The last word on cast iron tsuba

[Bugyotsuji]

Just posted a reply but the old glitch threw out the post. Second time lucky?

 

Thomas, in the parallel discussion here on the Myochin tsuba, I posted a link to a different supposed mid-Edo cast tsuba, with a short description about the maker:

http://www.tsubanomiyako.jp/SHOP/T-056.html

 

The maker is said to be Yoshihisa of Yamashiro. The word used to describe his tsuba is "Imono-tsuba" 鋳物鍔　made in igata 鋳型　a mold/mould

 

According to the description on this web page 鋳物師による鐔は無銘が多いのですが ”most tsuba made by cast tsuba makers were unsigned, but (this one ...)

[Curran]

I don't see how the mirror maker cast tsuba is relevant to the discussion on cast iron tsuba.

Please explain further.

[sanjuro]

From one who knows comparatively little about the subject, a question if I may:

Given that iron tsuba were admired (we are told) in the main for their texture, the presence of tekkotsu, bones etc. What use would the admirers and users of tsuba have for the featureless nature of a cast iron tsuba? Quite apart from any practical reason for a forged tsuba, they contain, at least in the better examples, some or all of the features that were admired and sought after, whereas a cast stuba is just a cast tsuba without any of those features. No tekkotsu, no bones, nothing. In the light of this line of thought, then surely a cast example is purely for appearance and not for appreciation. The lack of examples of cast tsuba of any quality in this respect would surely indicate that they were not in demand by either the bushi or those that could appreciate the finer points of a fine iron tsuba. Is there something I am missing in this hypothesis?

Perhaps ugly and featureless (apart from any decoration) is an aesthetic principle I havent quite grasped yet. :D

[cabowen]

Not all iron tsuba have tekkotsu (bones); some iron tsuba can be appreciated simply for the design, carving, motif, etc. irrespective of the iron ground....

[sanjuro]

Chris.

Admittedly, and perhaps my own prejudices are showing here, but those tsuba which are admired for the reasons you state, are almost invariably a forged plate. Cast iron by comparison is so......... lifeless.

Why is it then, that if there were once a class of cast iron tsuba worthy of admiration, that there are few examples of cast tsuba of any quality still in existence?

[cabowen]

Cast iron by comparison is so......... lifeless.

 

how zen!

[Soshin]

Not all iron tsuba have tekkotsu (bones); some iron tsuba can be appreciated simply for the design, carving, motif, etc. irrespective of the iron ground....

A good example of what Chris is referring to are the Kyo Sukashi tsuba of the middle Edo Period. Think very intricate and delicate sukashi open work designs made with fairly homogeneous iron often without tekkotsu. The good quality Nanban tsuba are also appreciated for their design, carving, and motifs and iron fairly homogeneous as well.

To address earlier posts casting by Kagamishi of Bronze is will documented and know in pre-modern Japan. This doesn't in any way support the use of iron casting techniques in making tsuba.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

[sanjuro]

Chris.

Perhaps I feel that iron or steel that has not been touched by fire and the hammer, has not been coaxed by the hand and skill of an artisan or has had life breathed into it by wind and water, is merely a material as opposed to an artifact. Hence my abiding love of the blade. A crucible and mold are by comparison devoid of spirit.

 

So much for my zen side............. :D

[Steve Waszak]

Keith,

 

I believe you have just expressed your Zen side quite poignantly, actually. For exactly the reasons you gave, the making of a cast iron tsuba is about as closely aligned with Zen sensibilities as painting by numbers would be. It's hard to imagine anything less lifeless...

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[cabowen]

Casting in Japan in the pre-modern period was very much an art. Many beautiful tea kettles, some national treasures, survive today....I wouldn't call their surfaces devoid of detail or lifeless....Their wabi-sabi has long been appreciated by tea people and other aesthetes for hundreds of years....I find the stone like ground very beautiful in a well done work....While I am not saying tsuba were cast in the Edo period, I have little doubt that if one was done by a craftsman skilled in the art it would be quite nice to look at.....

