<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=178213"><dc:title>From the Qing Court to the Museum Vitrine</dc:title><dc:creator>Ma,	Kexin	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:subject>Guwan tu</dc:subject><dc:subject>provenance</dc:subject><dc:subject>official loot</dc:subject><dc:subject>display method</dc:subject><dc:subject>object itineraries</dc:subject><dc:description>This paper traces the hidden life story of the Yongzheng period (1723–1735) handscroll entitled Guwan tu 古玩圖 (Pictures of Ancient Playthings) from the Victoria and Albert (V&amp;amp;A) Museum, London, with a particular focus on its itinerary after departing from China—a facet often overlooked in contemporary curatorial narratives. Primarily through an examination of the acquisition file housed in the V&amp;amp;A Archive, the paper reveals the network of individuals involved in and beyond the museum who played a role in purchasing the artwork since 1910. Furthermore, the paper delves into the dynamics surrounding the acquisition of artworks from British military officers during the 20th century, exploring the controversies inherent in such acquisitions. In turn, the paper reevaluates the contemporary display of the scroll, which prioritizes the painted subject matter, suggesting a correlation between the display method and the 20th century perception of the scroll as a visual reference for the study of Chinese objects. Through the lens of the scroll, the paper further sheds light on the subjectivity involved in contextualizing “orphaned” objects lost in context in museums. Building upon that, the paper proposes the significance of incorporating the itineraries of objects after they depart from their original findspots into museum narratives, which could offer a fuller understanding of the objects’ identities.

</dc:description><dc:date>0</dc:date><dc:date>2026-01-21 12:49:49</dc:date><dc:type>Članek v reviji</dc:type><dc:identifier>178213</dc:identifier><dc:language>sl</dc:language></rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>
