The Twenty-First International Symposium on the Preservation of Cultural Property
The Present, and the Discipline of Art History in Japan
3-5 December, 1997
at the Lecture Hall of the
National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo
organized by Tokyo
National Research Institute of Cultural Properties (TNRICP)
- Contents
- Foreword
- Statement of Intent
- Program
- Abstracts Session 1 Session 2
Session 3
- Organizing Comittee
Foreword
The birth of the discipline of art history has been the subject of
considerable interest in recent years, together with its first inception in Japan.
In recognition of this, the Tokyo National Research Institute of Cultural Properties
proposes to take the history of Japanese art history as the theme of its next
Symposium.
Art history came into existence here some century ago, and it
is instructive at this juncture to reflect on how the discipline, its vocabulary
and presuppositions grew and gained acceptance. Art history emarged within a rhetoric
of modernity. A consideration of issues relating to such points will be of value
in defining the field in the twenty-first century, and identifying our future
aspirations.
This Symposium will be based in the discipline of art history,
but will draw widely on other fields, including aesthetics, modernisation theory,
Japanese literature, etc. Our hope is to offer leads in the rethinking art history
as it is practised in Japan.
Three sessions will be held with the following titles;
- Session 1, 'Modernity and Art/ Modernity and the History of Art'
- Session 2, 'East Asia as Internal Other'
- Session 3, 'The Present Speaks about the Past'
All interested scholars are warmly invited to attend. Sincerely yours
Watanabe Akiyoshi
Director-General
(tranlated by Timon Screech)
Statement of Intent
Art history (bijutsu-shi) was established in Japan as a
scholarly pursuit in the 1890s, as one of the Western disciplines of modernity.
It emerged within the context of Meiji attempts to justify itself in the eyes
of the European powers, and to cast Japan in the guise of a modern nation state.
A full century has since elapsed. During that interval, discourses on art have
played a prominent role in the formulation of a postulated national identity,
and of a shared national history.
The term 'bijutsu' was coined by analogy with Western words
for fine art. It opened up a new conceptual space. Claims made of the history
of this 'art', together with the terminologies, categories, and frames of inclusion
and exclusion applied to it, were all new. Translated European concepts were applied
to the structure of the Japanese past. The assumptions generated at that time
continue to remain powerful even today, although scholars are increasingly willing
to call them into question.
This Symposium intends to remain fully cognisant of the issues
of stance and situation, as it rethinks the emergence and evolution of Japanese
art history. We will also hope to identify paths for the discipline to following
in the coming century.
(tranlated by Timon Screech)
Program
3 December
Session 1
Modernity and Art/Modernity and the History of Art
- TAKAGI Hiroshi (Hokkaido University)
- The Administration of the Protection of Cultural Properties during Japan's
Modern Era and the Formation of the History of Art
- KITAZAWA Noriaki (Atomi College)
- The Paradigms of Art History
- KATO Tetsuhiro (Kwansei Gakuin University)
- The Study of Aesthetics and Art History in Modern Japan
- MABUCHI Akiko (Japan Women's University)
- The 1900 Paris World Exposition and Histoire de l'art du Japon
- Stefan TANAKA(University of California,San
Diego)
- Discoveries: Japanese Art History as the Past of Japan and the West
- KANEKO Kazuo (Ibaraki University)
- The Origins of Modern Japanese Art Education and Landscape Painting
- YAMANASHI Emiko (TNRICP)
- How Oriental Images had been depicted in Japanese Oil Paintings sinse 1880's-1930's
- Coodinator
- TANAKA Atushi (TNRICP)
- YONEKURA Michio (TNRICP)
4 December
Session 2
East Asia as Internal Other
- SATO Doshin (Tokyo National University of Fine
Arts and Music)
- Reorganizing World Views,Reorganizing Historical Views
- OKADA Ken (TNRICP)
- Footsteps to the Longmen Caves: Okakura Tenshin and Omura Seigai
- MIYAZAKI Noriko (Jissen Women's University)
- The Study of Chinese Painting during Japan's Modern Era
- YAMASHITA Yuji (Meiji Gakuin University)
- Perceptions of Sesshu
- IDE Seinosuke (TNRICP)
