You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Qi Zhou1,2

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Ran Zhang

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study offers a compelling exploration of Chinese armorial porcelain as a transcultural artifact in the 18th century, blending material culture analysis with postcolonial and consumer theory. It systematically categorizes Chinese decorative motifs (e.g., chrysanthemum, dragon) and traces their adaptation for European markets, revealing shifts in aesthetic hybridity and Eurocentric perceptions. The paper excels in visual analysis and contextualizes porcelain within broader discourses of Orientalism and British social transformation. However, some sections could benefit from clearer structural transitions, and the theoretical framework, while robust, occasionally overshadows empirical findings. The interdisciplinary approach is commendable, but tighter integration of methods and sharper focus on understudied Chinese agency would strengthen the argument. Several suggestions are supplied:
1. Suggest enhance clarify scope early, such as define "armorial porcelain" more precisely.
2. Suggest reduce repetitive citations of Bakhtin/Said; streamline theoretical framing to prioritize original analysis, if possible.
3. Suggest expand on how Chinese artisans actively shaped designs, not just responded to European demands.
4.If possible suggest enhance the anayals part such as use table summarizing motif frequency/evolution across periods to reinforce typology claims etc.
5. Suggest sharpen the takeaway on how porcelain mediated power dynamics beyond "hybridity." in the conclusion part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is well-structured and offers an important contribution to the study of armorial porcelain—produced in China but consumed primarily in European markets. It presents a valuable anti-Eurocentric perspective by highlighting the cultural, technological, and ideological exchanges of the eighteenth century. Moreover, it sheds light on the changing social status of Chinese porcelain during this period, tracing its shift from luxury object to semi-luxury commodity.

I would like to offer two main suggestions to strengthen the article:

1) Clarifying the Typology of Chinese and European Motifs on Armorial Porcelain

The section introducing the typology of motifs (pages 2-21) is generally clearly structured and well-written. However, from an archaeological (and possibly art historical) standpoint, it would benefit from a more explicit explanation of the material basis for the typology. In academic practice, typologies are typically based on a clearly defined and scoped dataset—often derived from controlled excavation or a specific collection. Without such a methodological introduction, it is difficult for readers to evaluate the reliability and limits of the typology.

For instance, the article states that “Chinese patterns typically appear in four primary compositional positions on armorial porcelain” (page 2, lines 79–80), but does not cite any references, dataset or collection as the foundation for this claim. Consequently, readers have no idea how to assess whether the following typological discussions are representative or selective.

It is important that the author clarify:

  • What collections or dataset were used to generate the typology?
  • Are the listed motifs (chrysanthemum, peony, bamboo, rose, lotus, dragon, phoenix) exhaustive? What about landscape scenes or bird motifs?
  • Why do the figures (photographs) lack collection or provenance information?

Without addressing these points, the typology risks being seen as constructed from a narrow or biased sample. Including references to specific catalogues, museum holdings, or excavation data would significantly enhance the typology’s credibility and scholarly value.

2) Bridging the Gap between Typology and Thematic Discussion

There is a noticeable disconnection between the typological section and some of the article’s broader interpretive claims. Take, for example, the discussion in the section titled “Alterity and Orientalism.” The author argues that European engagement with Chinese armorial porcelain shifted from Bakhtin’s model of dialogic cultural alterity to Said’s framework of Orientalism, whereby China was gradually perceived not as a respected other but as a subordinate counterpart used to reinforce European superiority.

This is an engaging and thought-provoking argument. It challenges the simplistic view of armorial porcelain as merely decorative and asserts a more ideologically charged function. However, this argument would be more persuasive if it were more clearly grounded in the typological analysis. For example:

  • How do specific changes in shape, form, or motif (as outlined in the typology) visually or materially reflect this ideological shift?
  • Are there patterns of motif displacement, replacement, or simplification that support this thesis?
  • How is the fading of Chinese iconography over time materially linked to the discourse of Orientalism?

Currently, these two sections feel conceptually aligned but disconnected in evidence. Without tighter integration, the ideological claims risk appearing unanchored and speculative.

Furthermore, this argument might overextend itself without acknowledging alternative explanations. Was the decline in Chinese prestige only ideological? What about practical and economic reasons—such as competition from Japanese and European porcelain manufacturers? Was China unique in this process, or did similar facts affect perceptions of India and Japan as well?