[Steve Waszak]

The problem with bringing cast iron kettles into the discussion is that kettles were (virtually) always cast; there is no vastly superior forged metal to compare (what would have to be) the inferior cast version to. Kettles, in other words, are "supposed" to be cast. The art form that is the kettle is not degraded by its having been cast. Additionally, the far greater expanse of material inherent in a kettle (when compared to a tsuba) allows for some subtleties to be explored and expressed. This is not the case for tsuba, needless to say. Whatever artistry we might find in kettles despite their having been cast, we do not find in tsuba. Finally, it must be said that however excellent the effects realized in the casting of kettles, these will never compete with those achieved in superbly-forged iron tsuba. They are clumsy by comparison. This is not to disparage kettles---they are indeed beautiful objects, and the expressive quality they are able to achieve via the casting method is remarkable and worthy of appreciation. This cannot be said for cast iron tsuba. I seriously doubt this last statement even needs to be qualified.

 

Steve

[cabowen]

There are good and bad forged tsuba, just like there are good and bad cast tetsubin.....beauty is, after all, in the eye of the beholder....

[sanjuro]

Chris.

No... not devoid of detail nor of art, neither is their making devoid of great skill. The material however is dead or rather it lacks in my estimation, a certain vitality. Only my humble opinion of course. :D Its a little strange to compare cooking utensils with tosogu, rather like comparing a woodsman's axe with a fine tachi blade, but I take your point. Casting certainly has its place (cooking utensils and statuary spring to mind), and there is definately an art in casting.

Oh yes, there are badly forged tsuba, and badly cast ones also. Here's to diversity and the pre-eminence of quality, however and wherever we may perceive it to be.

[Ford Hallam]

Chris.

Perhaps I feel that iron or steel that has not been touched by fire and the hammer, has not been coaxed by the hand and skill of an artisan or has had life breathed into it by wind and water, is merely a material as opposed to an artifact. Hence my abiding love of the blade. A crucible and mold are by comparison devoid of spirit.

 

So much for my zen side............. :D

 

 

 

Modelled in wax, invested in plaster of Paris and cast in bronze. Lifeless.....?

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Ford,

 

Let's not confuse the subject with the metal expression itself (scale helps, too, as I intimated concerning kettles: the larger the metal work, the less deleterious will be the effects of casting as regards capacity for expression in the medium). Tsuba-sized cast metal work---and specifically iron---just isn't going to offer the same expressive possibilities that masterfully forged and hammered iron will. If we remove a tsuba-sized disc from this Rodin sculpture, and compare it to what Nobuiye, Kaneie, Hoan, and other iron masters did with that "disc," well, there won't be a comparison in the "life" of those discs.

 

But we are skittering off-topic a bit, I think.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[cabowen]

I don't believe size has anything to do with it.....it is the skill of the artist ultimately and how he utilizes his medium. Forging or casting, they are both simply methods to express one's self in a carbon and iron matrix. Both require skill and neither is "better" or more valid than the other, any more than oil painting is more "art" than wood block printing. I don't buy the premise that somehow forging iron is intrinsically some sort of higher art than casting. I have done both and know master craftsmen in both fields. They are simply different means to the same end.

[Steve Waszak]

Chris,

 

Well actually, I would contend with several of your claims here, on more than one front. To begin with, your having done both forging and casting and known master craftsmen in both fields really isn’t germane in and of itself to a discussion on aesthetic values. So I’m not sure why you mention this... Perhaps I'm missing what the precise relevance is...

 

As to your assertion that size doesn’t have “anything to do with it,” what is the “it” in this statement? Do you mean the media to be used? Do you mean the effectiveness of the results achieved? Do you mean the relative effectiveness of the methods employed and how these would (not) be impacted by dimension? Whatever you might mean here, I think you would find a lot of artists who would disagree strenuously with the idea that dimension doesn’t affect the media and methods chosen to be employed in a work of art, as well as the effect sought in the creation of the work.

 

When you say “Forging or casting, they are both simply methods to express oneself in a carbon and iron matrix,” I’m afraid it is not this simple. Everything depends on what “expression” one intends: if one intends to achieve the aesthetic expression achieved via forged and hammered iron, using the method of casting will not realize such results as well actual forging and hammering will. Since cast tsuba do attempt to pass as forged works (or at least attempt to express the same aesthetic details that forged work does), casting can not be seen as an equally legitimate method as forging when the intention is for the guard to look forged.

 

“Both require skill.” I never said they didn’t. On the other hand, building a model airplane, and then building a fighter jet also both require skill...

