Cultural Vandalism, or cultural inheritance? You decide.

[Samurai Art]

There has been a lot of activity of late concerning the restoration of Japanese Armour. As many are aware, I was a professional restorer for many years until I retired. I studied lacquering for four years under the guidance of Kitagawa Miho Sensei. I want to share with you two restorations that required urushi. I have been accused of cultural vandalism for my work, so I thought it would be best for the members to decide.

The first example is a dô that was made from rawhide. The owner had the complete suit, so it was very important to ensure that the restoration would be invisible and that the finished work complemented the gusoku. Over the years, it absorbed moisture via the holes used for lacing. The result is delamination and cracking due to swelling. At first, I attempted to consolidate the cracking. However, this was in vain because the sections continued to expand and shrink, destroying to the repair. I decided to strip the lacquer and ground layers off completely. It took three years to dry the rawhide out before it could be rebuilt.  



This is a close-up of the surface, you can see that it was originally wrapped in hemp.

[Samurai Art]

 

Another photo of the surface and condition

[Samurai Art]

The dô now fully restored and repaired using sabi-urushi, kokuso and urushi. 

[Samurai Art]

The next example is a menpo. As you can see from the photographs, the condition was terrible.

[Samurai Art]

The iron was rusted

[Samurai Art]

I had to remove all the urushi to replace some iron parts. The iron came from other old broken armour, which is perfect donors.
The surface was primed by burning on urushi, and the mask was rebuilt using sabi and urushi layers.

[Samurai Art]

Last example.

Another menpo that had delaminated urushi

 

[Samurai Art]

The tare is made from iron but had damage to the kirisuke, this was replied using kokuso.

[Samurai Art]

Mask with damage

 

[Samurai Art]

mask repaired

 

[IBot]

As a former senior curator at the Royal Armouries, the UK's National Museum of arms and armour, I am acutely aware of the preference for conservation over restoration. I am also aware that the conventional attitude to this matter is that whatever process is carried out on an object, it should be reversible. To this end I have seen professional conservators fastening down lacquer flakes with approved reversible adhesives, using complex clamping systems that had to stay in place for months on end since the adhesives relied on the evaporation of solvents. What happens is that the adhesive around the edges of the flake harden and all but prevented solvent evaporation from under the impervious lacquer flake. 

 

This attitude of insisting on the need for reversibility is perfectly sensible if there is any doubt about the permanence the technique or if there is the possibility of the material used for conservation reacting adversely over time with the original. Another factor that is insisted upon by conservation staff that of the need for any restored element to be identifiable. To this end, any replaced or renewed element such as a plate  in a European armour at the Museum was stamped with text stating it was a replacement, a process that was even used for new rings used to repaired mail. 

 

There is however something of a problem when it comes to the conservation of Japanese armour, not least because of the mix of totally disparate materials in their construction. Virtually all of the materials used in their construction suffers degradation from light, so  unless an armour has been stored in the dark since it was made, it will have suffered to some extent. Another source of damage is the humidity of the environment it has been stored in. Lacquer suffers in a low humidity whilst textiles, rawhide and metals suffer if the humidity is high.  Gravity too can play its part in damaging textile fastenings. In short, however we try to prevent it, the environment we live in is attacking our armours. 

 

So, what do we do? The obvious answer is to make every attempt to conserve the original and make every attempt to minimise further degradation. However, for some items, the damage has already been done. Do we relace an armour with new silk braid or leave it as a collection of separate pieces? Do we accept accept areas of missing lacquer or replace it by new urushi applied in the correct manner? There will be different views on the answers to these questions but is any view more valid than another?

Ian Bottomley 

 

 

[Luc T]

I see no harm in restoring  these pieces in this condition, on the contrary.    

 

 

[uwe]

I’m dealing with several museums since years as a consultant (or visiting researcher) when it comes to Japanese armor (sometimes also swords and the same) and can totally agree with Ian. Apart from the different views of each restorer/conservator a lot of other things have to be considered and the decision to which degree a piece has to be touched depends on the very piece (condition etc.) and the purpose. For example, when the item is intended for exhibition.

