Tosogu Rating

[Gunome]

Hello,

 

I would like to know if there is a Tosogu artists rating that exist. I suppose, but I Wonder if there is several and which one is the more reliable/use ?

what are the rank ? is it the same as for the sword (Jo saku, ...) ?

 

Is there a web site where we can look for this rating ?

 

Thanks

 

Sébastien

 

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Sebastien,

 

I do believe such rankings exist in at least a couple of Japanese publications, but the only one I have seen recently and which I found most intriguing was a "Banzuke" ranking list Markus Sesko published in his blog post of October 2, 2016.  I highly recommend locating and reading this post.  Markus references this banzuke, noting that it is titled Tohken Tsuba Kagami and that it was compiled by Noda Takaaki, a sword-fittings expert, in the early 19th century.  What I find especially interesting here is to see how various tsubako that have certain reputations now were viewed 200 years ago.  Markus observes that this ranking list seems to focus only on tsuba artists working in iron, as it excludes kinko artists. 

 

I, too, would be interesting in knowing about any other specific publications which provide such ranking lists, especially for iron/steel tsuba.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Gunome]

Hello Steve,

 

Thanks for you reply, will read Markus' blog.

I am still interested on other inputs regarding ranking, and also for kinko artists

 

Thanks

[Pete Klein]

The 'Shinsen Kinko Meikan' by Kokubo Kenichi contains an artist rating consisting of four levels:   jouko 上 工, ryokou 良工 , (I can't remember third level), and Meihin (I don't know the kanji for this one) which is the highest.  Someone here who has the book can fill in the gaps as I do not have a copy at present.

[Steve Waszak]

Thanks, Pete.  I have yet to get this book.  Do you happen to know if Kokubo provides any criteria/explanation for his ratings?

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Pete Klein]

This book is the revision of the 'Kinko Meikan' for which there is a translation.  If anyone has this translation (the book uses the same rankings) there might be an explanation there.

[John A Stuart]

Pete; Meihin 名品 which is like Meibutsu 名物 John

[Guido]

Do you happen to know if Kokubo provides any criteria/explanation for his ratings?

 

No real explanation is given (i.e. none that makes real sense, popularity is one of the criteria), but the ranking is

 

名人 meijin

名工 meikō

上工 jōkō

良工 ryōkō

& no ranking

 

It kind of reminds me of the Fujishiro ranking system, and is used among kodōgu collectors in Japan the same way.

[Steve Waszak]

Thanks, Guido.  I'm not surprised.

 

It would be interesting to compare Kokubo's rankings with Noda's in his Banzuke, to see where discrepancies between them lie. 

[Gunome]

Thanks all for your reply.

By chance do you know if there is a website with the list of tosogu artists by level ?

[Ford Hallam]

I think the very idea of ranking artists in some sort of hierarchy table can only ever be subjective and personal.

Add to that the impossibility of judging very different styles and aesthetics against each other and the whole thing begins to look a little bit like a fantasy football league :-)

 

Can anyone imagine a serious art historian drawing up a similar 'league table' of European artists of the past 700 years?

[Pete Klein]

Guido -- thank you very much!  When I sold my copy of Shinsen Kinko Meikan I forgot to remove the rating list I had printed up so now I have it again.  Much appreciated!

 

Steve -- good luck with that!  (wink)

 

Pete

[Steve Waszak]

Just as an example of potential discrepancies:  Not having the Shinsen Kinko Meikan, I can't reference this myself, but Noda Takaaki in his Banzuke essentially has an equal ranking for Hayashi Matashichi and Owari (shodai, I presume) Sadahiro.  He also has an equal ranking for Yamakichibei and Choshu Mitsutsune.  I find both of these surprising, personally.  In the former case, not because of any significant qualitative differences between the two, but because Sadahiro does not seem much appreciated in tsuba circles these days (certainly not in the same way Matashichi is revered).  And in the latter case, my surprise comes from what I see as a rather wide gulf between the strength of artistic expression (what Kokubo calls "haki," described as "power, ambition, unbridled spirit") in Yamakichibei guards, on the one hand, and (the lack thereof) in any Choshu work, on the other.  Choshu tsuba, for me, are simply much too "pretty" to possess or express haki. 

