‘Scholar’s rock’ is the name commonly given to gongshi in the West. I much prefer the use of ‘spirit stone’ as it is more in keeping with the fundamental Chinese appreciation of their spiritual aspects. The term ‘spirit stone’ also evokes the deeper Daoist symbolism that was the basis for the original interest among Tang, Song, and Ming literati in these objects. Whereas ‘scholar’s rock’ reflects basic tenets of Western connoisseurship which is essentially analytical and investigative. Hence the vital role of provenance and the focus placed on appreciation of man-made objects.
Western study is objective and scientific and generally lacks or downplays the spiritual challenge of Chinese art. Thus it is difficult to appreciate objects in their natural form. New York’s Museum of Modern Art has no natural objects in their collection, and apart from a few spirit stones, The Metropolitan Museum of Art has only man-made objects. Consequently, there is a tendency to regard rocks as geological rather than spiritual objects and to appreciate them by rock type rather than for their aesthetic appeal.
The Daoist principle of pu is particularly relevant to the understanding of gongshi. Pu has been translated as the ‘uncarved block’ implying things in their natural state. To quote from a no less impeccable source than the Tao of Pooh: “The essence of the principle of the ‘uncarved block’ is that things in their own original simplicity contain their own natural power, power that is easily spoiled and lost when that simplicity is changed.”
In support of my viewpoint, let me plagiarize and quote a variety of sources
“These stones evoke a world in miniature, a Daoist paradise.”
“In Chinese experience, mountains and stones were looked upon as the tangible embodiment of the natural order.”
“The purest energy of the heaven/earth world coalesces into rock.”
“The formations are wonderful and fantastic, nature’s wonders hidden in strange places.”
“Stones, a microcosmic imagery of mountains.”
“The stone is not a materialistic representation of a mountain but a symbolic, ideal image.”
“They serve as substitutes for the wonderful landscapes seen in dreams.”
Spirit stones were highly prized as early as the Tang dynasty. For example, Su Shi would only exchange two of his stones for a pair of horse paintings by the Tang master Han Gan. Sun Chengyou, the tenth century Censor of Hangzhou, paid 100 pieces of gold for one stone and in ‘The Ethereal Rock,’ Po Songling, a lover of rocks, recounts that Xing Yunfei was buried with his treasured stone. The literati of ‘Twelve Rock Studio’ stated that the prime, overriding element of appreciation was that a spirit stone must have the characteristics of a painting.
My own view is that the geological composition of a stone and the various attributes listed in a Formulaic Statement dated 1811 cannot be isolated as governing categories of appreciation; it is the essence or wholeness of the unchanged block, or pu, that counts. These material forms were, for the literati, objects of great beauty, strange and significant objects, believed to contain the quintessence of spiritual forces, solidified qi, that served as a reminder of their own humble place in nature.
I think it is both the spiritual dimension of stone appreciation and the general lack of provenance that explain the limited appeal of gongshi in the West. We know that you have to use the mind to enter and penetrate the world of Chinese painting. We know, too, that the whole concept of Chinese art is an intellectual adventure in the appreciation of form and perception. Spirit stones are my intellectual challenge and adventure.
Ian Wilson is an outstanding contemporary gongshi collector, whose collection has been touring museums in the United States and abroad. His collection can be seen in The Spirit of Gongshi: Chinese Scholar’s Rocks
This Essay was written for Kemin Hu’s book The Spirit of Gongshi: Chinese Scholar’s Rocks