Is There A Better Way To Classify Tsuba?

[kaigunair]

For some tsuba, especially signed examples, school identification makes complete sense.

 

But for others, especially pre-Edo tetsu tsuba, have there been other methods of classifying or identifying them?

 

A while ago, I posted a kozuka in shibuishi which could have easily been labeled as "rinsendo" or "kaga".  But in actuality, it could have been made by any number of skilled machibori artists of the time.  Couldn't the same argument be made of the many unsigned, pre-edo tetsu school tsubas, especially those that seem to have multiple features of many different schools? (the machibori kozuka post is found http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/13102-rinsendo-shibuishi-kozuka-monsters-ball/?hl=shibuishi)

 

Focusing on pre-edo tetsu tsuba, one argument against this would be that certain qualities in the base metal indicate a particular area of origin, and thus helps identifies to a specific region and then a specific school.  This would apply especially to the pre-edo era before the tokugawa began strict control over mining and smelting of metals.  But there are many examples of pre-edo tsuba where the base metal does not necessarily match the orthodox description of that school.  In these cases, school identification appears based on attributing certain construction techniques and styles to specific schools. 

 

If we exclude any mass produced tsubas of the pre-edo age (a topic in itself), would it be correct to attribute muromachi and momoyama tsuba as personal items custom made to a client's taste?  Looking at tsuba production as "school" directed would imply that tsuba makers made what they liked, put it up in a shelf or window, and the normal bushi would then buy something off-the-shelf?  Tsuba makers would then just make lots of what sold well (we see this more in late work than pre-edo, yes?).  In essence, doesn't classification by school then also imply that all tsuba are somewhat shiiremono?

 

But if pre-edo tsuba (both tetsu and kinko) were client-directed, one-off, custom ordered and custom made to a user's specs, these examples would rise above the sea of mass produced works.  Such tsubas would more likely represent those examples most admired and sought after and documented in our books.  So would it make better sense to categorize these examples by the client whose taste directed them instead of any perceived "school".  If not a particular client, then perhaps a particular style or influence of the culture which affected the client's order?

[Bob M.]

Careful !

 

Don't go upsetting all those people with vested interests of talking up the second rate and mass produced , after all there is MONEY involved...

 

Doesn't just apply to fittings of course , swords are more or less in the same category together with most art that passes through the hands of dealers world wide.

 

Clearly there is an appreciable difference between most custom ordered / high end items and the mass produced 'popular' pieces . The practical difficulty in gaining acceptance of views of the relative merits of a range of objects is that someone 'in authority' usually has to pronounce on them - this is more than likely someone with a financial interest in the field , in other words , the wrong person.

 

Very often it is difficult to make informed decisions or take views due to a lack of high quality material to study and the plain truth is that unless you study the top end , you will NEVER be able to form or give a credible opinion.

 

This is why we end up with lots of so-so , overhyped crud doing the rounds , all the while detracting from the real quality that is out there if you look hard enough.

 

So, whilst it would be a positive step to sort the good from the also-ran , I'm sorry , it's not going to happen.

 

Bob M.

[Pete Klein]

Yes.  Stop classifying.

[Pete Klein]

Nothing. Absolutely -- nothing. And 'this' is what I anticipated:

 

[Bob M.]

Sometimes inaction speaks louder than words.

[Pete Klein]

Very true. Capon's lament.

[kaigunair]

"The Japanese of the 15th century-like those of the 21st and all the centuries in between - delighted in such rules and categorizations.  When people gathered and talked about an artistic work the atmosphere perhaps resembled some New York or Paris opening with recently acquired apparel being shown off and much connoisseur-talk about the merits of this or that-whether the pot or the bowl or the ikebana showed the shin of shin or merely the gyo of shin. Still, the emotion called for, the real reason for the party, is familiar.  It is the pursuit of beauty.

  On such occasions, a standard of taste is agreed upon.  Good taste is thus a shared discovery that fast shades into a conviction.  It may have its origin in the unpeopled world of nature itself but it soon enters proper society...

...Hence, the value of looking back along the long corridors of history and glimpsing a world where beauty was sought, where its qualities could be classified, and where a word for "asthetics" was not necessary....

....A basic assumption, however, remains.  Aesthetic taste, like Miyamoto Musashi's five rings, indicates a method and still something of a hope.  Though it does not seem likely, Jean de la Bruyere's dictum yet holds.  To enjoy good taste we only have to decide for ourselves what good sense is."