 

As to “neither [being] ‘better’ or more valid than the other, any more than painting is more ‘art’ than wood block printing,” I would merely reiterate that if the intended result of the two methods is to achieve the aesthetic expression that forging affords, then forging is indeed better and more valid than casting (and it is not infrequently the case that cast tsuba DO intend to emulate the aesthetic/formal details that forged guards feature). I would also ask you, just out of curiosity, if you believe no “art form” to be inherently superior to another. That is, is it your view that the writing to be found in a Hallmark card is no better or worse than that achieved by Shakespeare, Conrad, or Hemingway in their works? If this is the case, it would be helpful if this perspective were made more explicitly known as one of the bases on which you’re forming your opinions.

 

You stress that you don’t “buy the premise that somehow forging iron is intrinsically some sort of higher art than casting.” (Again, you focus on the definition of “art,” but such a discussion would require a bit more time...) I assume you refer here to the result of forging versus the result of casting (as well, perhaps, as the actual respective methods themselves). Once more, I will have to argue that if the aesthetic effects gained by forging are valued more highly than the aesthetic effects gained by casting, then forging is intrinsically a “higher art” than casting is.

 

“They are simply different means to the same ends.” Here is where your position is most problematic: The two means do not achieve the “same ends.” Nowhere near it. Not unless you consider the term “same ends” simply to refer to “iron tsuba.” Cast tsuba are rarely if ever presented or considered on their OWN merits; they are virtually always considered on the merits held by forged works. Cast tsuba seek to emulate the “ends” realized by forged works. This would not be the case if the ends of the two approaches were seen as equal and/or equally valid. But they aren’t. The ends achieved by forging are recognized as more desirable in no small measure than those achieved by casting. In the same way that the ends achieved by Shakespeare, Conrad, and Hemingway are viewed as superior to those of Hallmark “poets.”

 

Finally, the position you advance here would imply that, since “the two approaches are merely different paths to the "same" destination,” the Japanese would certainly have produced cast iron tsuba at least as often as they produced forged works. After all, they were producing cast iron kettles, among other things, so they could have, if they wanted to, right? I mean, especially if "size has nothing to do with" casting. If the Japanese were doing so, though, where are all these cast iron guards? And if they weren’t, why wouldn’t they have been? No one was fighting after the 17th century (and so wouldn't have had fears of their cast iron guards being too brittle for use), so why not use cast iron guards? I think we know.

 

Steve

[sanjuro]

Ford

 

You take the opposing view and submit a cast bronze statue as proof of the medium having vitality. Are we not essentially talking about cast iron rather than bronze? Casting as a legitimate and artistic meduim is not at issue here at all, and neither is the skill required to cast metal of any kind. My point was that cast IRON is lifeless compared to forged IRON. I dont see the relationship with the work of Rodin, either in material or subject or in the rendition of that subject, in terms of a comparison to cast iron tsuba.

 

Just as a matter of observation however, yes, the medium of 'The Thinker' is lifeless. It is after all just shiny patinated bronze. It is on the other hand extremely expressive. The medium compliments the subject in such a way as to express a sedentary, contemplative and insular state of being. Interpret that in whatever way you wish but a comparison between 'life' and 'expression' in this case is not quite the same thing and does not either support or refute my assertion of the lifelessness of cast iron.

[Bugyotsuji]

I don't see how the mirror maker cast tsuba is relevant to the discussion on cast iron tsuba.

Please explain further.

 

Cast copper, granted, but no mention of Kagami-shi mirror maker there...

[Ford Hallam]

Keith, Steve

 

the reason I posted an image of a Rodin was specifically because he is credited with being something of a first in the very expressive way he modelled the wax and clay, with his fingers, when he created his figures.

 

This from wikipedia;

Sculpturally, Rodin possessed a unique ability to model a complex, turbulent, deeply pocketed surface in clay

 

This model was then carefully translated into hard bronze. The beauty of the process being that all the direct expressiveness of Rodin's touch can be thus preserved. Perhaps the sculptures need to be seen "in the flesh" and while moving around them to appreciate the qualities that have been imparted to the bronze.

 

I would suggest that to the connoisseur the cast iron kettle is rich with qualities that are completely comparable and on a par with those that are valued in worked steel. Had Japanese tsuba artists felt that cast iron was suitable and legitimate material for tsuba they would have used it. But we can be pretty certain they would have developed a completely new range of aesthetic qualities (contrasting those of worked steel for example) in this new medium.