 

Noda has his top two tsubako (this is for steel tsuba, not kinko) as Nobuiye and Kaneie as a pair, followed by Yamakichibei and Choshu Mitsutsune, followed by Sadahiro and Matashichi, also in pairs.  So Noda is saying that these are the top six smiths working in iron/steel whose names are known.  As suggested above, I am amazed at Mitsutsune's ranking, especially given that Kawaguchi Hoan is nowhere to be found among the top six.  Who does Kokubo have, then, in his top six (or top ranks)? 

 

I realize that such lists are of course quite subjective, but they can still be interesting and suggestive, too.  And given that value/financial considerations are often attached (if only loosely and informally), they are not entirely unworthy of our attention. 

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[nagamaki - Franco]

I think the very idea of ranking artists in some sort of hierarchy table can only ever be subjective and personal.

 

 

Hello Ford,

 

While agreeing in part with your statement I would point out that the possibility of objectivity does exist and comes together in the form of an overwhelming consensus and agreement as to what defines a masterpiece.

So, my exception is with your words only ever.

[Ford Hallam]

Franco

 

while I get the gist of your comment I would suggest that objectivity is not involved in that case at all. As far as consensus and agreement go, in Japanese society, it really cannot be taken at face value I fear. In my experience the most senior and most respected 'authority' is generally followed. It's the single most awkward issue in Japanese academia. It's a social faux pas to disagree with 'Sensei'.

 

But if we are to accept your premise then according to "overwhelming consensus and agreement" the best music in America, according to actual sales, is firstly Heavy Metal followed by Country and Western.

[Gunome]

I think the very idea of ranking artists in some sort of hierarchy table can only ever be subjective and personal.

Not totally subjective.

In my mind, the technical level used could at least be taken into account as an objective criteria to assess the quality of the work.

 

Also, on sword, the ranking is based, except if I am wrong, on (technical) ability of the Smith.

[Gunome]

Also to precise my initial question about the ranking.

So, maybe "ranking" is not the good word. I would like to know if there a list of a group of artist recognized as top level ?

when we said Nobuye, Kaneiye, Yasuchika, Goto ichijo, .... all are considered as top level, but is there other one ?

Does someone make a ranking/group/list of such artists recognized as talentuous ?

[Ford Hallam]

Not totally subjective.

In my mind, the technical level used could at least be taken into account as an objective criteria to assess the quality of the work.

 

Also, on sword, the ranking is based, except if I am wrong, on (technical) ability of the Smith.

 

but are the technical degrees of skill really being assessed? ...and if so how confident can we be without knowing the actual technical understanding of the craft of those making the judgements? On what basis of training or understanding are these supposed skill judgements being made?

 

Can anyone without actual 'hands on' experience judge skill levels in the wide variety of techniques we see in Edo period tosogu? Who can really say what a metal is merely from it's colour? ( I would hesitate and I have 10000's of analyses to work from) ..or decide that katakiri or nanako in iron is more skilful than the same technique in shibuichi or shakudo.

 

But, even if the judges were qualified to judge skill and technique (and I absolutely refute this notion) that merely reduces the whole exercise to a technical one. So art and aesthetic are not part of that judgement.

[Jimmy R]

This thread raises many questions. Reducing art to a mere practice in technicality will always obscure the work itself. I completely agree with Ford in this. I would also posit, as an artist that works in a field of severe technical restraint, that beauty and function are not just craft. Utility is a secondary function when talking about tosogu. My favorite tsuba depicts an ape man looking wistfully up at the Milky Way. Is it high art? No but to me it is the best tsuba ever made.

[Greg F]

I agree with what Ford is saying, to me it reminds me of boxing as an example: when it comes to judges with out experience as a fighter and or trainer people really shouldnt put too much trust in judges (even with corruption aside). Im sure there is some exceptions but there is nothing better than hands on experience in my opinion.

 

Greg

[Steve Waszak]

Interesting stuff, guys, but I think Sebastien is really just asking about publications (whether in print or online) that identify first-rank tsuba artists, second-rank, third-rank, and so on.  Does anyone know of any other publications that make such identifications?  I believe the 2016 KTK catalogue includes such a ranking list toward the back, though having seen it, I find aspects of it problematic.  It is, incidentally, heavily weighted toward kinko.  And as I hinted at in an earlier post in this thread, knowing the specific criteria by which high(er) rankings are achieved would be useful, to say the least, even more so if there were some objectivity involved (but that might be asking too much... ).

