Do you collect swords as art or as artifact?

[george trotter]

Me too!

 

Henry san, what do you collect? art or artifact, or both?

What would you say to the Yasukunito question?

regards,

George.

[cabowen]

 

If I may pose a question relating to this art/artifact interpretation...how do members (including the "Naijin") assess the swords produced by the Showa Jidai Yasukunijinja Tosho?...learned Japanese sources say they were made with purity of spirit, purity of traditional materials and techniques and in the style of respected koto smiths whom today's nihonto collector would place in the "Art" category...are they art and/or artifact?...and also, if one came into one's collection, should its gunto koshirae (the only koshirae it has ever had), be kept together with the blade, or thrown away?

 

I think there is no doubt that on average they are good and can stand with the average swords of any period. I would also say that there will be some that reach the Juyo level in the future because some are indeed very good.

 

I have kept the gunto koshirae for only one that I have owned. But that was because it is unique in that the blade is over 31" long....

 

 

On the question of those who rigorously and diligently pursue the "art" of the Japanese sword...may I ask what it was that initially attracted you to swords as art rather than clocks as art? (the tradition and craftmanship, the dedication and excellence of the craftsmen is apparent through all cultures and eras and is parallel to the tosho)...yet you chose swords...was it because of the "romantic" historical associations attached to the sword?

No offense intended here...just discussion...

Curious George.

 

Beauty first, then the craftsmanship and technology, then the culture/religion/history.

 

I will concede that one valued aspect of gendaito that I have mentioned in the past, and you have mentioned as well, is the closeness of the history. One can indeed put a face to the maker, learn about his life and character is some cases, and usually see multiple examples of his work. If one is fortunate enough to actually meet the maker of a blade in his collection, it certainly makes you look at that blade in a different light and enriches one's collecting experience.

 

That said, I would not own a blade simply because I met a smith and thought highly of him as a person. Likewise, I have met some smiths that made excellent swords but their personality was off-putting and I wouldn't want one of their swords if it was given to me....

[Henry Wilson]

Henry san, what do you collect? art or artifact, or both?

What would you say to the Yasukunito question?

 

I suppose I collect both. I prefer tsuba that are old, that being from the Muromachi / Momoyama period, and artistically pleasing. I fancy getting a Toran tsuba some day.

 

I am not quite sure what the Yasukuni question is but suspect that you boyz have it nearly answered anyway. :D

 

I had a nice Yasutake sword once. It was lovely and I got it for a fair price and when I decided to sell it ,Aoi Arts reluctantly snapped it out of my hands. I think they sold it with out listing it on their website which suggests that someone had asked them to locate a Yasutake. I think price wish you can get a lot from these swords, as in what people like to see in an ubu koto sword.

 

An old chestnut:

http://www.nihonto.ca/yasunori/index.html

[cabowen]

Henry Wilson said:

An old chestnut:

http://www.nihonto.ca/yasunori/index.html

 

I believe I owned that sword at one time.

[george trotter]

I have to agree with the sentiments and reasoning of these answers...it is obvious that we have our own likes and dislikes in collecting, with it being obvious that aspects of both Art and artifact attract us...only the balance between the art and artifact is varying between collectors. I cannot see how in this field of nihonto one can seriously separate art from artifact...the two go together here.

I too would pass on a sword which did not please my eye, similarly, a black cloud would hang over a sword if it was by a thoroughly objectionable smith...Luckily, those I spoke with were truly modest, and pleased that their swords were cared for and admired in the West.

 

I think the idea of the gunto sword's place in history...the uniqueness of the Yasukunitosho and RJT tosho experiment (so well documented) is an important factor which adds to their rising awareness in Japan...and here. For me this place in history appeals to my museum/researcher side, while the quality appeals to my "artistic" side. But among these blades are those that appeal and those that do not...My neighbour has a 1937 dated Kotani Yasunori in Navy Mounts, very nice, repolished, but it does not excite me. I could have bought another 2 Yasunori myself but passed on them.... while quality has always been superior in the ones I have handled, I have not yet seen a Yasukunito with "artisticness" which has sparked my desire to own it...I tend tend also to be selective of the RJT blades I see....so, I suppose what I am saying is...I collect art and artifact...but with individual weightings and preferences.

 

regards,

George.

[sanjuro]

Does it not seem that we all agree here? Given personal preferences and allowing for the art versus artifact arguments of the individual, we all collect for our own reasons, yet we all recognise there are different accents according to our particular interests. In reality, this discussion is supporting both art and artifact.