On the other hand, museums are mostly like time capsules. The majority of artifacts remained untouched and unaltered for the last 100-150 years. A great source of information and references. So in view of the abundance of Japanese arms and armor stored away in the magazines, we can be glad if they at least get a proper conservation. 
I think the dispute will go on, but there will be probably no right or wrong in the end…
 

 

[Matsunoki]

I wonder what the skilled artisans who made these lovely pieces originally would ask (or tell) us to do if they could?

Factually we have to accept that there is a worldwide shortage of the skills and knowledge necessary to restore/repair/conserve most categories of old Japanese works of art (I include armour in that). 
 

Museums are often the greatest culprits when it comes to leaving armour, swords etc languishing  and rusting in damp basements - forgotten. Often they have neither the funds nor the initiative to take action. Shameful. 

 

It’s interesting to put ourselves in the shoes of the original maker who looks down at us. What then would we say I wonder?

 

I would say something like “please try to save it as best you can and try to keep as much original as possible. But please, above all, do save it”

 

It is inescapable that some will be botched, some will be done well, some will be done by those with true talent and knowledge. 
 

Just a few random thoughts but I’d love to hear what you as the maker would say to the current custodian.

All the best

Colin

[Miura]

20 hours ago, MIFUNE said:

There has been a lot of activity of late concerning the restoration of Japanese Armour. As many are aware, I was a professional restorer for many years until I retired. I studied lacquering for four years under the guidance of Kitagawa Miho Sensei. I want to share with you two restorations that required urushi. I have been accused of cultural vandalism for my work, so I thought it would be best for the members to decide.

The first example is a dô that was made from rawhide. The owner had the complete suit, so it was very important to ensure that the restoration would be invisible and that the finished work complemented the gusoku. Over the years, it absorbed moisture via the holes used for lacing. The result is delamination and cracking due to swelling. At first, I attempted to consolidate the cracking. However, this was in vain because the sections continued to expand and shrink, destroying to the repair. I decided to strip the lacquer and ground layers off completely. It took three years to dry the rawhide out before it could be rebuilt.  



This is a close-up of the surface, you can see that it was originally wrapped in hemp.

Dave Thatcher Wrote:   I studied lacquering for four years under the guidance of Kitagawa Miho Sensei. I want to share with you two restorations that required urushi

1. Unfortunately, most people who specialize in urushi do not work with the same materials that armor makers do.  Metal, or leather for example have very different properties to wood, such as expansion and contraction, rusting, etc.  That is why there are no shortcuts to beciming an armor maker or restorer if you are doing it traditionally. 

Dave Thatcher Wrote:   I decided to strip the lacquer and ground layers off completely. It took three years to dry the rawhide out before it could be rebuilt.  

2. 3 years to dry out rawhide...... Try drying it in a dry place.  Do you think the samurai artisans waited three years for a piece of rawhide to dry out?  Are you sure you didnt just forget about it?  I did one of these recently, same condition, done in short time.  If you took the time to understand what you were doing, you would have been done in a couple months.  Experience and knowledge about construction, adhesion, etc. is what allows us to make the right decisions from the beginning so time and money are not wasted. 

[Miura]