A more balanced engagement with these questions would strengthen the theoretical framework and avoid turning a compelling thesis into a reductive narrative.

3) Making the Discussions and Conclusion stronger

While I generally agree with the article’s main conclusion that Chinese porcelain transitioned from a luxury to a semi-luxury commodity in the European market, I find the final claim too assertive in this study’s discussions and conclusion. The main argument of this article states that stylistic and morphological evolution illustrates how China was redefined from a fascinating cultural other to a subordinate Oriental figure, mirroring Europe’s rising cultural dominance and industrial rationalism. This may oversimplify a complex set of developments.

Europe’s industrial revolution did generate profound changes in material culture and global trade, including standardisation of shapes and patterns, mass production, and quality control of porcelain products. These transformations affected not only Europe but also East Asian producers like Japan. In contrast, Jingdezhen in China continued largely artisanal production, with limited technological adaptation not until the late 19th Century. As a result, Chinese porcelain became less competitive in quality, consistency, and price from the late 18th to 19th centuries. This decline in commercial dominance may have had as much to do with production constraints and market shifts as with ideological factors. The argument would be stronger if it integrated these economic and technological aspects alongside the ideological ones.

4) Clarification of Sources and Reference Accuracy

For example, a few specific concerns regarding source use and citation accuracy:

  • The discussion on page 22, lines 615–623, referencing Gerritsen (2016), seems problematic. Gerritsen’s text does not explicitly describe European coats of arms, armorial porcelain, or the blending of Chinese visual styles with European heraldry. It also does not suggest that Chinese motifs directly inspired the design of armorial porcelain. At most, the text reflects on the imperial dimension of Jingdezhen porcelain in general.
  • The dating of armorial porcelain may need clarification. While this article implies an eighteenth-century origin, historical evidence suggests that the practice could date back to the mid-Ming period—possibly as early as the Portuguese occupation of the Kingdom of Hormuz in the sixteenth century.

Otherwise, the references:

For example: Gerritsen, A. (2016). Chinese Porcelain in Local and Global Context: The Imperial Connection. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
This is incomplete and incorrect. The full and proper citation should be checked and corrected.

This means that a re-fully re-check of this article’s writing and editing is necessary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for agreeing to accept this version of the manuscript. In the meantime, I have further refined the text by correcting minor grammatical errors and polishing the language, so that the English now more clearly expresses the research. I hope you will find the revised version satisfactory in terms of clarity and that it allows the argument of the study to be more easily understood.

With best regards,
Author

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for considering my comments and for the significant improvements. I am happy with this draft and just with some small suggestions:

1) line 40: "armorial porcelain were", should be "was" or "porcelain wares were".

2) same line: what is the term of "anonymous commodities"? Probably explain a bit?

3) line 51: “the visual analysis of Chinese pattern remains significant.” I suggest to be “…Chinese patterns remain significant.”

4) Ensure all figure captions follow the same style (sometimes “circa. 1720”, sometimes “Circa 1720”). Choose one consistently.

5) Reference format should be checked. E.g. publication locations are missing in some references.

     

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed comments and suggestions. They have helped refine the final version of the article. All corresponding changes have also been highlighted in dark red in the revised manuscript for your convenience. Also, please find below my responses to each of your points:

  1. Line 40: I have revised “armorial porcelain were” to “armorial porcelain wares were,” as suggested.

  2. Line 40 (anonymous commodities): I have removed the expression “anonymous commodities” and replaced it with “standardised wares made for broad consumption.” This phrasing avoids potential misunderstanding by readers.

  3. Line 51: I have revised the sentence from “the visual analysis of Chinese pattern remains significant” to “…Chinese patterns remain significant,” in line with your suggestion.

  4. Figure captions: I have reviewed all image captions and ensured consistency in style. All image titles are now italicised, and the date format has been standardised to use ca. (e.g., ca. 1720).

  5. References: I have carefully re-checked all references. According to the 18th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style, the place of publication is not required for books published. To maintain consistency, I have therefore removed all publication places.

I greatly appreciate the time and care you have taken in reviewing my work.

Best wishes,

Author