 

It doesn't matter what the actual material is, in the hands of a real artist it can be as expressive as he needs. There is no true hierarchy in terms of process or medium. All attempts to suggest that there are are subjective value judgements. So to claim forged iron is more expressive or vital compared to cast iron is to miss the point that you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

 

As Steve describes, though, if cast iron is used to try to capture the quantiles of worked steel then it will merely produce a poor simulation.

[sanjuro]

if cast iron is used to try to capture the quantiles of worked steel then it will merely produce a poor simulation.

 

Isnt this more or less the point that most of us are trying to make? (Assuming that 'quantiles' is Hallamese for qualities) :D

 

Had Japanese tsuba artists felt that cast iron was suitable and legitimate material for tsuba they would have used it.

 

Amen. Let's by all means leave this as THE last word. :D

[Ford Hallam]

Keith,

 

absolutely, I was just trying to provide some context for what I then come to and which you quoted.

 

I would emphasise the last bit too, though :D

But we can be pretty certain they would have developed a completely new range of aesthetic qualities (contrasting those of worked steel for example) in this new medium.

 

Amen and good night

 

Ford

[cabowen]

Chris,

 

Well actually, I would contend with several of your claims here, on more than one front. To begin with, your having done both forging and casting and known master craftsmen in both fields really isn’t germane in and of itself to a discussion on aesthetic values. So I’m not sure why you mention this... Perhaps I'm missing what the precise relevance is...

 

It indicates I am speaking with some practical experience, familiarity, and intimacy with both processes and the artists that use them. That provides direct insight into their artistic goals and values meaning I don't have to rely on what someone who has no practical idea of the actual processes, or the aesthetic values of the craftsman, has written in books. It means I have seen both cast and forged surfaces and know better when someone tries to tell me that cast surfaces are lifeless....That is the precise relevance....

 

As to your assertion that size doesn’t have “anything to do with it,” what is the “it” in this statement?

 

The "it" is the Big "It": does the work have artistic value or communicate in some way the intentions of the craftsman. Clearly cast iron is a medium of artistic expression and there are both small and large works considered to possess worth as art....

 

if one intends to achieve the aesthetic expression achieved via forged and hammered iron, using the method of casting will not realize such results as well actual forging and hammering will.

 

I would think that is rather obvious and not a point anyone is arguing. The point is that both casting and forging are simply different metal working techniques used by artists to express themselves; obviously they lead to their own results. Clearly I am not addressing the use of casting to simply reproduce the look of forged steel but am instead highlighting the historical value of cast iron as an artistic medium. It has its own merits, as does forging.

 

I would merely reiterate that if the intended result of the two methods is to achieve the aesthetic expression that forging affords, then forging is indeed better and more valid than casting

 

Again, I would think that is quite obvious......

 

I would also ask you, just out of curiosity, if you believe no “art form” to be inherently superior to another. That is, is it your view that the writing to be found in a Hallmark card is no better or worse than that achieved by Shakespeare, Conrad, or Hemingway in their works?

 

We are not talking about "art forms" per se, but rather techniques of artistic expression. In any case it is all subjective; I do not subscribe to either "Art Snob Weekly" or "The Elitist Artist"...

 

It is not the technique in and of itself that determines the artistic success or failure of the work but the artist's skill in applying it.

 

 

 

“They are simply different means to the same ends.” Here is where your position is most problematic: The two means do not achieve the “same ends.” Nowhere near it. Not unless you consider the term “same ends” simply to refer to “iron tsuba.”

 

"Same ends" means something, when complete, is of artistic value.......

 

 

Cast tsuba are rarely if ever presented or considered on their OWN merits; they are virtually always considered on the merits held by forged works.

 

Clearly that is myopic and narrow minded.....

 

Finally, the position you advance here would imply that, since “the two approaches are merely different paths to the "same" destination,” the Japanese would certainly have produced cast iron tsuba at least as often as they produced forged works.

 

That is an oversimplification that erroneously assumes the choice was based on aesthetics (and that aesthetics were a consideration); it implies therefore that somehow forged tsuba have an inherent artistic superiority...

 

There are many reasons why tsuba were forged, rather than cast. It is interesting to note that forged tsuba are basically made of cast iron that has been put through an additional process...

 

Firstly, the Japanese are certainly creatures of habit. The first tsuba were undoubtedly made by sword smiths/armor makers, who forged steel, not tea pot makers... It was far easier for them to use a technique they had already mastered....if it isn't broke, why fix it? Unless of course they were slaves to art, which doesn't seem to be the case, "practically" speaking....