I'd like to reply to some of the things that Ian said.  Having worked in museums since the age of 5 and advising, curating etc. at some of the top museums and shrines Ill add a bit here, you all know that im a trained restorer and armor maker as well.   One thing that most restorers dont have is knowledge about the thinking of museums. Ie. the importance of preserving, particular parts etc.  On the other hand, most museum staff do not know what to expect to find underneath cracking urushi. Sometimes, restoration is just not worth the cost, and sometimes a full restoration is absolutely necessary to preserve the most important part which is the metal or leather.  If the base form is non-existent, then the urushi is meaningless.   Therefore, the kind of person that you want working for a museum, or at least advising a museum would be somebody with enough experience to be able to tell them, for example:  "Its not worth consolidating the urushi, and it can be damaging to the iron unless you strip and replace it", or "this urushi is the original urushi, we can and should fill the cracks and try to keep it, there is no threat to the iron at this point", or "the urushi will never be the same, but its original, so lets take samples, learn what we can and re-do it or just forego a restoration".   Basically you need somebody who knows what they are doing both as a restorer and as a museum specialist.  Not knowing a direction to take, is the reason that things get worse, or never done, and sit and rot on the shelves of museums, or in restorers bathtubs or wherever.   Recently, some of the worst things I have witnessed are:  1.  at the metropolitan museum the degredation of their prize akoda nari kabuto.  This likely happened when they started moving things around during temperature and humidity fluctuations in the dead of winter.  In a really short amount of time, the helmet that I had loved all my life suddenly started to deteriorate.  One helmet was displayed backwards, and an edo period armor was mid-diagnosed as Kamakura period!  In a display in Odawara castle, I saw that the armor owned by the Satake family had the original "Satake style" tehen kanamono removed by the restorer without the owner's permission.  The reason was "it was not from the proper period".  That tehen kanamono was one of the most important parts of the armor. To add insult to injury, the guy in charge of writing the book went out of his way to state that the signature on the helmet "Yoshimichi" (sometimes called "gitsu")  was a fake signature.  The signature was absolutely proper and correct.  All of this stuff is cultural vandalism in my opinion. Destruction of information, desecration of art, and misinformation.   And it was done by the trustees of the culture and history most likely due to ignorance and incompetence.   Dave Thatcher playing with the basket case restorations above is rather inconsequential in my opinion.  But please stop misinforming people.   

[Alex A]

Its an interesting question and don't think it can be answered better than what Ian B stated.

 

All i know, if you have something that looks like it needs to be restored. Once restored, you never look at it the same way.

 

Some folk cant live with even minor faults or flaws and feel the need to intervene or run a mile. Antiques ruined by the boat load, see it all the time.

 

With serious issues, obviously something needs to be done, its the minor fault meddling that bugs me and the folk that cant live with such flaws. 

 

 

[Miura]

17 minutes ago, Alex A said:

Its an interesting question and don't think it can be answered better than what Ian B stated.

 

All i know, if you have something that looks like it needs to be restored. Once restored, you never look at it the same way.

 

Some folk cant live with even minor faults or flaws and feel the need to intervene or run a mile. Antiques ruined by the boat load, see it all the time.

 

With serious issues, obviously something needs to be done, its the minor fault meddling that bugs me and the folk that cant live with such flaws. 

 

 

Well, one thing that most people dont know is the fact that MOST items have already been restored depending on their age.  If I were to tell you which items have been restored, you would probably not look at them in the same way either.   In modern times, however, mostly only experts or people involved in the restorations would recognize the restorations.    I do strongly disagree with the more recent idea for museums to make restorations into bleeding eye sores by making them stick out. My true theory on this is that they have turned in this direction because they want to divert liability away from their not having, or being able to afford people competent enough to do good restorations. Just imagine if those same types of restorations were done on oil paintings?     If you read my response, it takes an expert to assess the best course of action. Sometimes flaws should be left, sometimes if not repaired, the artifact continues to deteriorate and fall apart.   Sometimes its the case of having something from the muromachi period suffering from a bad edo period restoration.... restore it properly, protect it, and present it as it should be, or let it rot, and or preserve the poor edo period restoration.   There are choices, but it takes a well seasoned expert to present the best courses of actions. 

[Luc T]

1 hour ago, Alex A said:

Its an interesting question and don't think it can be answered better than what Ian B stated.

 

All i know, if you have something that looks like it needs to be restored. Once restored, you never look at it the same way.

 

Some folk cant live with even minor faults or flaws and feel the need to intervene or run a mile. Antiques ruined by the boat load, see it all the time.

 

With serious issues, obviously something needs to be done, its the minor fault meddling that bugs me and the folk that cant live with such flaws. 

