and cultural superiority. While the Chinese aimed to guide the evolution of their traditional painting styles, the Japanese sought to redefine these styles within their own cultural frameworks, emphasizing modernity as a pivotal element. This illustrates the dual-edged nature of cultural diplomacy, a process in which cultural exchanges are intertwined with political ambitions and soft power goals. In the future, we hope to explore the individual contributions of artists, collectors, and political figures to gain a better understanding of how these cultural exchanges impacted East Asian art history and diplomacy.

Work on this manuscript was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China 國家社科基金藝術學青年項目 (23CF191). The authors thank Ross King and all the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

Notes

References