- The Identity of "Border" Art : As Seen from Research on Buddhist Paintings
Brought to Japan
- HONG Sun Pyo (Center for Art Studies, Seoul,
Korea)
- The Viewpoints of Korean Art Historical Research and East Asia
- Stanley Kenji ABE (Duke University)
- Exhibiting China
- Coodinator
- OGAWA Hiromitsu (The University of Tokyo)
- NAKANO Teruo (TNRICP)
- Translater
- CHUNG Woo Thak (Kyonjyu University, Korea)
5 December
Session 3
The Present Speakes about the Past
- YAMAGUCHI Masao (Sapporo University)
- A Painter's Sense of Identity in Modern Japan: Several Issues Related to
the Boundaries between Art and Non-Art
- Joshua S. MOSTOW (The University of British
Columbia)
- "Miyabi" in Japanese Art Historical Discourse
- TAMAMUSHI Satoko (The Seikado Bunko Art
Museum)
- "Decorative" in Japanese Art Historical Discourse
- Timon SCREECH (University of London)
- The Good and The Bad in Ukiyo-e
- NAGAOKA Ryusaku (TNRICP)
- In and around Discussions of Buddhist Sculptures: Modern Discourse on "Korin"
and "Jogan" Sculptures
- CHINO Kaori (TNRICP)
- The Importance of Gender in Japanese Art Historical Discourse
- KINOSHITA Naoyuki (TNRICP)
- The Biginnings of Japanese Art
- Coodinator
- ISHIZUKA Jun'ici (Sapporo University)
- SHIMAO Arata (TNRICP)
Abstracts
Session I : Modernity and Art/ Modernity and the History
of Art
The session will address the role played by the discipline
of art history in the Japanese discourse of the modern nation state. After the
'Restoration', the Meiji government sought acceptance of itself as an independent
entity by the Western powers. To this end, it embarked on a conscious path of
modernisation, taking slogans like 'Encouragement of Industry' (shokusan
kogyo), and 'Wealthy Nation and Strong Army' (fukoku kyohei). Japan
participated in the great World's Fairs, and organised Domestic Industrial Expositions
of its own, to forge a national consciousness. A national inventory of works
of art was begun as a prelude to building national museum and schools of art.
'Art' was a crucial ingredient in the encoding of modernity.
This session will make use of the histories of politics, education,
philosophy and thought, and will analyse multi-disciplinarily the positions
of 'art' and 'art history' in Japanese modernity.
(tranlated by Timon Screech)
TAKAGI Hiroshi
Hokkaido University
The Administration of the Protection of Cultural Properties
during Japan's Modern Era and the Formation of the History of Art
Three laws to protect cultural properties were enacted in Japan
prior to World War II. The 1897 Ancient Temples and Shrines Protection Law covered
all temples and shrines which owned cultural properties that the nation defined
as "historical evidence or examples of art." The 1919 Historical Ruins, Scenic
Sites, and Natural Monuments Protection Law which provided the first protection
for scenic areas and historical remains. And the third, the 1928 National Treasures
Protection Law which extended the protective net over those cultural properties
held by individuals. (The term "cultural properties" was first used after the
Sino-Japanese War, and not defined until the Cultural Properties Protection Law
was enacted in 1950.)
In the Meiji 20s (1887-1897) Kuki Ryuichi applied the reasoning
that the religious clerics in European churches were not able to sell the treasures
of their churches, and thus indicated that cultural properties were not private
items, but rather were the resources of the nation, and as such were public in
nature. He then went on to state that the cultural properties of Japan's temples
were all public property, and that the Buddhist clergy could not sell them privately,
further arguing that indeed they should "deposit" their treasures in the Imperial
Museum. During this period when Japan was formulating its constitution, the nation
changed the nature of art or cultural properties from private items into public
items. With the establishment of the National Treasures Act in 1928, this public
definition was extended to those objects held by private collectors.
Cultural properties were also seen as public in nature thanks
to the establishment of Imperial Museums (named the Imperial Household Museum
in 1900), and the fact that Japan's museums were always art museums rather than
history museums by nature. This was indivisible from the fact that the first cultural
properties protection legislation was by nature an arts legislation, not a religious
legislation.