 

 

I can’t agree more.  It takes a serious study before starting a restoration.  The patina of ages is also intruiging and a part of history and beauty of armor.    I have seen relacquered kabuto that really did not need any treatment.   They look like an old lady full of botox and silicon to look like something they never were.

before I start a restoration,  I discuss this with my restorer and if needed with his Japanese sensei.  Normally, it takes a couple of months before we decide what to do.  

[YOJIMBO]

21 hours ago, IBot said:

As a former senior curator at the Royal Armouries, the UK's National Museum of arms and armour, I am acutely aware of the preference for conservation over restoration. I am also aware that the conventional attitude to this matter is that whatever process is carried out on an object, it should be reversible. To this end I have seen professional conservators fastening down lacquer flakes with approved reversible adhesives, using complex clamping systems that had to stay in place for months on end since the adhesives relied on the evaporation of solvents. What happens is that the adhesive around the edges of the flake harden and all but prevented solvent evaporation from under the impervious lacquer flake. 

 

This attitude of insisting on the need for reversibility is perfectly sensible if there is any doubt about the permanence the technique or if there is the possibility of the material used for conservation reacting adversely over time with the original. Another factor that is insisted upon by conservation staff that of the need for any restored element to be identifiable. To this end, any replaced or renewed element such as a plate  in a European armour at the Museum was stamped with text stating it was a replacement, a process that was even used for new rings used to repaired mail. 

 

There is however something of a problem when it comes to the conservation of Japanese armour, not least because of the mix of totally disparate materials in their construction. Virtually all of the materials used in their construction suffers degradation from light, so  unless an armour has been stored in the dark since it was made, it will have suffered to some extent. Another source of damage is the humidity of the environment it has been stored in. Lacquer suffers in a low humidity whilst textiles, rawhide and metals suffer if the humidity is high.  Gravity too can play its part in damaging textile fastenings. In short, however we try to prevent it, the environment we live in is attacking our armours. 

 

So, what do we do? The obvious answer is to make every attempt to conserve the original and make every attempt to minimise further degradation. However, for some items, the damage has already been done. Do we relace an armour with new silk braid or leave it as a collection of separate pieces? Do we accept accept areas of missing lacquer or replace it by new urushi applied in the correct manner? There will be different views on the answers to these questions but is any view more valid than another?

Ian Bottomley 

 

 

Ian , No offense. I am interested in one thing. Have you ever worked with your hands to restore armor? that you finished it and it turned out successfully?

[Miura]

1 hour ago, Luc T said:

I can’t agree more.  It takes a serious study before starting a restoration.  The patina of ages is also intruiging and a part of history and beauty of armor.    I have seen relacquered kabuto that really did not need any treatment.   They look like an old lady full of botox and silicon to look like something they never were.

before I start a restoration,  I discuss this with my restorer and if needed with his Japanese sensei.  Normally, it takes a couple of months before we decide what to do.  

Exactly my point Luc.  Agree with you completely. Again, it goes to where knowledge/experience is very important to a good restoration. Or whether or not something should even be restored.

[uwe]

Allow me a comment.

I can agree with the most points made, but what we outline as desirable in terms of restoration or conservation is more or less wishful thinking. It has, unfortunately, little to do with reality and won’t in the foreseeable future.
We are all aware of the fact that there is a serious lack on professional restorers (or competent layman) in the field. 
Hence, the majority of pieces will never been handelt by people who know what they do, or handelt at all. 
It is senseless to argue about who is the best trained and experienced katchū-shi or restorer. It might be nice to know but has no far-reaching consequences if they are not able or willing to share their knowledge. At least to the extent that gross errors can be avoided by the “guys on the front”*. Thin ice, I know, but I’ve no better idea for the moment to solve this dilemma…
Insofar (and I don’t believe that I write this), I can’t see a serious problem with the pictured “restoration works” in the initial post. Mark it as restored and the item not only survived, but also becomes presentable*.

* I refer to restorers at museums, collectors and the so “demonized” lay craftsman.

* Provided it has not been altered by restoration or taken out of its historical context (given that real urushi was used).