Analysis Of Auspicious Cranes By Peter Sturman

The “Auspicious Cranes” hand scroll depicts a historical event occurring on February 26, 1112, in which 20 Manchurian cranes descend upon the cloud enveloped gates of the imperial palace at Kaifeng during the Lantern Festival. In his article, “Cranes Above Kaifeng: The Auspicious Image at the Court of Huizong,” Peter Sturman, an art history professor at UC Santa Barbara, examines the story behind the painting. His evidence reveals that the image and description shown on the hand scroll do not support a sense of objective realism that it makes claim to. Rather, the painting is what Sturman describes as an “appropriation of reality” (34). Individual elements of the painting are parts of a well-planned spectacle to serve as political propaganda.

The painting appears to be compiled from a series of different recorded occurrences that act as symbolism for the notion that Emperor Huizong rules with the Mandate of Heaven. Throughout the article, Sturman remains biased to the fact that the painting represents an idealized vision as opposed to objective truth. He confirms this through a series of historical records and other scholarly articles that present “Auspicious Crane” as blurring the distinctions between one form of reality and another. Sturman makes accurate assumptions about the meaning of painting and its inconsistencies in trying to simultaneously represent realism and convey a political statement. However, in certain parts of the article, Sturman seems to manipulate his sources to suit his main argument.
Sturman begins his analysis of “Auspicious Cranes” by focusing on ruiying sightings–Heaven’s way of communicating with the earthly realm–and how they functioned during the reign of Emperor Huizong in order to challenge the painting’s claim as documentation to a real event.

Ruiying, according to Sturman, earn credibility through imperial sponsorship. As long as the auspicious event had the support of the court, then the created fiction would become fact in the eyes of the beholder. The issue of pictorial representation is central to fabricating truth out of the imaginary. “Nothing convinces like a picture, and Huizong saw it that pictorial records too were made to concretize these fragile truths” (36). Sturman uses Emperor Huizong’s fixation on ruiying sightings as evidence to discrediting the painting being realistic. The pictures capturing these auspicious events were meant to serve a similar function as a photograph documenting what it sees objectively. Sturman points out that there must have been a lapse of time between this auspicious event and the creation of the painting. “Despite the objective view implied by the paintings’ naturalistic style, these images, in their final form have been refracted through any number of interpretive prisms” (37) “Auspicious Cranes” is part of a series of documented ruiying deliberately acting as evidence of Heaven’s blessing the emperor. The painting is disconnected from what we perceive as reality, since it also serves its purpose as political propaganda in the most poetic and discrete

manner.
Sturman considers painting’s inclusion of the cranes circling the palace on the night of the Lantern Festival as convenient for implicitly evoking the notion that Emperor Huizong creates harmony between Heaven and earth. He goes about proving that the painting depicts a political propaganda that would have more meaning if it were painted in manner that appeared naturalistic. The cranes symbolize good omens and mediators between Heaven and earth. Sturman cites a passage of Sun Rouzhi’s Ruiying tu, which reads, “cranes arrive when the ruler possesses the virtue of music” (38). One of the Emperor Huizong’s accomplishments during his reign was rectifying music in his kingdom. “Music was considered the purest medium of communication in China. […] The music of the rituals, when proper, assured alignment with the powers above, hastened the distance from earth to Heaven, and by consequence strengthened the bond of its Mandate” (39). The painting makes a political statement: the everyday people are brought closer to Heaven because of Emperor’s Huizong’s reclamation of music. The moment the cranes arrive coincides with the Lantern Festival, “an open and prolonged celebration utilized by the court to establish the public image of a benevolent yet powerful emperor whose primary concern is the welfare of his subjects” (40). “Auspicious Cranes” reminds the Emperor’s subject of his wealth and his power under the Mandate of Heaven. Sturman gathers evidence that falsify the painting’s claim on reality. February 26, 1112 was not among the thirteen recorded crane sightings. These sightings appear to be common and inclusion of the cranes, within context of the image, allude to the Emperor Huizong’s presence without explicitly pictorially representing him. Sturman validates his original argument that the painting exists as an elaborate scheme to propagandize its viewer, thus confusing reality and fantasy. “Auspicious Crane” exploits a realistic mode of painting to indoctrinate a romanticized understanding of the imperial court.
Regarding the painting as well structured as opposed to spontaneous, Sturman identifies an image found at the Wu Liang tomb dating to the Han dynasty as inspiration for the composition of “Auspicious Cranes.” According to Sturman, “in its relentless pursuit of confirmation of the present, Huizong’s court was hopelessly immersed in the distant past” (40). He attempts to argue against the painting’s representation an objective reality by stating that it was organized around a work of art predating its time. In his section about ruiyings, Sturman views auspicious omens–an event in the present, as the confirmation for Emperor Huizong’s reign, while in this section he contradicts himself by stating that Emperor Huizong’s court relied on the past for confirmation of the present. Sturman, himself, is unclear of the correlation between the tomb’s significance to the Northern Song dynasty. “Exactly how this or a related image would have been read by a Song antiquarian is unclear–there are unresolved questions concerning the specifics of its iconography even today” (44). The manner in which the images would be interpreted is unbeknownst, since neither scholarly articles, nor historical documents were found in Sturman’s article. Chinese culture has a reverence for the past, and Sturman mentions that Emperor Huizong wanted to bridge the gap between his reign and the other great dynasties. Therefore, it was not unnatural to see influences from antiquity in “Auspicious Cranes.” Sturman manipulates his findings to fit with and strengthen his central argument of the unreality of the image, which he does not succeed in doing, since it counters his previous claims.
Ultimately, Sturman arrives at the conclusion that the painting lies. It is not spontaneous, but rather elaborately structured and refined. The viewer comes to accept it as reality through the realistic style of painting and the court sponsorship offered by Emperor Huizong’s inscription. He overall proves his argument successfully using historical records of auspicious sightings during that time period and the symbolism of the crane in Chinese culture and its connection to Emperor Huizong’s accomplishment in music, but does comprise his credibility with his evidence regarding the Wu Liang Tomb. Auspicious events often came in the form of natural objects in the mundane world, such as clouds and cranes. Court paintings had political functions for the court. It symbolizes the power of the emperor and court and presents an idealized vision of China that transcends time and space, despite depicting a scene from everyday life. Each element such as the cranes, the Lantern Festival, the clouds ascending from the palace, could at one point in time have occurred, however Sturman doubts the fact that they all occurred at once.