What does "Western influence" mean to you?

[sanjuro]

Ford

 

Yes I can see what you are driving at here and unless its time also for my medication, I can relate to the underlying personality you refer to. That the refinement of the material is taken to extremes in order to convey in that aspect alone, a sophisticated aesthetic quality That in the absence of any further embellishment stands alone, is a very Japanese quality. We see this in another form also in Yamakichibei Tsuba.

 

The different treatment of similar subjects as in the Ishiguro Masayoshi and shimizu Jingo birds carries through to your last example of the Goto style. Shimizu jingo varies by his treatment of the subject in a non Chinese way whereas both Ishiguro Masayoshi and the Goto masters such as Goto Ishijo treat the birds particularly in a very Chinese classical style.

 

I have never really considered the Goto style to be anything more than you have suggested, the officially sanctioned style of the court. We are robbed by the majority of Goto work from appreciation of the plate material itself by the application of nanako. The work is therefore centered on the execution and placement of the limited (and carefully regulated) subject matter.

 

We seem to be in general agreement here Ford..... I think that alone calls for a drink.

 

Edit: (He got another post in, whilst I was ordering drinks, before I finished this one).......

[Ford Hallam]

Edit: (He got another post in, whilst I was ordering drinks, before I finished this one).......

 

must have been while you were at the bar

[sanjuro]

Just taking stock here.....We may just end up with a list of things to explore further.

 

In many respects, and the examples are too numerous to mention, this intricate simplicity and elegant minimalism coupled with an attention to not only detail but finesse in technique, is typically Japanese. The way in which even the most casual appearance or placement of a subject is most carefully contrived to appear uncontrived. Can we then say that this is but one of the factors we are searching for?

Likewise, the exquisite attention to the refinement of the plate material to provide an effect that is supremely individual and evocative?

[nagamaki - Franco]

Greetings,

 

While preferring to follow this thread in the comfort of silence, some of this latest battering of Goto work simply cannot continue completely unaddressed.

 

We are robbed by the majority of Goto work from appreciation of the plate material itself by the application of nanako. The work is therefore centered on the execution and placement of the limited (and carefully regulated) subject matter.

 

The idea that nanako executed on a shakudo plate takes away from the appreciation of the shakudo itself is simply rubbish. I can only conclude that the observer has never studied excellent shakudo finished in excellent nanako in hand, and on the outside chance they have, they are not understanding what they're seeing I'm sorry to say. Yeah, I can just imagine going back in time and saying to Master Teijo, "what the hell were you thinking putting nanako on your shakudo plate work!" (where's that evil twin when you need one).

 

Good shakudo is good shakudo, and it is duly recognizable regardless of whether it is finished in nanako or ishime or simply smooth, in perfect condition or showing signs of age and wear. While I would readily accept the idea that nanako which is executed at somewhere below perfect can become a distraction to the eye and take away from the overall aesthetic quality of a particular piece, the quality of the shakudo remains intact regardless.

 

In the matter of carefully regulated subject matter, this is where, IMHO, conflict and misunderstanding from a cultural perspective may play a heavy role on the part of the observer. As observers and collectors it is we that need to adapt our understanding to the Japanese way. This is not to say that we should change our personal perspective, likes or dislikes. Otherwise, it's like going to Rome and telling the Romans they don't know how to design and build a proper Coliseum.

 

The other danger here is lumping all mainline Goto work into the same category, and I can see how that can happen, as most of what is presented for viewing is the more formal Goto. However, for those willing to explore and study Goto work in depth, there exists a softer more dynamic Goto. Every now and then we catch a glimpse online of one of these special Goto pieces, occasionally one is spotted on ricecracker's website.

 

And, now, other than thanking Ford for his presentation of tsuba and the terms to better define into words our thoughts, its back to shutting up and silence.

[sanjuro]

Hi Franco.

 

The reference you seem to have taken exception to was mine. That reference was more to the point that the overall nanako hid the natural plate material as does shakudo et al. The observation was not in fact a criticism but an observation of the finish in respect of it focusing on the decoration rather than the plate material itself.