 

There are issues with early casting and homogeneity of the melt. The raw material (tamahagane out of the tatara) was not uniform in carbon content. This is why it was forged in the first place-to create a uniform material with consistent properties. Later, technology improvements would have allowed it but.....

 

Casting a tsuba is more time and resource intensive than forging a plate.

 

There are ways to heat treat cast iron to reduce the brittleness. Surely the Japanese could have developed this given their unparalleled abilities at heat treating steel, should they have wished to....

 

In the end, it is was not an artistic choice to forge rather than cast tsuba, but a pragmatic one made based on tradition, economics, and technology.

[cabowen]

It doesn't matter what the actual material is, in the hands of a real artist it can be as expressive as he needs. There is no true hierarchy in terms of process or medium. All attempts to suggest that there are are subjective value judgements. So to claim forged iron is more expressive or vital compared to cast iron is to miss the point that your trying to compare apples and oranges.

 

My point exactly.....

[Steve Waszak]

It indicates I am speaking with some practical experience, familiarity, and intimacy with both processes and the artists that use them. That provides direct insight into their artistic goals and values meaning I don't have to rely on what someone who has no practical idea of the actual processes, or the aesthetic values of the craftsman, has written in books. It means I have seen both cast and forged surfaces and know better when someone tries to tell me that cast surfaces are lifeless....That is the precise relevance....

 

Gee, Chris. Self-impressed much?

 

The lifelessness of cast surfaces, as of course Ford must agree, is a subjective valuation. To claim that you "know better" is to claim you have objective knowledge where none is to be had, as, again, Ford would have to agree. Now, personally, I am fine with the notion that cast iron surfaces can have some life, or expressiveness, or beauty to them. I've just never seen one (in my subjective viewpoint) in a cast iron tsuba.

 

 

if one intends to achieve the aesthetic expression achieved via forged and hammered iron, using the method of casting will not realize such results as well actual forging and hammering will.

 

I would think that is rather obvious and not a point anyone is arguing. The point is that both casting and forging are simply different metal working techniques used by artists to express themselves; obviously they lead to their own results. Clearly I am not addressing the use of casting to simply reproduce the look of forged steel but am instead highlighting the historical value of cast iron as an artistic medium. It has its own merits, as does forging.

 

This thread is about cast iron tsuba. You are going off-track if you simply are discussing "different metal working techniques used by artists to express themselves" without bringing this idea back to cast iron tsuba. So the "obvious" point I am making is apparently escaping you. What is obvious is that cast iron was valued historically as an artistic medium. Who could argue that?

 

 

We are not talking about "art forms" per se, but rather techniques of artistic expression.

 

We're not talking about "art forms," per se? Of course we are. Cast iron tsuba. You may have drifted off course, but this is what the rest of us are talking about.

 

 

“They are simply different means to the same ends.” Here is where your position is most problematic: The two means do not achieve the “same ends.” Nowhere near it. Not unless you consider the term “same ends” simply to refer to “iron tsuba.”

 

"Same ends" means something, when complete, is of artistic value.......

 

Sheesh. Now who's being obvious. One could argue anything under the sun, "when complete, is of artistic value." Such a statement could hardly be emptier.

 

 

Cast tsuba are rarely if ever presented or considered on their OWN merits; they are virtually always considered on the merits held by forged works.

 

Clearly that is myopic and narrow minded.....

 

Really? Okay, then please point us toward one text, just one, even, that considers cast iron tsuba on their OWN merits. Again, we are talking about cast iron tsuba here, not merely cast iron as used in artistic ways generally. So we would need to see how the results obtained via the casting of iron tsuba are appreciated for those specific results as opposed to or variant from those gained in forged iron tsuba. And don't go quoting all of those craftsmen you have such deep "practical, familiar, and intimate" experience with. Cite a textual source for us peons who don't live in the exalted world you do.

 

Finally, the position you advance here would imply that, since “the two approaches are merely different paths to the "same" destination,” the Japanese would certainly have produced cast iron tsuba at least as often as they produced forged works.

 

That is an oversimplification that erroneously assumes the choice was based on aesthetics (and that aesthetics were a consideration); it implies therefore that somehow forged tsuba have an inherent artistic superiority...

 

I remind you of your quote above: "We are not talking about "art forms" per se, but rather techniques of artistic expression." I remind you, again, of another of your quotes from above: "Same ends" means something, when complete, is of artistic value..." So which is it, Chris? Were art/aesthetics a consideration or not?