 

I too was prepared for a mob....  Is mere tsuba identification requests the niche most comfortable for this forum?  Perhaps what I seek lurks elsewhere in some dark corner of the interweb....

 

(re:  Pete:  Ouch!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capon)

[Brian]

Junichi,

Not sure what you seek. In reading the original comments, I am not sure what the actual question is. It seems we in the West are the ones obsessed with classifications and putting things in neat little boxes. The Japanese don't fuss as much over classifications when dealing with the mentioned tsuba. Do you seek to reclassify tsuba? Or question the current status quo?

All to often people post average run of the mill tsuba and seek a school attribution. Not sure why. It is what it is...a tsuba. Most of which were indeed mass produced for the tens of thousands of swords out there. They don't have to be reassessed as shiiremono, as that is just further attempts to put things into little boxes again, and isn't necessary imho.

 

Brian

[Soshin]

For some tsuba, especially signed examples, school identification makes complete sense.

 

But for others, especially pre-Edo tetsu tsuba, have there been other methods of classifying or identifying them?

Hi Junichi,

 

Here is something I found on the topic your posted about.  It is from Elliott D. Long website (http://www.shibuiswords.com/tsuba.htm#tanko) and it quotes Robert E. Haynes.

 

TANKO

- Robert Haynes has proposed the term "Tanko" for these early iron tsuba. He sites Joly's manuscript translation of the 1913 publication 'Hompo Soken Kinko Ryakushi' by Wada Tsunashiro. Included there is a line "The tsuba makers are tanko". (Nelson's kanji 4895:1451) This compound basically means metalworker, and seems quite appropriate.

I have updated my website and added what I feel is a good example of a  "Tanko" tsuba circa the Muromachi Period: http://www.tsubaotaku.com/#!gallery3/c211q.  I put it in the category of Ko-Katchūshi tsuba but it also has some characteristics of Ko-Tôshô tsuba.  It is the second tsuba from the top of the webpage.  I had a very wonderful conversation with Robert Haynes back in November and he told me that he will be attending the Tampa show later this month.  I am looking forward to meeting him and Elliott.   

[Guido]

Although mostly associated with iron tsuba, tankō 鐔工 just means "tsuba maker" and is a general term for ... well, people who made/make tsuba. There are quite a few books with that word in the title, like tankō Nobuie 鐔工信家, Owari to Miwa no tankō 尾張と三河の鐔工, Higo tankō 肥後鐔工, Jakushi tankō 若芝鐔工, Gendai tankō 現代鐔工, and so on. Hardly a new term, or very descriptive.

 

"The tsuba makers are tanko"

 

Exactly!

[Soshin]

Hi Guido,

 

That makes sense.  I have seen this Kanji for " ko 工" before it is also used in the very general terms "Ko-Kinko 古金工" and "Kinko 金工".  It basically only means artisan...   

[Marius]

 The Japanese don't fuss as much over classifications when dealing with the mentioned tsuba.

C'mon Brian And who has invented those neat boxes with those fancy names? Tachi kanagushi, tachishi (yes, that is not the same), ko-kinko, kagamishi, tosho, katchushi, yup, even Kanayama :-)

[Brian]

Invent them...yes. But fuss over them?...methinks not

They created the classifications to make descriptions and study a it easier. But I don't think they fuss over symantecs and schools like we do sometimes.

 

Brian

[jlawson]

I guess the question of is there a better way is possibly, however I think the better question is why would we need to? Understanding that these craftsmen were extremely talented and could work in multiple styles and techniques often create a pitfall for those who would classify a specific tsuba as exactly "this". There are certainly traits and characteristics afforded to specific schools and indications of specific smiths as well but it is a very dangerous and slippery slope to allocated tsuba to specific boxes with complete absolution . As many of you know as well here for every "rule" in what we know we see fringe pieces that break those rules and call into question our own neat little boxes and definitions. The current system of identifying tsuba based on common traits is about the best we can do today and has worked (in general) for years. Without having a stock number printed on the back of them and everyone having a dictionary of every stock number assigned to each group we have to use what we have. The good news is that ambiguity leads to a fair number of dissention of opinion between experts and causes us to re-examine data based on those challenges and often times allows us to forward the collective knowledge of the hobby by changing what we thought was the "truth". 

[kaigunair]

A great post James!  Getting to the heart of the matter, it doesn't seem the current classification system adequately directs or develops an appropriate appreciation of the aesthetics that were present and valued during the era when these pieces were created.  That the current system does such a poor job by design, wouldn't we yearn for a better one?