In this report I would like to indicate that the Meiji 20s placed
primary emphasis on arts legislation, from the first systematized cultural properties
protection administration, especially the activities of the Imperial Museum and
the Special National Treasured Objects Survey Office, until the 1897 Temples and
Shrines Protection Law, and would also like to consider the connections between
these activities and the formation of Japanese art history.
***
As seen in the artist-artisan biographies written from the Edo
period through the first decade or two of the Meiji era, such as the Shuko
Jisshu, art works were arranged in these books into genres, such as portraits,
framed pictures, etc. On the other hand, the establishment of an art history with
clearly defined historical periods, an international aspect such as a consideration
of Asia, a description of the social and political background of each period,
and a consideration of the "spirit" of each period, would have to wait for Okakura
Tenshin's lectures on "Japanese Art History" which he began at the Tokyo Art School
in 1890.
The premise for the establishment of this "Japanese Art History"
was the activities of the Special National Treasured Objects Survey Office, which
numbered Okakura Tenshin amongst its members. This same Survey Office noted some
215,091 objects on its survey reports issued from May 1888 through October 1897,
and these records were held at the Imperial Museum. Especially in the case of
Nara prefecture, this survey was accomplished with the help of prefectural and
regional authorities, in addition to national staff members, and the surveyed
objects were categorized by artist, period, genre and rank. On the basis of this
fundamental data, Okakura Tenshin then prepared his "Japanese Art History" lectures
and the first printed history of Japanese art, the Kohon Nihon teikoku bijutsu
ryakushi (1901) was compiled for use at the Paris World Exposition.
This report will also mention, upon the basis of documents held
by the Tokyo National Museum, the criteria used by the Special National Treasured
Objects Survey Office in their definition of the norm-grades approved by the nation.
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
KITAGAWA Noriaki
Atomi College
The Paradigms of Japanese Art History
History is researched and described in accordance with one set
paradigm or framework. Specifically, it is most often the case where this history
is described in terms of a genre or national framework, or a combination of these
two frames. Further there are often cases where defined time periods are then
added to this combined framework.
The paradigm of "Japanese art history" is thus constructed from
the combination of the history of a single nation and the history of a genre,
and the concepts of "Japan" and "art" which delimit this history are in a relationship
of mutual connotation. Basically the history of a country includes the histories
of each of the genres or fields within it, while genres supersede an individual
country's history, and include a breadth that includes each of these national
histories. Japanese art history thus describes the separation of the genre of
art from the history of Japan, and the region known as Japan from the history
of art, and we can see this as a relationship between the specific and the universal.
The term "bijutsu," or art in Japanese, was coined in the early Meiji period from
a translation of a western term, and functioned as a system which superseded the
formal characteristic sense and guaranteed a universal quality of visual valuation,
while on the other hand, the term "Japan" has come to be used as a term which
shows the special characteristic of our culture within an international context.
In other words, the description of the history of "Japanese art"
repositions the special characteristic of "national" through the medium of the
universal system, within the international context--, thus a symbolization of
"Japan" according to an "international" conceptualization. Or this could be considered
a type of "international currency system" concept.
The two elements which form the framework of Japanese art history,
namely "Japan" and "art," are joined in a delimitation of political-geographic
area and cultural genre, and while they are frequently seen as outside of history,
"art" was in fact a concept that was part of the process of reception-formation
of modernization, and "Japan" was both a "law of nations" type of concept or "international
currency system" type of concept, and to the degree that it is linked with "art,"
it was a concept completely impossible under the Edo shogunate's closed country
policy. While this may seem obvious, the modern nation-state of "Japan" was only
conceivable with the premise of an international world. Thus, the framework which
supports Japanese art history is something which is completely based on the modern
classification system used in politics and culture.
Further, the realities of Japanese art history mean that it is
not a history of "art" per se, but rather nothing more than a mixture of
the histories of separate genres, such as the history of painting,, the history
of sculpture, or the history of decorative arts, and is thus something which comes
under the modern classification system.
"Japan" and "art" as formative elements in the construct of the
concept of "Japanese art" are thus products of modern history, and the source
for Japanese art history, consequently, does not lie in the pre-historic or ancient
periods of human history, but rather in the modern age. This is thus the period
in which we have come to view the history of the formation of objects through
the lens of "Japanese art" and this is its source.
Up until now Japanese art history has avoided an examination of
its own source, and within the framework established through the process of modernization,
it has tended to diligently endeavor to proceed with factual, evidence-based research.