 

 

Casting a tsuba is more time and resource intensive than forging a plate.

 

In the end, it is was not an artistic choice to forge rather than cast tsuba, but one made based on tradition, economics, and technology.

 

It was not an artistic choice? You have already said how "obvious" it is that casting and forging iron tsuba, respectively, "would lead to their own results." If this is true, and it is, then it is absurd to say that artistic expression/aesthetics did not factor into the choice to forge, rather than cast, iron tsuba. It is a logical necessity that if the aesthetic results of employing the two respective processes are different, "artistic choice" would absolutely factor into the forging, rather than casting of iron tsuba.

 

And as far as casting an iron tsuba being more time and resource intensive than forging one is concerned, once a mold is made successfully, why not simply make dozens, or hundreds of the same tsuba/design? This would make casting less time and resource intensive, not more, no? After all, the advantage of casting isn't in the production of one tsuba, it's in the potential to create many pieces in relatively little time.

 

Whatever. I'm done with this thread. And I will greatly look forward to meeting you at the SF show, Chris, if you're showing up there... We can get some...clarification.

 

Steve

[Brian]

Guys,

Funny how whenever a thread steers away from simple facts and things that are either yes or no....when we go down the familiar road of what constitutes art or the esoterics of art...we end up with conflict.

I am ok with reading this thread and learning different viewpoints. What I am not ok with, is people being aggressive or not able to distance themselves from emotions when posting. So if you don't want this thread (and future ones) locked down tight, or new silly rules about discussing art appreciation...then for goodness sakes... back off and chill!

We are not kids. And I won't allow emotions to chase off members. I''d like to think that we are more mature than that. Just state your opinions and allow others theirs. It's not hard.

 

Brian

[cabowen]

In keeping with Brian's wishes, I will try to clarify the points below in the spirit of his request......

 

 

Gee, Chris. Self-impressed much?

 

You asked how my statement was relevant, I provided an answer. People here have claimed cast surfaces are lifeless when many with experience would beg to differ. They have inferred that this is the reason casting was not used....I have experience that supports a different view. That is not ego, that is experience in support of a different opinion.

 

This thread is about cast iron tsuba. You are going off-track if you simply are discussing "different metal working techniques used by artists to express themselves" without bringing this idea back to cast iron tsuba.

 

My point was simply that cast iron does not need to be lifeless and that is not the reason it was not used for tsuba, as some here have contended.

 

 

"Cast tsuba are rarely if ever presented or considered on their OWN merits; they are virtually always considered on the merits held by forged works."

 

Really? Okay, then please point us toward one text, just one, even, that considers cast iron tsuba on their OWN merits.

 

I though one point of this thread was that cast tsuba do not exist; If they don't exist, how would that be possible?

 

I remind you of your quote above: "We are not talking about "art forms" per se, but rather techniques of artistic expression." I remind you, again, of another of your quotes from above: "Same ends" means something, when complete, is of artistic value..." So which is it, Chris? Were art/aesthetics a consideration or not?

 

There was little aesthetic consideration when originally made, that came later. Much like common, every day wares (rice bowls) from Korea which came to be worshiped as art in Japanese tea circles later on.... What started as practical, utilitarian became appreciated as something else....

 

 

It was not an artistic choice? You have already said how "obvious" it is that casting and forging iron tsuba, respectively, "would lead to their own results." If this is true, and it is, then it is absurd to say that artistic expression/aesthetics did not factor into the choice to forge, rather than cast, iron tsuba. It is a logical necessity that if the aesthetic results of employing the two respective processes are different, "artistic choice" would absolutely factor into the forging, rather than casting of iron tsuba.

 

No, it was not an artistic choice at the beginning, any more than sword smiths were conscious of creating "art" instead of weapons. There were more pressing factors, as I have noted, that determined which techniques were employed. If one is not consciously trying to create "art", then one's choice of techniques to manufacture said object can not be based on aesthetics but on other, mundane factors, like time, cost, ease of manufacture, etc.

 

And as far as casting an iron tsuba being more time and resource intensive than forging one is concerned, once a mold is made successfully, why not simply make dozens, or hundreds of the same tsuba/design? This would make casting less time and resource intensive, not more, no? After all, the advantage of casting isn't in the production of one tsuba, it's in the potential to create many pieces in relatively little time.

