Modernisation and Westernisation in Asian Art

The evolution of Asian art reflects an interplay of influences, where traditional practices intersect with modernisation and Westernisation. Modernisation encompasses a multifaceted process of embracing new technologies, ideas, and social structures to adapt to evolving circumstances and enhance societal well-being. This is reinforced by Gilbert Rozman’s definition of modernisation in his work The Modernization of China where he states, “we view modernization as the process by which societies have been and are being transformed under the impact of the scientific and technological revolution”.[1] In Asian art, modernisation manifests through the adoption of innovative artistic techniques, materials, and subjects. It entails a shift in artistic practices and institutions to reflect contemporary values and address social concerns while preserving original artistic forms and expressions.

Westernisation on the other hand, indicate the assimilation of Western cultural practices and aesthetics, often under the influence of colonialism, globalisation, or cultural imperialism. In the realm of Asian art, Westernisation entails the direct imitation of Western artistic styles and techniques, sometimes overshadowing original artistic traditions. This adoption of Western norms can be driven by a desire to conform to Western aesthetic standards, gain recognition in Western art markets, or assert cultural superiority over indigenous practices. This essay aims to explore the nuanced distinction between modernisation and westernisation in the context of Asian art, by looking at cultural identity and representation and the agency of the Asian art world. This essay will further look at scholars such as Hellen Burnham, Karatani Kōjin, John Clark and Shūji Takashina to support these viewpoints.

Both modernisation and westernisation in Asian art have implications for cultural identity and representation. Modernisation may enable Asian artists to assert their cultural distinctiveness while engaging with global artistic discourses. However, this is not in isolation from Westernisation, and this raised awareness of Asian art can result in an influence from the west which can comprise the uniqueness of Asian art, being at risk of cultural hegemony. Burnham examines how Japan was perceived by Westerners as an exotic and mysterious land, imbued with a sense of otherness and Romantic allure. She argued how the role of Orientalist discourse shaped Western perception of Japan because of the idealisation and fetishization of Japanese art and culture.[2] We see this fascination with Japanese art and culture through looking at Western artist such as Vincent van Gogh and Mary Cassatt and collectors such as Samuel Bing and Siegfried Bing. Burnham presents this through the notion of Japonisme meaning the craze for Japanese art and design that was prevalent in Europe and America.[3] Here we can see a difference between modernisation and westernisation as Japonisme highlights a selective appropriation of Asian influences by the Western world. Western artists were drawn to specific elements of Japanese art, such as bold composition, vibrant colours, and decorative motifs which they incorporated into their work while retaining their own cultural identities and artistic consciousness.

We can also see this selective appropriation. Through the May Fourth Movement in China. This was a pivotal moment of cultural and intellectual awakening by its emphasis on modernisation, scientific rationalism, and social reform, as well as its critique of traditional Chinese values and institutions. Sakamoto discusses how Chinese intellectuals during The May Fourth Movement selectively adopted and adapted Western ideas, including eugenics, as part of their efforts to modernise Chinese society. This selective adoption reflects a form of modernisation that is distinct from complete westernisation, as it involves the appropriation of certain Western concepts and practices while maintaining Chinese cultural identity and values. Sakamoto highlights its problematic implications and ideological underpinnings. He highlights the dangers of uncritical adoption of Western concepts and practices, arguing that they can perpetuate inequalities and reinforce hierarchies within Chinese society. He argues that eugenics was often used as a tool of social control and discrimination, reinforcing existing hierarchies of race, class, and gender. Eugenics was often used to justify patriarchal and heteronormative ideologies, reinforcing traditional gender roles and sexual norms, and excluding marginalised groups.[4] Here we can see a justification for what John Clark presents as “Closed codes” which prioritise cultural purity and resistance to external influences.[5]

Therefore, while for the West this adoption of Asian influence may have resulted in modernisation and not have altered their cultural identity. The implementation of Western ideas within East Asia combined with the historical social and political climate highlights how the presence of Westernisation was more prominent. This is further demonstrated through the Meiji era. There were a range of subjects that were banished such as Chinese medicine to the study of national classics (kookugaku). Karatani Kōjin states that “these genres managed to survive only as far as they were recategorized under the domain of Western disciplines. It is only from a Western perspective that the Japanese have been able to resume their research ever since for the “essence” of Japan”.[6] This highlights the footprint that the West had left on the areas taught and explored within Japan, reinforcing this idea that the alteration was more than just a modernisation and change in the culture but the west infiltrating their presence within East Asia. This risk of Asian art being assimilated with Western influence can increase a desire to preserve and promote traditional culture, especially in the climate of globalisation. Karatani introduces the concept of “Japan as Museum,” which is a metaphor for this.[7] He argues that figures such as Okakura Tenshin and Ernest Fenollosa contributed to the construction of this metaphorical “museum,” positioning Japan as a repository of timeless aesthetic values and cultural heritage. With a modernisation lens this would be viewed as introspectively critiquing Asian art and resolving these critiques in order to further justify and entrench its existence in the art world. Clement Greenberg supports this and argues that this self-criticism is “the essence of modernism”.[8] Whereas if we view this as westernisation, we can see Japan almost needing to defend their cultural identity and protect it from Western influences taking and commercialising it which we can see though artistic movements such as Impressionism and Art and Crafts.