We are in short, in accord. It is interesting however, that within that accord there can be such diversity. It is also good to see that although diversity exists, we can each appreciate the viewpoint of other collectors. There is no right and no wrong. There is only difference, and in those differences we can be secure. The future of nihonto and all its variety can only benefit from diversity of collecting preferences. :D

[Gregc]

I believe you have hit the nail on the head.

[doug e lewis]

i am kind of late reading & comment to this thread [been moping about having to cancel my trip to SF Token Kai ].

i agree that all fittings, saya, papers, etc. should be kept with any sword -- Koto thur gendaito to shinsakuto, as noted above all are part of a sword's life history. and as noted, ya don't have to display all ... keep the WWII beat up saya in the closet, but keep it, and pass it on when the time comes to part with the sword.

i have a sword, mumei .... thought to be a ichi kizu katana from ca. 1560 in the Uda school style, by a friend [a Pasadena sayaashi, well know to many NMB members]. my further amature investigation is on going.

i got it naked, in a postal shipping box! the tsuba is in the soten style, probably early Meji according to the comments when i posted it on NMB. the menuki matched the theme of the tsuba ..... but along the way the kashira was lost! tho the fushi is not remarkable, but i thought i possible the kachira might have continued the theme of the tsuba and menuki, i will never know.

all the koshirae i do have are displayed, menki still under ito, fushi and seppa all togeather with tsuba. the katana, of unknown provenance and age, is happy in non-custom made shiasaya [my friend amazingly had a shirsaya hilt that fit the mekugi ana perfectly, and another friend had a shirasaya bottom that fit the sword well enough to protect it, tho the habaki is not very tight in it so i must handle with great care]. the tired old katana, with its beautifull original copper habaki, is in a nice [tho not made for nihonto] bag and safe in a bottom drawer.

 

sorry about the rant; the thread just got me going

 

doug

[David Flynn]

Why ever, one collects Nihonto, whether, it be for art sake, artifact, or any other reason, it keeps the sword world turning. Dealers, as well a collectors serve a purpose. If one doesn't agree why someone else collects swords in a particular way, so what! It is still just an opinion. I collect Gendai. A friend of mine collects Koto. He thinks, that generaly, Gendai aren't worth collecting. I think, he is silly for just collecting Koto. A good sword, is a good sword. So there is a perfect example of, agreeing, to disagree.

[sanjuro]

I think the point has been made by inference and wider acclaim that virtually all Nihonto can be classified as artifacts at some level. They are the product and now the representatives of bygone ages. A purist would say that they have been superceded by a superior technology and therefore have no real place or use in modern society other than as antiques. The base value that we place on them therefore is primarily as artifacts.

It is the art of the nihonto aspect that seems to attract the most variation of ideas, both here and wherever this subject is raised. As with all forms of art, any example of that art will have a variety of opinions directed at it, since art is itself an interpretation of the artists motives, and appreciation of a piece of art will always vary with the individual and what that individual may perceive within a given piece. As a group of art works, nihonto are accepted as a high form of the metalsmiths art and many pieces are considered the pinnacle of that art form. As collectors we may rationalise our motives and our preferences but much of what we see as art in the nihonto is intangible. Certainly, we see what is there to see and also perhaps because we are human, we see also what is not there to be seen but which we feel. Our appreciation is therefore partly emotional.

[cabowen]

...Our appreciation is therefore partly emotional.

 

I would take that a step further and say that it is mostly emotional. Attraction and appreciation is something that can not be rationally explained.

[doug e lewis]

so very right on, Chris. the 1st katana I ever saw [in a parking lot of a pub in Pasadena under a steet light] the blade danced like powdered snow...just as I read a fine hamon in nioi would. The owner let me hold it [yes, he was an idiot for even bringing a sword out at night by a Pub; and a known idiot to them, as i was informed by my nihonto mentors/friends], it was in full koshirae. it seemed to come alive in my hand.

ever, since, when questioned by friends or family about my attraction to nihonto, and Japanese art & culture in general, i usually come spout tortured rationalizations of history, culture, beauty, abstract Zen insight, etc. But it is mostly, if not all, a personal emotional attraction.

 

Yu sareba

Kado ta no inaba

Oto zurete

Ashi no maro ya no

Aki kaze zo fuku

 

In the evening

The rice leaves in the garden

Rustle in the autumn wind

That blows through my reed hut.

 

Minamoto no Tsunenobu

 

purhaps the spirit of this samurai was in that sword. a little over the top, but i was warned that this hobby would make me a little crazy.

 

doug

[Ford Hallam]

...Our appreciation is therefore partly emotional.