 

My grievance is that by focusing on the "traits and characteristics" of each labeled "school", our connoisseurship becomes undeveloped or even skewed toward late Edo, Meji period tastes.  They would thus also be more "western" than "eastern", more like a course in taxonomy vs appreciation.

 

So, rephrasing the question, would it lead to better appreciation and connoisseurship if we used a different form of classifying tsuba as opposed to the current construction techniques we attribute to the pre-edo "schools"?

 

 

Invent them...yes. But fuss over them?...methinks not

They created the classifications to make descriptions and study a it easier. But I don't think they fuss over symantecs and schools like we do sometimes.

 

Brian

I have to respectfully disagree.  They may not do it in the same manner as we in the west (their "omote" being less outwardly vocal about it), but they do indeed "fuss" over labels, to a great degree, in a way that would shock most westerners who had a window into the thoughts of the "ura".  The boom in China of luxury goods is somewhat a more current example, but I'd venture to say it took on deeper and more complicated levels within Japanese society.  This also being my own experience growing up in and around kids and families from Japan, in the US, and my own family background...

[Guido]

I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement . I don't want to make this a one-upmanship game, but as someone who has visited and lived on and off in Japan for the past 35 years, who speaks, reads and writes Japanese reasonably well, and whose family (well, half of it) consists of (first generation) Japanese, I never experienced the (sometimes obsessive) urge to label and put into neat mental drawers in Japan as in "the West". At least not when it comes to art appreciation.

 

I also don't understand what the concept of omote and ura has to do with the price of fish.

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

I think I am starting to understand Junichi's convoluted topic a bit better. I agree with Guido and Brian but then again my experience in Japan is very limited to mostly buying pices at stores and going to museums. I hope to go back to Japan for a visit soon. I am fairly sure the dynamics of collector groups and shows in the USA is very different then Japan.

[cabowen]

Sweeping generalizations about a culture and its people are usually inaccurate. Having worked in academia in Japan, I can assure you there are some extremely pedantic Japanese that indeed fuss over labels, classifications, etc., just like there are those in the West who do the same. There are also those who don't, just like there are those in the West who don't. In other words, personality traits are not universal to of any race or culture. OCD can be found just about anywhere....

 

Collectors create their own categories. The fact that we have such a rich and descriptive taxonomy, much of which has developed over time, and all of it in Japan, points to the fact that much care has been taken to both identify and classify. Who is to say what constitutes "obsessive"? One man's "obsessive" may be another's "attention to detail".

 

Many of the better craftsman I know in Japan, be they sword smiths, polishers, carpenters, potters, etc., do share an uncommon attention to detail which many would undoubtedly call obsessive...

 

Rgardless, I am not sure how a taxonometric system could actually address issues of aesthetics or appreciation...Seems to me these are two separate goals.

[kaigunair]

Wasn't thinking nor did I imply anything about fish, but turns out that's somewhat loosely germane to the topic of names/labels/appearances and what they signal:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/corbin-hiar/why-did-one-Japanese-bluf_b_1190704.html

In a similar vein, I would think any "serious" Japanese tosogu collector in Japan must have at least one goto school piece, being from the first few generations. 

 men have been living with women for eons, and for eons there has still been a "cultural misunderstanding" between the two.    Guido, I definitely would love to spar with you over this topic in person some day.

 

I agree "sweeping generalizations" can be very detrimental to understand, but at the same time, it is also what appears to be used to identify much of the unnamed nihonto and tosogu.   But it isn't the same as studying and naming key aspects, the zeitgeists, of a culture's particular values and mindset.  In the same way we might say us Americans here hold the value of freedom above all else (with all the multitude of exceptions present in our society, politics and citizens), there are certain cultural aspects of each society, during a particular time in their history, that would be very helpful in understanding their art/craftsmanship/handiwork.   Take the 60's here in the states - how far could one develop a connoisseurship for tie dye shirts or music posters or the music itself without an understanding of the culture and times themselves.  This could also extend to understanding particular stratas of society - in order to study French art of the late 18th century one would need to know of the Court of Louis XVI;  trying to superimpose the ideals and culture of the French serfs/peasantry of this era into the high arts would not lead to a similar understanding.

 

Please excuse those digressions....

