To quote Alberto Meda in Sitting Down: The Art of the Chair. By Francoise Darmon, “There are many ways of sitting. One could sit on the ground, and on a throne.  Sitting could be regarded as functional, or as symbolic.  To me, sitting in a chair has become realized as a commodity.“ True, sitting down in a well designed, well built chair is an advantage, a definite benefit.  Chairs involve a more important physical and psychological relationship than do other pieces of furniture. In this respect, chair design should be set apart from the design of other pieces of furniture, as it might be viewed as more important.[1]  Chairs can also reflect a culture`s morals and beliefs.  The extent to which spirituality is stronger in the East than in the West in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries can be illustrated through chair design. Observing these examples, one can learn from this study to better develop one`s own perspective about what is a “better“ philosophical approach to life. 

Since the Egyptian era, themes have been used in furniture as a means of artistic expression, the extent to which the piece is decorated relying on the artisan’s skill to create, the functional position of the piece, and the amount of value the piece holds. To entice patrons, and to introduce deeper meaning to objects, the Chinese and the English often included themes in their furniture.  The Chinese often characterized their pieces with dragons.  The Chinese folding chair in the ROM’s collection from the Ying dynasty (Museum Number: 920.8, The George Crofts Collection) is decorated with carvings of the dragon.  The Chinese dragon has been an influential symbol of great power in Chinese folklore and art, contrasting the Western idea of the dragon as a vehicle of evil.  The Chinese dragon is traditionally the archetype of the ideology of ying and yang, specifically the male version ying.  It is also associated with the weather as the provider of precipitation and water, important to China as an agriculturally water dependant nation.  At the close of his reign, the first great Emperor Huang Di is thought to have morphed into the dragon form that characterized his emblem, and ascended to Heaven.  Since the majority of the Chinese consider Huang Di to be their ancestor, they are known to call themselves “the descendants of the dragon”.  The dragon, specifically yellow or golden dragons with five claws depicted on each foot, was used as a symbol for the emperor in many Chinese dynasties, the emperor’s throne being called the Dragon Throne.  This related directly to the dragon being used to decorate chairs, as each chair decorated would be directly associated with power.  The chair in the ROM’s collection probably belonged to a commander in the military, which would explain why the dragon was portrayed on it. 

English art and design in the eighteenth century is termed Georgian, although Chippendale was one of the first designers to actually have his name given to a specific style of furniture.  Chippendale designed and built some furniture that had Chinese flavour to it and it became quite fashionable. An example of this furniture is shown in Figure 1. Chinese furniture that had been exquisitely lacquered, something the Chinese were famous for, had been brought to Europe during the seventeenth century, and imitations of this style had been produced to some extent, so in a sense Chippendale’s Chinese furniture, termed Chinoiserie, was a revival.  The English during this period were interested in China as a land of the exotic, as China was somewhat different than England.  The style of Chinese that appealed to the English taste was not a direct imitation, since the intent was to give Chinese flavour to their interiors and gardens.  This Chinese flavour partially originated from a misunderstanding of Chinese culture, but chiefly demonstrated a conscious appeal in manipulating fantasy counterparts of the Orient – pagodas, dragons, fretwork and dream landscapes, among many other things. In its youngest English appearance, the imitation Chinese furniture was characterised by what was called japanning, a form of varnishing that was used to imitate Oriental lacquer.  Japanning was to become one of the most important characteristics of Chinoiserie, but when this influence gained popularity in the 1740s, entire rooms, complete with wallpapers and hangings, were designed according to the Chinese taste, and the overall form and construction of furniture was changed correspondingly. Chippendale was very happy with Chinese furniture designs, as he states, “there has been none like them yet made.”[2]  Chinese Chippendale, with its geometrical lattice and fretwork, it’s pagoda roofs and its abundance of mock-Chinese figuring, was to be one of Chippendale’s greatest accomplishments, promoting a lively differentiation of its own that remains a close companion to Rococco[3]. The English were fascinated by fantasies but not with a religious orientation, in contrast to the Chinese.  That the English would decorate one room of their in full “Chinoiserie” flavour exhibits the fact that this fantasy world held utmost importance to them.  It also illustrates their interest in material goods, which again contrasts the Chinese, and their views that life is for the pursuit of enlightenment, not the accumulation of worldly possessions.  As the home was the ultimate English possession, its decoration was very important, as can be seen in some Georgian homes.  It is almost as if they made fantasy their religion or their “saviour”, which might be compared to the current state of contemporary society and the obsession with movies, or fantastic literature and video games. 