 

This is where the limitations of book learning are glaringly obvious and why experience actually working with craftsman, forging and casting is relevant: traditionally, iron was cast with sand and the mold is destroyed when the piece is removed after cooling.....Each mold produces only 1 piece. It is much more labor intensive (making the mold), materials intensive (mold), energy intensive (it takes more energy to melt iron that forge it) and time intensive than forging.

[Steve Waszak]

I though one point of this thread was that cast tsuba do not exist; If they don't exist, how would that be possible?

 

I think it was the implication that if casting technology existed (as per tea kettles), why couldn't tsuba have been made via the process at the same time?

 

 

There was little aesthetic consideration when originally made, that came later. Much like common, every day rice bowls from Korea came to be worshiped as art in Japan later on.... What started as practical, utilitarian became appreciated as something else....

 

Can't prove a negative... We don't know for sure that there was little aesthetic consideration when any of these objects was originally made.

 

 

No, it was not an artistic choice at the beginning, any more than sword smiths were conscious of creating "art" instead of weapons. There were more pressing factors, as I have noted, that determined which techniques were employed. If one is not consciously trying to create "art", then one's choice of techniques to manufacture said object can not be based on aesthetics but on other, mundane factors, like time, cost, ease of manufacture, etc.

 

Again, negatives can't be proven. We weren't there, so we cannot say that it was not an artistic choice at the beginning. However, this is moot, really, since we are not necessarily speaking of "the beginning."

 

 

This is where the limitations of book learning are glaringly obvious and why experience actually working with craftsman, forging and casting is relevant: traditionally, iron was cast with sand and the mold is destroyed when the piece is removed after cooling.....Each mold produces only 1 piece. It is much more labor intensive (making the mold), materials intensive (mold), and energy intensive (it takes more energy to melt iron that forge it) and time intensive than forging.

 

I am happy to be so enlightened by your explanation. However, since I am now enlightened, it shows that it isn't strictly necessary to have worked with these craftsmen: I have learned from a text.

 

Probably best going forward if you and I PM one another on this, Chris, lest things get too toxic...

[cabowen]

 

"There was little aesthetic consideration when originally made, that came later. Much like common, every day rice bowls from Korea came to be worshiped as art in Japan later on.... What started as practical, utilitarian became appreciated as something else...."

 

 

Can't prove a negative... We don't know for sure that there was little aesthetic consideration when any of these objects was originally made.

 

We know these wares were used in every day life in Korea by the archeological record. We also know they were treasured in Japan by the fact that some are now recognized as National Treasures.

 

Given the fact that tsuba could have been cast but weren't, we are left to postulate why. Given the extra time, labor, and materials involved with casting, as well as the technical difficulties and the existence of a suitable substitute, I think the reasons are rather obvious and point in a different direction than simple aesthetics....

 

 

I am happy to be so enlightened by your explanation. However, since I am now enlightened, it shows that it isn't strictly necessary to have worked with these craftsmen: I have learned from a text.

 

I am glad I have been helpful and increased your knowledge of traditional iron casting in some small way. If this one small fact has enlightened you, I suppose it would be easy then to imagine how much more you might learn from actual experience...

 

Not much more to add to a discussion that has beached itself in the quicksands of "can't prove a negative" and "Experience?? I can read" territory.....but that is ok, we are all entitled to our opinions....

[Toryu2020]

All -

I have always heard that Namban Tsuba were cast and having seen a few have always believed this. While some are copper there are many that are iron. In "The Namban Group of Japanese Sword Guards" by Dr John Lissenden he talks about his survey of museums and his own collection and concludes that most are in fact cast. If we accept his conclusions, most Namban tsuba were cast, most were produced between the 18th and 19th centuries and were indeed worn by members of all classes of Japanese society.

 

I did not find the smoking gun however, a tsuba which was agreed by all to be cast and which was signed and dated and collected prior to the 19th century. It seems that such a tsuba must be out there, or we are faced with the conclusion that all or nearly all Namban tsuba were cast strictly for the export market and all those castings are in Europe or America. Dr Lissenden, FWIW, does seem to appreciate this class of tsuba on its own merits and provides some fine examples to illustrate.

 

My references for kodogu are limited and I didn't find much else on cast tsuba in English or Japanese. An online search for Imono as suggested by Piers truns up a few examples of tsuba for sale, and some blogs concerned with similar questions we are wrestling with here. Still did not find any good articles on the subject, nor did I find that signed and dated work, that last word...

-t