 

Back on topic, it would appear I am, at the least, making 2 underlying assumptions about pre-edo tsuba:

1)  The current names/labels we use to classify pre-edo school tsuba into schools have no direct link, whatsoever, to how the bushi at their time of creation purchased their tsubas (i.e. Oda Nobunaga did not ever wake up and say "I'd like a kanayama, or Owari, or Shoami, or Choshu style tsuba on my most recently acquired blade);

2)  The current system was solidified in the early-mid 20th Century during a time when Japan was trying to elevate its own arts in the global stage, foster national pride under a back drop of extreme militarism, and was intentionally designed to imitate western forms of taxonomy to give it credence;

 

Then such a system, while making it easy to collect (i.e. I have acquired all the various schools in my collection, or I only collect X or Y schools), would, being fundamentally flawed, naturally create exceptions to the categorizations.  The more flawed the categorizations, the more broadly defined some categories must become, out of necessity to fit the increasing number of examples which do not fit the flawed categorizations.  This would occur to the point where the categories become so broad and the examples so diverse in traits and characteristics, that even the most novice collector (yes, myself completely included) could accurately attribute items to each category, without ever having any understanding or appreciation of the artistic and creative merits of a piece.

 

Instead, an alternative might look something like this: instead of focusing on dimensions and thicknesses, rim shapes and carving techniques, a discussion about the composition of the entire tsuba, its theme and relative success or failure of execution of that theme, and the signal or statement the overall tsuba would have indicated during the time and place and station it was worn.  Then a discussion about the quality of the metal, or use of specific metals or signature techniques could help place the object into the poor, good, better, and best categories.

 

Being the neophyte, I am still formulating such criteria, but I had hoped that there were others with many more years that might share their insights and wisdom gain through years of study.  Perhaps an easier question is:  what do you consider when determining that a tsuba is a better or best piece? 

[jlawson]

One other thing to understand is that the concept of a collection is subjective at best. Especially in Japan. Your comment about a top level collector must have a Goto piece as an example is applying norms about what you consider a collection to be. I would submit that for some - a collection, even a world class collection might be only a few pieces. I have seen a few of these. This also is core to the mentality of collectors in other fields like stamps, or comic books or whatever. I struggle with this myself as when younger in the field I bought everything and got an enormous amount of things. It is much more gratifying when you move from amassing a sizable collection to amassing a great collection. Size of the collection should matter less than the quality of the pieces contained. 

In regards to your other question about considering what is better or best, that is the real key to this issue isn't it. I am very glad that we all have different opinions on this as there are a great variety of pieces out there that appeal to different people, otherwise this hobby would become pretty boring. If your search is for the best pieces that is also a subjective stance depending on what you consider best. A great example of this is Tagane. I absolutely love fantastic tagane work and value pieces that are carved in Iron over some soft metal pieces because I can appreciate the level of work it took to carve them. However my bias to an iron dragon is completely subjective to your love of patinated shibuichi where you can see the subtle effects of the rim and the plate.

There is no right answer and nor should there be. Everyone has an opinion and therefore a bias about what is "better or best".

Study hard, read, appreciate the small things in fittings, and form your own conclusions.  

[Soshin]

Hi Chris and James;

 

Thanks for the posts full of very good points of consideration.

[kaigunair]

Thanks for the insight again James. 

 

Makes sense that your bias for iron dragons would lead you to Echizen.  I'm sorry I missed your discussion, but was thinking that perhaps that particular category is enhanced by the sengoku jidai personality and reputation of Uesugi Kenshin, the "Dragon of Echigo".  Makes sense if Echigo itself did not produce a prominent tsuba school, and the Echizen school, by that time in the Edo period, was banking on its connection to Echigo via the Esshu province.  Or does Shibata Katsuie also have a connection to dragons?  Trying to follow my line of thinking, is there a particular type of dragon (rain, fire, or ?) that is most depicted on Echizen tsubas?  That would be another interesting link in the history and appreciation of the school....

[Steve Waszak]

Junichi,

 

You're certainly raising some good questions here, at least insofar as they generate thoughtful responses...   However, I would agree with others than classifying/taxonomy is one thing, and appreciation and/or evaluation of quality is another.  It seems that some of what you express in your posts comes from a frustration that too much focus is placed on merely identifying a "type" of tosogu, and not enough attention is given to appreciating why, exactly, a given piece is of a higher or lower quality.  On this, I couldn't agree with you more.  Even if the taxonomical divisions were much cleaner than they are, and even if they existed as we know them now five and six hundred years ago, this would still be for me (and I suspect, you) a wholly unsatisfying end to reach in the appreciation (not merely study) of tosogu. 

