Imre Jakabffy (szerk.): Ars Decorativa 6. (Budapest, 1979)

KÁRPÁTI, Andrea: „Blanc de Chine" porcelain in the collection of the Hopp Museum of Eastern Asiatic Arts

8. FIGURE OF AN OFFICIAL figures a plastic shape, far beyond the level of contemporary porcelain sculpture. There are also smaller Kuan-yin representations in our museum; according to their style and aesthetic value, they represent two groups. Three pieces belong to the first, with no attendant figures or child attribute, dating between 1650 and 1700 (Inv-Nr: 56.22, 590, fig. 6, and 595). The goddess is depicted in the strictest possible pose: in „Maitreya"-posture. Her robe is divided by sharply cut, deep folds, which do dot assume the shape of the body. The mount is executed in a superficial way, the sculptor did not make use of the effect of different surfaces. The other variant of the „Kuan-yin with all attributes"-type bears the Inv.Nr: 591, (fig. 7). It represents the goddess in the picturesque posture of „royal ease", „maha-rajalilasana". With a combination of the rock and the wave mount the sculptor provided an interesting composition of different textures. Two solutions again, strictly observed scheme and free variant. With the other figures we'll describe on the following pages, the archytype is not so clearly defined, there is much more room for invention and originality, characteristic features of the Te-hua masters. Our „figure of an official" (fig. 8) depicts a man, standing on a stylised wave throne. His loosely fitting robe leaves his breast naked. He must have held a lotus flower in his right hand, but it had been broken, only the remnants of its stalk are visible on his robe. His left hand is hidden beneath the sleeve of his gown, the sleeve hangs, as if it were empty. The folds are arranged according to an archaic pattern, ending in a „swinging" border. The glaze is ivory white, smooth and spotless. All these characteristics suggest a connection between this figure and our „standing Kuan-yin" (Inv.Nr: 57,2 fig. 1). The figure of the official can also be dated between 1675—1725. Wether he really is an official is uncertain. His not very numerous attributes do not reveal his identity. 102