 

I would take that a step further and say that it is mostly emotional. Attraction and appreciation is something that can not be rationally explained.

 

Interestingly, I reading a book right now, called "The Art Instinct" by Denis Dutton, that explores our aesthetic response from an evolutionary point of view. His arguments are very persuasive and it does in fact seem quite probable that there is very little that is really inexplicable in the way we respond to things like The Arts and the development of aesthetic preferences.

 

This review of the book may give some idea of it's main thesis and some of the possible objections.

 

This is a quote from the review that may interest some of our members I imagine

 

"Perhaps the best feature of The Art Instinct is the significant advances that it makes in discrediting the notion that art is culturally relative. Some very sharp scholarship adopts this view, but many of its forms can either be false or easily collapse into tautology. The Art Instinct takes a decisive stand against them. The chapter entitled ‘But They Don’t

Have Our Concept of Art’ is, in part, an attack on this. The author applies vigorous logic to reveal the incoherence of forms of this view."

[george trotter]

I would agree that a large part of the attraction to a particular sword is emotional. How often do we see a blade and are totally smitten, even before seeing the nakago and mei...there must be something in a particular style of blade shape/hamon/hada that triggers an emotional response...I say this as there are those swords which are equally excellent in craftsmanship that do not trigger this response, but may well do so in the next collector who picks it up. I would also add, that when I see a number of swords on a table, my "historical/artifact" sensibility (emotion?) leads me to check the gunto mounted swords first, while others would go straight for the "mid-Edo" koshirae sword (of course we would all head straight for the most exquisitely mounted tachi first).

While Mr Dutton can explain the cultural basis for the general emotional response, I wonder if he can explain why two collectors of the same cultural background are attracted by different emotional "stimuli"...why some are fascinated by suguba and others by midareba?

 

George.

[Ford Hallam]

George,

 

The book is precisely not about cultural conditioning....he's talking about the biological/evolutionary development of the human species' aesthetic responses.

 

Varieties of personal taste are all subject to the same factors in terms of human evolution and personal, individual experiences. therein lie our apparent differences.

 

You may find the book quite stimulating in terms of answering your own question.

 

regards,

 

ford

[paulb]

George,

I am not sure why we struggle to understand the differences you describe. soceties and therefore cultures are made up of individuals. taste and preference are as diverse as looks. We are fortunate that in many countires now there is a rich ethnic mix, both histoircal and current which can contribute to that diversity. One of the advantges of the internet is that it has become easier to study and appreciate cultures of different races more easily. Also lets remember that sword smiths like many other artists were making swords to meet a demand of the market. Therefore we should not be surprised that different styles appeal to different people, they always have. thats why the different types were produced and we arent faced with a uniform line of Bizen lookalike blades on every dealers table ( thank goodness ).

[george trotter]

George,

 

The book is precisely not about cultural conditioning....he's talking about the biological/evolutionary development of the human species' aesthetic responses.

 

Varieties of personal taste are all subject to the same factors in terms of human evolution and personal, individual experiences. therein lie our apparent differences.

 

You may find the book quite stimulating in terms of answering your own question.

 

regards,

 

ford

 

OOPS...read your extract again Ford...I suppose, looking at it the way Mr Dutton is said to present it, it makes sense that our emotional response is not culturally imposed, otherwise how could a person in the "West" have the same emotional response when looking at a sword as does a culturally different Japanese?

 

If I am wildly off the track again, I am going home for a sulk!

 

Regards,

Geo.

[sanjuro]

I dont take issue with Mr Duttons observations, but I find it interesting that we as westerners can be equally attracted to nihonto and in the same or a similar way that a Japanese might be attracted. A factor which I cannot ignore however is that we are all to greater and lesser degrees also interested in Japanese culture/history. Surely this interest also pedisposes us to, for want of a better term, a sensitised 'Japaneseness' in our views. Perhaps on the other hand there is no such thing as a uniquely Japanese or a uniquely western way of looking at nihonto. I think however we are all a product of our cultures which in time is modified by our interests.

 

(Didnt we have a somewhat similar discussion to this some time ago)

[cabowen]

A few points to ponder:

 

Swordsmiths originally made blades to meet a functional, utilitarian demand, not an artistic aesthetic driven by the market. Polishing wasn't developed to the point where the details appreciated today were likely observable, thus the artistic appreciation of swords did not come until later.

 

In the mainstream, perhaps due to post WWII education, most Japanese people are not attracted to, but rather nearly repulsed, by swords. I recall one professor in my department once telling me that Japanese swords were only collected by "yakuza and baseball players"!