I thought we had stepped beyond what we personally like or dislike in this discussion, and that we were more concerned with establishing some general principles of Japanese art. It is I guess inevitable that some of us cannot see beyond thier own personal preferences, and will therefore seek in this discussion some vindication or criticism of those preferences. Neither is intended. My personal preferences in this instance are firmly held in check for the sake of the discussion (limited by lack of participation though it is).

Your comments about nanako and shakudo are quite valid, and indeed are an aspect, as yet unexplored in this thread, of the overall Japanese aesthetic that we are searching for.

 

NB. I am not here to engage in a controversy of any kind, but to learn. Since I am learning then I expect that not everything I say will be absolutely incontravertable.

[Steve Waszak]

Hi guys,

 

I have been following this excellent topic for some days now. I have rather a lot of thoughts on the subject here, so I may wander a bit as I delve into things. Please forgive me if I stray too far onto a particular tangent...

 

The question of whether there is and then pinpointing an essential Japanese aesthetic is a tricky one, I think, because (among other things) it seems to remove the individuality of artists, at least to a certain extent. That is, would the aesthetic sensibility expressed in the works of Shimizu Jimbei (Jingo I) be any "more" or "less Japanese" than that expressed in the works of Hirata Hikozo? The tsuba of these two artists could hardly be more dissimilar, and yet, not only are both Japanese artists of the very early Edo period, but Hirata was Shimizu's teacher(!). One might expect a fairly strong influence of the former's sensibilities on the latter, but there isn't a lot of evidence for this, not in materials used, in style, or in subject matter. Is one of these artists more "essentially Japanese" in his aesthetic sensibility? Is either more or less Japanese in this way than Umetada Myoju?

 

Switching gears here for a moment, I think the list of aesthetic terms Ford provided earlier in this thread is a fascinating one, not only for the respective meaning of each of these terms, but also in considering whether there is or ever was any sort of "ranking system" or hierarchy describing the relative status of the qualities described by the terms. For example, do/did the Japanese (if I can group them so generally) see shibui as an elevated aesthetic quality when contrasted with iki, or with karei? Does/did yugen ascend above miyabi, or vice-versa? Was it simply a matter of individual artists to decide such questions, or are these sorts of concerns alien to the Japanese? I wonder if we could say that, among these terms/concepts, some are "more (quint)essentially Japanese than others. It would seem not. After all, if the terms exist in Japanese, one would suppose they would all be "essentially Japanese." And yet, I think we tend to associate certain of these terms/concepts with a Japanese aesthetic sensibility more readily than we do others. For me, such concepts as wabi, sabi, yugen, mujo, shibui, and kanso resonate as more distinctly Japanese than do, for instance, iki, karei, and miyabi. I'm sure this says more about me than it does about the Japanese, but nevertheless, this is the view I hold (if largely unconsciously).

 

As has already been noted in this thread, one aesthetic sensibility that I would agree stands out as distinctly Japanese is that of subtle suggestion in the depiction of or reference to a subject. The power of the unfinished statement is a notion that seems to be vibrant in Japanese aesthetics. Whether this idea exists in other cultures or not, it is the Japanese who have elevated it to its most exquisite manifestation, I would argue. This isn't to say that this is the only---or the most distinctive or most important---Japanese aesthetic value, however. Indeed, what I would say captures something of an essential Japanese aesthetic sensibility is the frequent combining of several of the concepts described in that list of terms Ford provided. The adroitness with which great Japanese tsubako (including those who never signed their work) fused many of these concepts into the physical object that is the tsuba is, also, in itself, a characteristic of an essential Japanese aesthetic. That is, the very degree of accomplishment in realizing their ideas and values in the guard itself is distinctively Japanese. And when we then focus on the joining these two---the combining of aesthetic concepts on the one hand, and the technical brilliance in the execution of the designs on the other---we have then an art tradition that is distinct and recognizable.