 

I find the task of attempting to fit a particular piece to an often conjured category to be rather dull; the much more interesting (both intellectually and emotionally) thing is to assess that piece's quality, what characteristics work together to create that quality, etc...  Of course, this is subjective.  So what?  Some philosophers will tell us that all we can ever "know" is subjective, yet there are certain individuals who denegrate that which is "merely" subjective.  Needless to say, such endeavors (attempting to see/understand/ascertain quality) is much more difficult than seeking to locate a piece in its "proper category."  But that's part of the fun of it.

 

You also mention that it would be worthwhile to research "the signal or statement the overall tsuba would have indicated during the time and place and station it was worn."  You're speaking here of the semiotics of tsuba use (or koshirae use, or types), and again, I wholly agree with you.  This is a vastly under-appreciated and under-researched area of study.  I believe there have been a few threads that got into this in the past few years, but suffice it to say, I am with you, Junichi, in the sentiments you express here.  Not so much with the desire to find a way to categorize the aesthetic aspects of tosogu, but to emphasize these aesthetic aspects---especially as they might be tied to quality---as well as the semiotic effects of tsuba and the like, in the time we devote to these objects.  It means a shift away from "schools" and shinsa and categories and classifying, and as far as I'm concerned, this would be a good thing. 

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[cabowen]

There is the craft, then there is "art". Kodogu and nihon-to are craft first, and art, sometimes, second...When you say "what do you consider when determining that a tsuba is a better or best piece?", what are you referring to- the craftsmanship or the artistic/aesthetic value? Great craftsmanship is not always considered great art, nor is great art always done with superlative craftsmanship.

 

It takes study and training to understand and identify high quality craftsmanship; there isn't usually a lot to debate when it comes to the skill displayed by the craftsman. As has been said, appreciating the artistic merits is quite subjective and thus open to debate, although among kodogu schools, and sword making schools too, there is a bit of a pecking order as far as desirability is concerned. These rankings were established by connoisseurs and collectors from ages past. They don't always make "sense" to Westerners (and to many Japanese no doubt as well!). But they are engrained in the established collecting cannon, such as it is....One can either follow these "precepts" or march to one's own drum. It also bears mentioning that there is quite a divide between Western conceptions of what constitutes great art and Japanese aesthetics. Which lens you choose to view through can have a major role in making any sort of judgment.

[Pete Klein]

I have not been able to read through this entire thread but I believe Chris, James and Steven's most recent posts have said just about everything I would have ventured to add. Something which has struck me though is that I feel it is important to remember we are dealing with someone else's history and culture and therefore it is imperative to remember the differences between constructive thought and questioning and the imposition of our occidental viewpoints. I find in myself and sometimes in others that what we complain about the most is actually a reflection of our subconscious realizations of our own limitations / comprehensions and therefore humility and prudence is necessary in our decision making. Often patience and diligent purpose solves all.

[kaigunair]

"AESTHETICS IS THAT branch of philosophy defining beauty and the beautiful, how it can be recognized, ascertained, judged...

...There are, however, different criteria at different times in different culture.  Many in Asia, for example, do not subscribe to general dichotomies in expressing thought.  Japan makes much less of the body/mind, self/group formation, with often marked consequences.  Here we would notice that what we could call Japanese aesthetics (in contrast to Western aesthetics) is more concerned with process than with product, with the actual construction of a self than with self-expression...

..Jean de la Bruyére, the French moralist, early in the 17th century defined the quality: 'Entre le bon sens and le bon goût il y a la différence de la cause et son effet.'  Between good sense and good taste there is the same difference as between cause and effect....

...Bruyére's aperçu is, indeed, so sensible that one would expect it to apply just everywhere.  It does not, but it does to Japan.  As the aesthetician Ueda Makoto has said: 'In premodern Japanese aesthetics, the distance between art and nature was considerably shorter than its Western counterparts.'  And the novelist Tanizaki Jun'ichiro has written in that important aesthetic text In Praise of Shadows: 'The quality that we call beauty...must always grow from the realities of life."....

...Elsewhere - in Europe, even sometimes in China - Nature as guide was there but its role was restricted to mimesis, realistic reproduction.  In Japan this was traditionally not enough.  It was as though there was an agreement that the nature of Nature could not be presented through literal description.  It  could only be suggested, and the more subtle the suggestion (think haiku) the more tasteful the work of art.

  Here Japanese arts and crafts (a division that the premodern Japanese did not themselves observe) imitated the means of nature rather than its results...

...Tanizaki Jun'Ichiro's remark that beauty rises from the realities of life forces us to wonder what these realities consist of."