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Guido]

And as I hinted at in an earlier post in this thread, knowing the specific criteria by which high(er) rankings are achieved would be useful, to say the least, even more so if there were some objectivity involved (but that might be asking too much... ).

 

Objectivity - when judging technical skills, sure; but when it comes to art? Ford gave the perfect example: is van Gogh better than Cezanne, or Picasso better than Vermeer?

[Gunome]

For sure, it is hard, or impossible, to compare and tell that van Gogh is better than Cezanne, or Picasso better than Vermeer, even only juging on technical skills.

 

My great aunt was contemporary with van Gogh, Cezanne, Picasso and her hobby was paint. For sure she does not have same skill level and is totally unknow

and not recognized as top level of 20th Century painters.

Why do you quoted Van Gogh, Cezanne, Picasso Vermeer ... and not my great aunt    ? Because are recognized as top level painters on their group/style/time period.

 

I am not looking for a ranking: first, second, third, ... just want to know if there is a publication or a list, like the Fujishiro for sword, that identify the top level / recognized tsuba artists.

Sorry if my English make missunderstanding in my request. However, interesting discussion.

[Steve Waszak]

Guido,

 

My comment on objectivity really was made with a wink:  even in the endeavor of objectivity with regard to technical skills, all one can arguably achieve is to observe and identify.  As soon as one begins to evaluate, objectivity must fade away. 

 

What is fascinating to me, though, is that, given how personal one's response to art is, we might expect no such thing as consensus in what constitutes "the greatest" art/artist.  Ford, I definitely take your point regarding the impact of "Sensei-ism" in Japanese culture, but consensus on the greatness of certain artists and/or works is not limited to Japan, of course, so the phenomenon of Sensei-ism can't explain it completely.  How is it that so many agree that Hon'ami Koetsu's "Fuji-san" chawan is among the greatest ceramic works in history?  I mean, there have been millions of tea bowls made; why does that one, particularly, rise to the top?  Of course, we could go straight to Leonardo's Mona Lisa here, too.  Among tsuba, what exactly accounts for Kaneie and Nobuiye having been "recognized" as the two greatest names in tsuba?  Why those two?  Why not three, or four?  Or only one?  In other words, precisely what separates those two names from all the rest? 

 

I fear, though, that I have steered the discussion away from Sebastien's inquiry again.  Sorry.  Back to that, then.  Sebastien, it looks like three publications have been mentioned:  1.  Shinsen Kinko Meikan.  2.  Noda Takaaki's Banzuke (Tohken Tsuba Kagami).  3.  Kokusai Tosogu Kai (KTK) 2016 catalogue (Nick Nakamura's rankings).  I have heard that Tsuneishi Hideaki's Tsuba no Kantei to Kansho also presents a sort of ranking list, but I haven't had the book in hand yet, so I can't be sure.  Any else know of others? 

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Pete Klein]

I agree in the futility of attempting to judge one artist as 'best' as there simply are too many parameters.  Having said this, I would offer one who is often forgotten as he worked outside of the 'Edo' period, Unno Shomin.  Markus did a good write-up which includes one of his tsuba here:

https://markussesko.com/2013/04/05/from-the-life-of-unno-shomin/

And if you wish to see a 'stellar' example of artistry and craftsmanship, refer to his, 'Ranryo-o':

 

This work is included in an excellent program on Japanese masterworks here:

[Steve Waszak]

Thanks for that, Pete.  Excellent. 

[Gunome]

Thanks to all for the info and also for this nice discussion

[Ford Hallam]

 

  "Ford, I definitely take your point regarding the impact of "Sensei-ism" in Japanese culture, but consensus on the greatness of certain artists and/or works is not limited to Japan, of course, so the phenomenon of Sensei-ism can't explain it completely.  How is it that so many agree that Hon'ami Koetsu's "Fuji-san" chawan is among the greatest ceramic works in history?  I mean, there have been millions of tea bowls made; why does that one, particularly, rise to the top?  Of course, we could go straight to Leonardo's Mona Lisa here, too.  Among tsuba, what exactly accounts for Kaneie and Nobuiye having been "recognized" as the two greatest names in tsuba?  Why those two?  Why not three, or four?  Or only one?  In other words, precisely what separates those two names from all the rest? "