 

The matter of Western (or other foreign) influence on Japanese artists remains, of course. The real question here, I would say, is whether there is truly any form or example of purely Japanese art, totally free from foreign influence. It's an interesting question, but perhaps not as important to pursue as it at first seems, for it would appear to presuppose that any such form of art would perforce be "more" Japanese (more purely Japanese) than those which "suffered" from foreign impact. Two things occur to me in response to this concern: first, going back to my initial point regarding the individual Japanese artist, even if we could identify any such would-be pure Japanese art, we would be likely to see considerable diversity in sensibility and expression of that art form (thus diluting the notion of an essential Japanese aesthetic sensibility); and second, if it is the Japanese propensity to take foreign elements and absorb, modify, tweak, and meld them with both other foreign elements and "native Japanese" elements, wouldn't such a propensity itself be part and parcel of the Japanese process of art creation? One could argue that it is the unique blending of disparate elements into a fresh and vibrant new whole that is itself a distinct hallmark of Japanese art.

 

I would be curious how many of us would be able to locate such concepts as shibui, yugen, wabi, kanso, and mujo in any art other than Japanese, especially in combination. Even if one were to argue that it is the "art critic" who determines these concepts/values to be present in a given work, not the artist who creates that work, it would nevertheless be the Japanese critic who would describe the aesthetic characteristics and qualities expressed by that work; in other words, it would still be a cultural valuation, whether through the eyes of the artist, the critic, or both.

 

Finally, the sheer quality of the work produced is, to me, a distinct feature of Japanese art. Of course, not everything produced by the Japanese is of superb quality, but the marriage of aesthetic sensibility (as described above), concept, design, material, and execution achieved by so many Japanese artists, across so many genres of art, across so many centuries is, I believe, unique among the world's cultures. It may be frustratingly difficult to pinpoint what it is that makes Japanese art Japanese, but that difficulty doesn't mean that there aren't characteristics adhering to their art that won't be found (especially in combination) anywhere else. There is a there, there, I think, despite its elusiveness...

 

Sorry to have rambled... There's just so much to this topic!

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[sanjuro]

Steve.

 

I'm still taking all of what you have said in, but this last bit eludes me. Either my meds are wearing off or something is missing.

There is a there, there, I think, despite its elusiveness...

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Keith,

 

Sorry. I was just trying to say that however challenging it might be to locate and identify specifically an essential Japanese aesthetic sensibility, I do think that such a thing may be said to exist (there is a there, there; there indeed exists such a thing)... Apologies for my clumsiness...

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[sanjuro]

OK.......... got it. Thanks. I think in the midst of all the former loneliness on this thread I have lost the art of communicating with my fellow creatures.

[Ford Hallam]

no more thoughts?.....ah well, :|

[sanjuro]

Without delving into the exact meaning and our understanding of specific Japanese aesthetic terms, about which I suspect we have a variety in regard to depth and accuracy of understanding, even within the ranks of the NMB. The essence of Japanese art for me at least lies in the following factors:

 

The artful understatement of a subject and the use of a bare necessity of both subject and depiction to achieve a required impression.

 

An economy of line that leaves room for the viewer to fill in the gaps from his own imagination. Also the depiction of a subject by suggestion.

 

The use of material, texture and natural colours and themes for their own sake.

 

Simplicity, austerity, rusticity and ascetism all fall within these parameters, and I would not be original in observing that the Japanese gravitate naturally to that which embodies these characteristics.

 

These of course are characteristics found in early tsuba. The later development of tsuba which incorporated a greater palette of materials and techniques used by the ko kinko tsubako, added much to art but left behind much of the direct simplicity of these roots in the complexity of their creations. In doing so, they adopted new influences and also created new shades of meaning within the aesthetics of expression, .