 

I found it interesting that many people in Japan that I spoke with that didn't find swords offensive turned out to be from samurai families and many that did came from non-samurai families. Seems those from samurai families often had swords in the family and were not particularly afraid of them. Non-samurai often looked at swords as symbols of oppression and have no love for them. Of course my sample size could hardly be viewed as statistically significant but it was always interesting to ask people that had a yeah or nay reaction their family background.

 

No doubt some art transcends culture. Other types require the cultural context to be appreciated. I would contend that all art requires the cultural context to be fully understood and appreciated, but clearly many people can enjoy at some level without it...Obviously, even within cultures, not all art is seen as such. This is perhaps where personal preference plays its part....

[george trotter]

I would have to agree with much of the above from Chris re the cultural connection, or lack of it, in the "average Japanese". Most would only know swords from TV and Movie samurai...much as most Americans know the Colt 45 revolver, or Winchester rifle.

While I have much less "on the ground" immersion in Japanese culture than some here, I can say that apart from people "in" the sword world such as the collector and the NBTHK scholar and the museum curators....almost all Japanese I have met are ignorant of the appreciation of Japanese swords.

 

I hope I don't shock, but the interaction I had with some sword afficianados in the 1970s-1980s was an eyeopener. I learned some of the tricks of "tarting" a sword up to enhance a sale (I am not talking about polishing)....so, no reverence there! I also was told by a well known, highly respected sword scholar whose sword knowledge spanned the pre and post war eras, that never in his career had he ever seen a sword that he wanted for himself....that is real detachment!

Even in people of samurai family, there is no guarantee of attachment. I have a friend who is of a samurai family...grandfather, father, uncles etc all general officer grade in IJA anf IJN. He has disposed of his ancestors swords (incl Naotane) as he can't be bothered with them...I am to have the sword book library of these ancestors.

 

What I illustrate, I think, is that this subject is full of cultural anomalies and similarities...is it too wide a subject for us to encapsulate?

 

I suppose that leaves only dedicated collectors and scholars...and in our various ways, all of us here.

 

Regards,

George.

[mdiddy]

Swordsmiths originally made blades to meet a functional, utilitarian demand...Polishing wasn't developed to the point where the details appreciated today were likely observable, thus the artistic appreciation of swords did not come until later.

 

I've read that some form of polishing existed in Heian and that by Kamakura sword appreciation was in effect (else how would Go-Toba have been able to be such a connosieur? ) I've also read that polishing methods with water stones to effect the hamon did not evolve until sometime in Muromachi and were perfected by the Honami in Momoyama giving us modern-day sword appraisal/appreciation. Which is more likely and did Ichimonji and Masamune swords have such high regard at the time they were made, ostensibly from battlefield performance, or only later when polishing technique had evolved to reveal more detail of the sword?

 

I'm interested in understanding if high-end koto we call 'Art' today was considered 'Art' when it was handed off by the swordsmith, and how historical relevance impacts the definition of 'Art' (i.e. not 'Art' but 'Tool' when it was made, mediocre 'Art' 100 years later, highest 'Art' 500-1000 years later).

[cabowen]

 

I've read that some form of polishing existed in Heian and that by Kamakura sword appreciation was in effect (else how would Go-Toba have been able to be such a connosieur? ) I've also read that polishing methods with water stones to effect the hamon did not evolve until sometime in Muromachi and were perfected by the Honami in Momoyama giving us modern-day sword appraisal/appreciation. Which is more likely and did Ichimonji and Masamune swords have such high regard at the time they were made, ostensibly from battlefield performance, or only later when polishing technique had evolved to reveal more detail of the sword?

 

 

As far as exactly when polishing evolved to the point where inner details in the blade began to be appreciated, from what I understand, this is an area still under debate...

 

I believe it was the martial aspects, rather than the artistic, that drove these early smiths, samurai, and even emperors....They were interested in making blades that were functional first, any "art" was a byproduct and not a first concern, for obvious reasons...

 

 

I'm interested in understanding if high-end koto we call 'Art' today was considered 'Art' when it was handed off by the swordsmith, and how historical relevance impacts the definition of 'Art' (i.e. not 'Art' but 'Tool' when it was made, mediocre 'Art' 100 years later, highest 'Art' 500-1000 years later).

 

See above....When a blade was made for actual use and a life depended on its utility as a weapon, artistic considerations were far down the list. The bright hamon, even, dense jigane, etc., that are considered today hallmarks of beauty, originally where signs indicative of a well made, and therefore functional, blade. Once the utility function became secondary, the artistic merits began to come to the fore....A good sword at one time meant one that was good in a fight, later, a good sword became one that met more aesthetic criteria. Look at the rather low position blades from Bungo, Seki, etc., hold today. They are poo-pooed as "practical swords of little artistic merit"....