The Chinese chair in the ROM collection has structural characteristics that are very interesting.  The chair is unusually large (give measurements) for a Chinese man, given that the average height of an Asian is 5’ 5”[4].  The chair has an unusual deisgn characteristic, in the fact that one main element of the chair “doubles back” on itself, creating a very weak wood joint, which is of prime importance, especially in chair construction.  This chair had to be actually stronger than a regular chair, since its purpose was to be transported to different spots, then folded up and thrown on a cart.  As well, the ground or base that the chair was resting on was not always level, creating stress on the chair in unequal amounts, which would cause a poorly built chair to fall apart.  This means that the Chinese creator of this chair, or the ones who

ordered the chair to be made, had a strong reason for the chair to look the way that it does, the structural characteristics being considered secondary.  There must have been some significance in that particular design.  Another weak part of the construction was the space underneath where the elbow of a person would rest if sitting in the chair.  This can be accounted for, as the iron rod supporting it can be removed when the chair is folded up.  This spaces coincides with the “doubled-back” part, and possibly exists because of it, making that part seem even more important that it look the way it does. The chair looks very fluid from the side view; is it possible that it echoes an ancient Chinese symbol?  An account for the chair’s size might be found in the way that the officer would sit in it.  In Chinese art, people of importance are depicted in the canonical poses, such as the royal ease pose, an example of Divine iconography, in which the purpose if not only to convey intelligence, but also in the Chinese sense to convey specific sacred realities.  These positions often involved a change from the conventional Western way of sitting, and were more focused on bringing one of both feet to the level of the buttocks. One form of this pose involves the subject sitting with one foot elevated to the height of the buttocks, with one arm resting on the knee of the elevated leg, at the elbow. The Chinese sat for many years on the ground, and sitting on chairs was not generally accepted into Chinese culture until the tenth century. It was thought that canonically correct images or statues possessed a permanent and inseparable element of grace and could convey “saving sight” upon the devotee.  Possibly the commander(s) or officer(s) wanted to sit in a specific canonical pose, if not only to convey their intelligence but also to represent a particular association with the emperor, who was of utmost importance.  This chair would definitely be large enough for a Chinese man or woman to sit in canonical positioning. Another possible explanation is the fact that the Chinese used the hieratic scale in their artwork, and this might relate to the size of the chair.  Marilyn Stokstad’s Art: A Brief History, pg. 603, defines hieratic scale as “the use of different sizes for significant or holy figures and those of the everyday world to indicate importance”.  This would make it valid that, when depicted in a piece of artwork, the officer, or commander of the army would be depicted larger than those in his army.  Did the Chinese account for this scale, and stay true to it by making his chair larger as well?  When the chair is viewed today in the museum, it looks as though it would house a very large man.  Is that what the Chinese wanted future generations to think, that their rulers were actually physically larger?

The Chinese chair being studied was intended to be used by a member of importance in the society.  Members of importance in British society were known as nobles.  The lives of nobles were elaborate in comparison with that of common people, and Georgian society had an intense consciousness of rank and class.  One main purpose of the Chippendale Chinoiserie chair (see Fig. 1) was to evoke a feeling of power through wealth, the other purpose to evoke a feeling of the exotic and fanstastic.  The aesthetics of the Chinese chairs are beautiful, and were time consuming to produce, commanding great prices.  Chippendale’s age was a materialistic age, and industrial development brought great riches to many, which offered abundant opportunity for patrons to enhance their homes with exquisite art.  It was said, though, by Walter Besant, that “(some of) the people of these times….sank to their lowest point of degradation and corruption in the eighteenth century – a period when they had no religion, no morality, no education and no knowledge and …….(when they were often) prematurely killed by their excessive drinking of gin”[5].  This statement illustrates that there was a large gap between the rich and poor, which ultimately resulted in manipulation of the rich over the poor.  This occurred in Chippendale’s trade, as he was frequently bullied by his patrons over the payment of fees as they would refuse to pay him on time.  The British had less concern for religion, and were more concerned with the accumulation of material goods, which is evident in some of the art decorating the Georgian homes.  This contrasts the Chinese way of living a life more focused on spirituality.  Another contrast is the cabinetmaking mastery that was achieved by the English, notably Thomas Chippendale.  Chippendale was a master of his craft, being able to design pieces with great beauty, as well as build them with great technical accuracy (although once he got really popular he just managed the business).  The cabinetmaking in the mahogany armchair for a bedroom of Nostell Priory in Yorkshire is a masterpiece of Chinoiserie style.  The fretwork involved took a lot of careful work to produce accurately aesthetically and structurally (as even the grain direction of the wood had to be taken into account).  This chair has almost no surface left undecorated, and the chair is exquisitely designed. The different elements of decoration are in near perfect proportion to one another.  The chair is beautifully finished in black japanning, with what looks like fine damask as the upholstery material.  The degree of skill and the finely tuned design features illustrate England’s concern for the material object.  These pieces were produced elaborately because it was important that they be elaborate to communicate status.  With the English gaining a lot of wealth in that era, they thought it only fitting to have what might be regarded now as excessively elaborate possessions.  Recently a table in the Chippendale style was seen in a shop of King Street East in Toronto, and was priced at $17,000.  This table was a fairly simple table with cabriole legs and ball and claw feet.  This table would not have originally been priced anywhere near that amount, one reason being because it was fairly simple, but it sheds insight into how desirable Chippendale’s furniture was and is now, because of its design and construction.