 

Japanese art in the form of tsuba reacted over a period of time to socio political and commercial pressures. In the early days only the samurai were the fountainhead of demand, and their artistic sensibilities were dictated not only by the restrained tastes of their class but also by the fundamental practicality of the tsuba itself. Post 1650 (to pick a random date) the demand for tsuba came from not only samurai but also from the merchant class whose tastes were somewhat more ornate,and not constrained by subject matter or by the practicality of the tsuba. The wealthy within the warrior class also sought as did the merchant, to adorn his person with symbols of wealth. The sword was a badge of rank certainly, but it was also a measure of the individuals importance within his class as well as in society at large. Where better to display that symbol than on the sword itself? In effect, the more ornate tsuba and other tosogu were as much Japanese male jewellery, as they were fittings for his sword. (This is not intended as an indictment or a criticism, of any particular style, but rather as a general observation).

 

Western influence in tosogu (as distinct from mere copying), can be observed in either of or in a mixture of two ways. Japanese expression of western themes or a western style of expression applied to Japanese themes. The permutations are endless when combined with the techniques involved.

[george trotter]

I think Keith has hit on an important aspect of the Japanese aesthetic as expressed in tosogu.

We know that male Japanese from early Edo onwards were socially precluded from personal adornment/jewellry. Indeed, the paragon of samurai masculinity was retrained and sombre dress...without any outward personal display or adornment...the only avenue for personal expression open to him (in terms of wealth/social class) was his sword , his tanto or wakizashi, and his sash utilities (tobacco pouch etc). Even his saya and wrap were expected to be restrained...leaving only his tsuba...hence the departure from pre-Edo aesthetics mentioned by Keith.

With the rise of the merchant class, and their insistance on filling their desire for display, the exquisite workmanship and presentation of "outrageous" conceits in tsuba art came into full swing...but the restrained simplicity style (albeit of exquisite workmanship) continued also...this demand and wealth makes it very hard to separate the samurai "minimalist" aesthetic (for want of a better word) and the "luxurious" aesthetic of the merchants into definitely identifiable separate streams...who can say who ordered the tsuba? I say this because the Satsuma warriors also were notoriously "flamboyant" in their choice of adornment...reds, golds, gilt etc etc (very much like the merchant class tastes) and when later disassembled...who can say whether the piece is samurai aesthetic or merchant aesthetic. It seems that the most productive phase of tsuba art, in terms of quantity/quality and influence is very blurred between two major consumer groups...whose aesthetic is being depicted? And, just to complicate things further, does the art produce the market or does the market produce the art.

In addition, there is the steadily increasing fascination with borrowing/depicting aspects of art or everyday life from the west...we have had some very heated debates about whether this influence was avidly welcomed out of curiosity or cynically "grabbed" by unscrupulous western/Japanese merchant combines to "export" to the equally curious west. Some insist the westernisation of Japanese art was purely to make an alien product more digestable to western markets...presumeably the "Japanisation" of western themes was to make them more "digestable" to the samurai/merchant markets in Japan?

 

For me, being untrained, I think the question is too broad for me to attempt...the narrowing of focus into identifying an outside influence in an individual (piece by piece?) study of what is essentially a "Japanese" work of art may be more "attack-able" for me.

Regards.

George.

[sanjuro]

In furtherance of my previous post, may I venture the following thought:

 

Attempting to separate that which we think or assume may be Japanese from the welter of influences, complicated by the interpretation of those influences by Japanese artists, of the Edo period for example, is rather pointless if we dont know or cannot quantify what is 'Japanese' in the first place.

 

Since the Japanese as we know them as opposed to the indiginous Japanese, were originally from the Asian mainland and the artistic influences upon them and which they emulated was in the early days primarily Chinese, then it is reasonable to suppose that there is in fact no atypical indiginous Japanese art as such. Yet still there exists an undeniable quality in Japanese art that we identify exclusively with the Japanese. A quality that is neither wholly Chinese, or for that matter fundamentally influenced by any other culture.

In order to identify whatever aspects, aesthetics and/or expressions of Japanese art are in fact Japanese, we should I feel, look to historical periods which occur during Japan's isolation from the rest of the world . It is during these periods when Japanese art flourished without outside influence, and surely where we might find the elements and motivations that separate Japanese art from all others.