 

Hi Steve

 

well it's interesting, the Fuji-san tea bowl is a perfect example of a work 'recognised' by a foundational connoisseur as being excellent. The other, most celebrated and 'recognised' earlier, example being the Kizaemon tea bowl. I first encountered that piece in Soetsu Yanagi's 'The Unknown Craftsman' over 30 years ago. I would have to confess that its raw and unpretentious aesthetic and accompanying philosophy was 'right up my street' so to speak. I was a devotee before I ever knew of that sort of aesthetic and philosophy. And while that is all very much a part of what makes me tick even today I now have a somewhat less zealot-like adherence to that orthodoxy. Personally speaking I do 'see' and am always reaching for more in works like the Fuji-San and the Kizaemon but I have doubts about proclaiming this particular expression as supreme. There's simply too much other stuff humans value and find meaningful to insist on a ranking system.

 

The Mona Lisa is self evidently magnificent, but I would argue it is only one such artistic work of excellence among many others and many others that are quite different in all respects.

 

So where does this leave us?

 

My own view is one of a multitude of incredible artists each of whom deserves to be carefully and sensitively seen in their own context.

 

The Nobuie factory ( I refute any notion of 1st and 2nd masters or even 'sole authorship' here) produced some works in iron that today that , perhaps partly due  the effects of age, and possibly in part a shift in aesthetic appreciation at some point in the past (were they 'discovered' by tsuba connoisseurs, informed by Sen no Rikyu's teachings,  long after they were made, like anonymous Korean rice bowls became national treasures as tea bowls?) we now regard as 'the best' in iron tsuba'.

 

The house of Goto, unquestioned as absolutely top notch. But in reality absolutely intent on maintaining an unchanging political expression, in art, that had as its primary function the framing of the Tokugawa Shounate as similarly unchanging and reliable. The Louis Vuitton of the Edo period.

 

Mitsuoki Otsuki, his greatest artistic achievement, attested to in his own statement inscribed on the reverse, is not even in Japan (it's in Boston)....nor is it even referenced in contemporary Japanese tosogu literature. And this unique aesthetic thread of his, the birth of which which is clear in his other works, is not yet even being discussed by those who claim to be the authorities and passing judgement.

 

There exists a tsuba by Tanaka Kiyotoshi with an inscription with a similar sentiment that is also not part of the evaluation of the great masterpieces of the past in this field. That one is in the V&A in London. Kiyotoshi is rightfully recognised as a great master and artist..but has his own personal and most intimate judgement been considered? it's there, on an unpublished and ignored tsuba in London.

 

Kano Natsuo, easily accepted as one of the greats ( a friend of Kiyotoshi) and often called the last great master, was himself an artist in continual evolution. He was very obviously of the Otsuki school and grew out of the aesthetic explorations of his predecessors in that group. Matsuo Gassan being the most obvious to my eyes but Otsuki's touch with a kata-kiri cjisel is also blatant in Natsuo's own work. Yes, Natsuo was a proper master....but there is only a small group of work, in a very particular and unique style that for me makes him exceptional. It's that small body of work, the culmination of his development as an artist, that is what he ought to be correctly recognised for. How would that appraisal be reflected accurately in a simple list?

 

Pete mentioned Unno Shomin, and quite rightly too.   Too late to the party to be generally acknowledged as a tosugo master despite actually leaving us a fairly significant body of tosogu work. I love Unno Shomin, he was the epitome of Mito precision and delicacy. I've had the privilege of working on at least 6 Meiji period works by him and while his technical skill is so refined as to almost leave you feeling it's art he is, in my opinion, more the technician than an artist. In that respect Natsuo edges ahead...and Otsuki chugs back another cup of sake and smiles knowingly.

 

All this to say, simplistic ranking lists of all of the artists of the past who's work we all enjoy and appreciate will only serve to obscure a more meaningful understanding of the art form and the society and culture that gave birth to them.

 

 

 

 

 

t

[nagamaki - Franco]

Greetings All,

 

Please forgive me for not apologizing, but the discourse that began to follow was much too interesting to interrupt, thank you. But, now that it has played out somewhat, my interpretation of the question, just to let you know, was always a level ranking and not individual. Carry on.