 

With regards to pre-edo tetsu tsuba, I think the idea that subtleness rather than mimesis is quite universally accepted.  It was definitely a chasm I had to cross when making the leap from the late-edo machibori kinko works into early tetsu tsuba.  The aspect(s) I have been poking at are more directed at determining how to (and whether to) perceive and value process, and whether it is equally important to understand the environment, the "life" ,or state thereof, present at the time of creation when determining the aesthetic value of a particular piece.

 

I have been enjoying the most thoughtful responses that bring up interesting and valid counterpoints; definitely helps to oil the wheels and clear out cobwebs in the noggin.  I imagine this what men once did in the smoking room of those old grand estates.  I fear SMS, twitter, and facebook are causing my mind to reject anything thought than 140 characters...and manga has dulled the imaginative impulses of my mind (nod to Guido).... 

 

[cabowen]

Certainly the temporal element can be a part of an evaluation or appreciation of the aesthetics of a work. Most often a piece is created with the aesthetics in vogue at the time and therefore they become a bit of a snapshot. Knowing something of the artistic environment when the work was made can be very helpful in its appreciation, as you have mentioned. Unlike fad, fashion, and what is considered "good art", which can and does change, good craftsmanship is always good.

[Jean]

refering to the topic title:
 
 

Is There A Better Way To Classify Tsuba?

 

 
I shall say: yes and much simpler.
 
By size  

[kaigunair]

Certainly the temporal element can be a part of an evaluation or appreciation of the aesthetics of a work. Most often a piece is created with the aesthetics in vogue at the time and therefore they become a bit of a snapshot. Knowing something of the artistic environment when the work was made can be very helpful in its appreciation, as you have mentioned. Unlike fad, fashion, and what is considered "good art", which can and does change, good craftsmanship is always good.

 

I would go further and state that in cases of good, better, and best pieces, for the best and most exquisite pieces of tsuba, good art must contain good craftsmanship.  Conversely, good craftsmanship may not necessarily result in good art.

 

A point of the previously quoted author is that often craft and art were more closely intertwined in the historical Japan. Think kimonos, tea bowls, swords.  Good craftsmanship was necessary to product good utilitarian objects, and pieces considered good art contained good craftsmanship.  Yet many pieces exhibiting good craftsmanship did not necessarily rise to good art.  Tsuba are both utilitarian and very personal expressions of art.  The current method of studying tsuba seems very focused on tsuba-as-craft, mainly looking at construction techniques, the craftsmanship - this is further reinforced by the focus to place a particular piece into a school based on....yes, construction techniques.

 

Wouldn't it be great to develop a set of tools to evaluate the artistic merit of tsuba?

 

Wait, I know what many are about to say:  art evaluation is all subjective.  Its a very normal, gut instinct reaction, especially during this day and age.  But any quick research into art appreciation or art connoisseurship comes up with a large body of writings and course work that discuss how to objectively analyze a piece.  The point of such objective analysis is to discern and classify why a piece may be better or best.  And after doing so, one can then then make a "more informed" and entirely subjective opinion regarding whether he like the piece itself or not. 

 

As food for thought:  Mona Lisa, Starry Night, The Thinker, Handle's Messiah.  You could say you do not like the piece or wouldn't pay X amount for them.  But someone saying that any one of these particular pieces of art is not somewhere in the "best" category would say everything about that person's level of connoisseurship and knowledge and nothing of the piece itself.  Its because there are objective criteria in these fields that the art piece is judged against and rises to the top. 

It would be an interesting exercise to imagine how these same masterpieces would be evaluated if we used the current construct used tsubas, mainly focusing on traits/construction techniques to tell use who created the piece or what school it fits into.....!

 

Good tsuba and best tsuba are going to be judge as such not on their craftsmanship, but because of their artistic rendering of a particular subject/theme and regardless of what school they belong to.  Boiling it down to a forum post: 

What are the objective criteria we currently use to evaluate pre-edo tetsu tsuba, regardless of whether we "like" the particular piece under review?

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Junichi,

 

While you and I are generally on the same page here, your noting that there are "objective criteria" avaliable to determine the level of a work's artistic merits (versus the level of its craftsmanship) does give me some pause.  Could you specify---using two or three examples in any genre of art---these objective criteria?  It may be useful/necessary here to first define what is meant by "art," which of course, invites a rather gaping Pandora's Box.  But setting that aside for the moment, I am genuinely intrigued to see what might be offered up as examples of objective criteria in arriving at a judgment of a specific work's artistic quality. 

 

Cheers,

 

Steve