Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:34:59.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Particle of Art*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Extract

“Where ideology restricts, art frees …”: the opening section of T. A. Hsia's paper provides an eloquent statement of a fundamental distinction, a distinction which is at the centre of a dilemma. How is a group of men whose inclinations and commitments are to literature as art to approach a literature which is ideological in inspiration and intent? For this, we agreed, is a fair statement of the nature of Chinese Communist literature. It is more than a matter of guidance, or direction or control. It is not at all to be taken for granted that control is disastrous for literature. Great works of literature emerged in the past from under the control of despotic monarchs and authoritarian religions. Dante did not necessarily understand the authority of the Church to impose some kind of fetter on his work; it was a measure of restricted freedom that Chinese writers of the past knew and felt at home in. Great literature endures, as Mao Tun maintains, “not because literature is independent of politics but because it serves in a way much more profound than can be assessed at the moment.”

Type
Special Survey of Chinese Communist Literature
Copyright
Copyright © The China Quarterly 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* In these prefatory remarks I attempt to underline some of the leading arguments advanced in individual articles, and also to record some of the ideas expressed during the discussions of the Ditchley study group. “Conclusions” would imply that discussion led to compromise and agreement, which was seldom the case. Nor am I either qualified or authorised to act as spokesman for the fifteen or so scholars who engaged in the discussions. This introduction, then, should be regarded as a reflection of one man's understanding of what was said, rather than as a collective statement or as a personal statement of my own. I cannot over-emphasise the value of the contribution made to the study group in general and to the preparation of this introduction in particular by Mark Lavery, who brought both great patience and a sensitive understanding of the issues involved to the task of rapporteur.