            Another important contrast between Chinese and English society that is illustrated in furniture design is the life cycle of specific designs.  The Yuan dynasty in China, and the Ming dynasty, span the periods 1271 to 1368, and 1368 to 1644.  Through this period of time, the design of the studied Chinese chair changes very little.  In the book, Classic Chinese Furniture, by Wang Shixiang, two chairs are depicted that illustrate this point.  On page 104, plate 57 shows a Yuan dynasty huanghuali wood folding armchair with curved rest.  On page 106 of the same book, plate 58 shows a Ming dynasty huanghuali wood folding armchair with curved rest.  There are minor differences in these chairs, such as:  the Ming dynasty chair is slightly taller (112cm compared to the Yuan dynasty chair being 94.8cm), the Ming dynasty chair has a more elaborate splat, being curved more elegantly and fret cut and carved, and the seat of Yuan dynasty chair isn’t woven like the Ming chair. It is made up of cords (that looks like the same cords used to weave the canvas for the Ming chair).  The dragon motif is not present on the Yuan chair, but that does not mean it wasn’t of importance, possibly the patron wanted something different.  Over the period of time in Chinese history from 1271 to 1644, a period of 373 years, this design changed very little. One must conclude that the Chinese had a focus on things other than materialistic goods, and finding what they thought to be a good design, there was no need to change it readily.  Because of the orientation of the chair (the size and such), and because the designs did not change as to become fashionable, one might conclude that the Chinese were intensely focused on the spiritual, and gave it the utmost importance in their lives.

The English were not as focused on the eternal.  During the same period of time as taken in the above paragraph, a period of 373 years, the English went through many styles.  Even in the period of the eighteenth century, the English had five different distinctive styles, the Queen Anne style, the Rococo style, the Gothic revival, the Chinioserie, and Neo-Classical style. The first four are related, and tended to “mix” a bit with one another (with Neo-Classical being a return to distinct proportions and straight lines). All the styles were had distinctly strong elements. For example, if a chair from that period has a quatre-foil carved into the splat as one of its decorative elements, it will be remembered distinctly as part of the Gothic revival.  This being said, the English needed not just one style, but many styles, and somewhat rapid changes of styles, compared to the Chinese.  This illustrates their obsession with materialistic goods, as contrasted to the Chinese, who were influenced in things not of this world.  Though China was the home of some significant inventions, like gunpowder, or the use of lacquer as a finish, England went through numerous social and technological innovations while China remained feudal in many respects.  This difference was reflected in their artistic trends also. 

            This study outlines the differences between the influences of the English style and that of the Chinese. The Chinese are influenced by the spiritual and the English by other cultures, past styles, the exotic, and the fantastic. The extent to which spirituality is stronger in the East than in the West in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries can be illustrated through chair design.  Interestingly, current Western society is changing it`s focus to something somewhat new.  In the past, power and recognition came to the governor of material things or to the commander of great military forces which could conquer the physical components of production; resources, land, capital, and labour.  Currently, the governing nations and corporations are masters not of material resources and land but of technologies and ideas, with Japan having one of the world`s fastest growing economies.[6]  Asians were always focused on the spiritual, involving the psychological rather than the physical.  Is this finally granting them a worldly benefit?