It is interesting however to note that with regards to the question, this does not necessarily mean that Asian art was westernised. Kōjin highlights that “Japan’s first official arts academy, the Tokyo’s School of Fine Arts (Tokyo Bijutsu Gakkō), centred its curricula on both Japanese and Oriental art from the time of its inauguration in 1889. Though this tendency was later reversed by the Westernisations, the academy’s initial policy was remarkable   – especially when compared with its sister institution, the Tokyo Music School (Tokyo Ongaku Gakkō), which entirely omitted course on Oriental music”.[9] This not only demonstrates how initially Asian art was not affected by the West, but it also illustrates how Asian artists and scholars took control and had some autonomy in what changes were being made in their discipline. This is reinforced by John Clark who argues that “because many parts of Asia in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were forced to redefine themselves via their reaction to contact with, and often depredation at the hands of the “other”, the forms of modernity its cultures adopted seemed to any Euromericans to be derivative… and inauthentic. The zone of autonomous cultural energy which drove their adaptions was ignored; their own developments and re-positionings of “other” forms were forcibly concealed beneath the iron mask of Euromericans”.[10]

Asian artists played an active role in deciding the outcome of their artistic trajectories and this is often forgotten under the loud voice of the Euromericans. This is illustrated through Shūji Takashina’s discussion of the introduction of Western-style oil painting to Japan during the Meiji era. He examines how Japanese artists who studied abroad in Europe would actively bring back Western painting techniques, styles, and ideologies to Japan.[11] Japanese artists incorporated elements of Japanese subject matter, composition, and brushwork into their oil paintings, resulting in a unique and innovative style.[12] While the Japanese artists initially assimilated and adapted Western painting techniques and aesthetics to suit Japanese cultural sensibilities and artistic traditions, imitating Western models, they eventually developed a distinctive style that combined elements of Eastern and Western art.

In conclusion, while modernisation and westernisation intersect in Asian art, they represent distinct processes with different implications for artistic practice, cultural identity, and global dynamics, and while they involve similar processes of change and adaptation in Asian art, they differ in their underlying motivations and outcomes. Modernisation encompasses a broader range of influences and can incorporate Asian artistic developments as well as external influences, with Asian artists being able to assert their cultural distinctiveness while engaging with global artistic discourses as seen through Western-style oil painting. However, westernisation specifically consists of the adoption of Western cultural norms and values and increases the presence of phenomena’s such as Japonisme, where Asian artists almost feel inclined to defend their cultural identity and protect it from Western influences and commercialisations.

[1] Rozman, G. (1981). The Modenization of China. New York: The Free Press.

[2] Burnham, H. (2014). “The Allure of Japan,” . In H. Burnham, Looking East: Western Artists and the Allure of Japan (pp. 12-27). Boston: Museum of Fine Arts,.

[4] Sakamoto, H. (2004). The Cult of “Love and Eugenics” In May Fourth Movement Discourse. Positions, 329–376.

[8] Greenberg, C. (1965). Modernist Painting,” Art and Literature . In F. a. Frascina, Modern Art and Modernism : A Critical Anthology (pp. 5 -10). Taylor & Francis Group.

[9] Karatani Kōjin. (1994). Japan as Museum: Okakura Tenshin and Ernest Fenollosa,. In A. Munroe, Japanese Art after 1945: Scream Against the Sky (pp. 33–39). New York : Harry Abrams.

[10] Clark, J. (1993). “Open and Closed Discourses of Modernity in Asian Art,”. In J. Clark, Modernity in Asian Art (pp. 1–17). Honolulu:: University of Hawaii Press,.

[11] Takashina, S. (1987). Shūji Takashina“Eastern and Western Dynamics in the Development of Western-Style Oil Painting during the Meiji Era,”. In J. T. Gerald D. Bolas, Paris in Japan: The Japanese encounter with European painting (pp. 20–31). Washington: Washington University .