[mdiddy]

A good sword at one time meant one that was good in a fight, later, a good sword became one that met more aesthetic criteria.

 

Would this be an admission that a sword must mature past its primary use, and hence be historical artifiact, in order to qualify as 'Art' much later?

[cabowen]

A good sword at one time meant one that was good in a fight, later, a good sword became one that met more aesthetic criteria.

 

Would this be an admission that a sword must mature past its primary use, and hence be historical artifiact, in order to qualify as 'Art' much later?

 

I think the sword has not changed, it is what it always has been...opinions and viewpoints change....

[mdiddy]

Right. Back to my question - wouldn't a sword necessarily be an artifact - i.e. characteristic of an earlier time or cultural stage and past its primary use - to be seen as purely 'Art'?

[cabowen]

Couldn't it be said that everything is an artifact? The questions addressed the mindset of those collecting swords- do you see them and collect them for their artistic merit or for the history that they contain as an artifact? For some the art is the focus, for others it is the history or a combination....Swords were collected during the time they were still in "use"...

[mdiddy]

Swords were collected during the time they were still in “use”…

 

Yes – as part of arsenals primarily, second as political tools for authoritative representation and rewarding, third as pretty decorative wall-hanging ornaments.

 

I don’t think everything is artifact…yet. Many objects, even future objet d’art, are still being used for their primary function regardless of form. I think Nihonto fall into this same interesting subset of art that have (had) a primary function yet whose form is also quite pleasant to look at too. The same could be said for architecture, furniture, etc – but what’s important is form and function, not just form alone. I don’t think there is function to a Monet, even though they are quite pleasant to look at.

 

I think it was pointed earlier in the thread that Nihonto are a meeting point of art and artifact. Along that line of thought, I’m suggesting there is a relationship and sequencing of artifact/art from which my question is still not directly answered: wouldn’t a sword necessarily be an artifact before it could be called purely art?

[reinhard]

After all the "I like.... because of...."- babble, it might be interesting to know what a person, who really knows what he's talking about, has to say about this matter. Mr. Nobuo Ogasawara, retired Head Conservator of the Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan in Tokyo, held a lecture about "MEITO or What Makes a Masterpiece?" in 2002 in Solingen, Germany. Text (ger. and engl.) can be found in:

 

"Ausgewählte Japanische Kunstschwerter"/"Selected Fine Japanese Swords"

published by NBTHK-EB and the Klingenmuseum in Solingen.

 

If you want to understand what makes a slim and elegant Rai KUNITOSHI tachi a MeiTo and a 300'000 US$ blade and what makes a huge and heavy Bungo Takada-sword from later Muromachi-period with impressive, long kissaki just a simple weapon worth only a couple of grands, I strongly advice this lecture.

 

Appreciation of NihonTo won't come to you easily. You have to go there, sacrifices included.

 

reinhard

[cabowen]

 

Yes – as part of arsenals primarily, second as political tools for authoritative representation and rewarding, third as pretty decorative wall-hanging ornaments.

 

They were still worn and still used, not in war as history unfolded but they could have been...To those carrying them up until the Haito-rei, they certainly didn't think they were merely ornamental....

 

I don’t think everything is artifact…yet. Many objects, even future objet d’art, are still being used for their primary function regardless of form. I think Nihonto fall into this same interesting subset of art that have (had) a primary function yet whose form is also quite pleasant to look at too. The same could be said for architecture, furniture, etc – but what’s important is form and function, not just form alone. I don’t think there is function to a Monet, even though they are quite pleasant to look at.

 

I think it was pointed earlier in the thread that Nihonto are a meeting point of art and artifact. Along that line of thought, I’m suggesting there is a relationship and sequencing of artifact/art from which my question is still not directly answered: wouldn’t a sword necessarily be an artifact before it could be called purely art?

 

 

"Artifact", to my understanding, is an object created by human craft, most of the time, a tool, weapon, or the like, with archaeological or historical interest.

 

Time and human craft can thus be said to be the requirements for something to be considered an artifact. Art has no such time requirement-something can be art from the moment of creation. I suppose one would have to have insight into the mind of the smiths at the time to determine how exactly they viewed their creations...It would seem though that the view that swords are art is more of a modern viewpoint, some might argue construct (that enabled the Japanese to save them from destruction at the end of the war)...

 

What is your definition of artifact?

[Stephen]

twice ive agreed with Reinhard.....whats the world coming too.