“Is Delft just copying Chinese porcelain?”

It is a question I am asked frequently, and while the short answer might be “it began with emulation,” the longer, and far more interesting, answer reveals a story of innovation, exchange, and artistic independence.

When Chinese porcelain first reached Europe in the 16th century, it was unlike anything European artisans had ever encountered. True porcelain had not yet been invented in Europe; its material composition and firing techniques remained a closely guarded secret in China. Imported blue-and-white porcelain was admired, collected, and treasured by royalty and the elite, not only for its beauty but also for its perceived exoticism and technical perfection.

Dutch potters, particularly those working in Delft from the mid-17th century onwards, responded to this demand using the materials available to them. Tin-glazed earthenware, already well established in Europe, offered a white, luminous surface that could visually approximate porcelain. Early Delftware decorations indeed drew inspiration from Chinese models, especially Wanli and later Kangxi porcelain. In this initial phase, Delft potters were not attempting deception; rather, they were offering a European answer to a highly sought-after Asian luxury that could not yet be replicated materially.

However, this phase was remarkably brief.

By the second half of the 17th century, Delft had developed its own visual language and, crucially, its own clientele. The Dutch court, European nobility, and wealthy urban patrons required objects suited to European interiors, customs, and rituals. This led to the production of forms that had no precedent in China: large garnitures for mantelpieces, monumental chargers for wall display, and perhaps most emblematic of all, flower vases.

These multi-spouted flower vases were a distinctly European invention, responding directly to the popularity of cut flowers and formal garden culture in the Dutch Republic and beyond. They were expressions of status, wealth, and taste, and they demanded scale, architectural complexity, and sculptural presence. Delft potters excelled in this field, producing objects of extraordinary ambition around 1680–1700.

By around 1700, the direction of influence had begun to reverse.

Chinese potters, particularly during the Kangxi period (1662–1722), were highly responsive to export markets. European shapes, coats of arms, and decorative schemes were increasingly produced in Jingdezhen for Western patrons. Among these are Chinese porcelain flower vases made explicitly after Dutch Delft models. One telling example is a Kangxi porcelain flower vase base bearing an AK mark—a mark originally associated with the Delft factory of Adrianus Kocx, De Grieksche A. I have such a base in my own collection, a quiet but powerful witness to this moment of cross-cultural dialogue.

This object encapsulates the reality of the relationship between Delft and China: not one of simple imitation, but of ongoing interaction. Ideas, forms, and aesthetics moved in both directions. Delftware was never merely a substitute for porcelain; it was a creative industry in its own right, shaped by European taste, patronage, and invention.

To describe Delftware as “copying China” is therefore historically incomplete. It overlooks the speed with which Delft moved beyond emulation, the originality of its forms, and the fact that, within a few decades, Chinese porcelain workshops were themselves adapting European designs first conceived in Delft.

In short: Delftware began in admiration, matured in innovation, and ultimately participated as an equal partner in one of the most fascinating artistic exchanges of the early modern world.