Today, however, when we have come to realize the need for a thorough reconsideration
of the modern classification system, it is impossible for art history alone to
remain aloof from this process. The competition already begun between other disciplines
must embroil art history within its process.
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
KATO Tetsuhiro
Kwansei Gakuin University
The Study of Aesthetics and Art History in Modern Japan
It is not unusual for the professors and students of art history
at Japanese universities to be part of the philosophy or aesthetics departments
of the university's faculty of letters. The reason for this positioning can be
readily understood through an examination of the historical process that led to
the establishment of the study of the history of art.
Records show that Japan's first lectures on "shimbigaku" or the
appreciation of beauty, were held at University of Tokyo in 1881 (Meiji 14). In
1889 (Meiji 22) the title of these lectures was changed to "Shimbigaku bijutsushi,"
or appreciation of beauty and history of art, and then again two years later,
in 1891 (Meiji 24), this title was once again changed to "Bigaku bijutsushi" or
aesthetics and art history. In 1893 (Meiji 26) the Ministry of Education established
"the world's first" chair of aesthetics, and many of the lectures held were related
to the history of art. This then led to the establishment of the 2nd chair in
bigaku, or aesthetics, in 1914 (Taisho 3), which was titled a "bijutsushigaku
koza" or art history studies chair.
In fact, Japan is not alone in the emergence of the study of art
history from the study of aesthetics. This same phenomenon can also be confirmed
in regards to the lectures held at universities in the Germanic countries, generally
considered the birthplace of the study of aesthetics and art history.
In the case of Germany, it was the study of art history which
was first recognized as an independent field of research, as opposed to aesthetics.
When the first modern art history studies chair was established in 1860 at the
university of Bonn, however, it was the professors of the philosophy departments
who had, at most universities, expressed the most scholarly interest in works
of art. These professors were involved in teaching and research on the classical
languages which formed the heart of the humanist education then sought by their
countries, and as a result, art objects from antiquity became the subject of their
lectures. It was the professors of aesthetics who first attained the status of
"ordentliche Professor" or full professor, sooner than their art historian colleagues.
What, then, were the differences between Japan and Germany? Simply
stated, the establishment of an art history studies chair in German universities
was a result of alternative process of selection. In Germany's case, the establishment
of a department of the study of art history as a chaired position was a result
of a variety of competing movements within the philosophy department, particularly
the harsh movement to separate and become independent from aesthetics. In fact,
there were quite a few instances where art history chairs were established as
a victory that signaled the abolishment of full professorships in aesthetics.
On the other hand, in Japanese universities, art history has maintained
a peaceful coexistence with aesthetics and this situation continues today. Of
course, it is not important whether or not these departments have shared titles
of aesthetics and art history. In whatever form, the study of art history always
entails, in addition to the use of art as object of study, the inclusion of the
study of aesthetics in its research. The question then is, whether or not the
study of art history in Japan has been able to sever its relationship from the
idealistic aesthetics that were introduced by Fenollosa and other early scholars
in the field. Can't we then say that the study of aesthetics --which sees the
existence of "art" as a clear, universal form, loves the arts of antiquity "kobijutsu"
and famous western paintings "taisei-meiga" as "art," and is supported by universities
and national policy aiming to educate its human resources, and thus educating
people in this knowledge-- determined the characteristics of the study of art
history in Japan?
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
MABUCHI Akiko
Japan Women's University
The 1900 Paris World Exposition and Histoire de l'Art
du Japon
Histoire de l'Art du Japon (Paris, 1900) was the first
published work in which Japan introduced its own arts to international society.
Prior to this publication, there had been works on Japanese art published in various
media from the 1867 Paris World Exposition on, but this was the first publication
which took such a systematic approach, covered a considerable number of pages,
and included written text as part of the introduction of its subject.
While this publication was compiled and produced by the Imperial
Museum under the orders of the Japanese government (Ministry of Agriculture and
Commerce, via the Japanese office for the 1900 Paris World Exposition), in fact
work on this document began around 1891, prior to any discussion of a world exposition.
As is well known, the scholarly discipline of "art history" did
not exist in Japan prior to the Meiji era. Only the barest form of artist biographies
existed before this time. However, through their experience of participation in
a number of world expositions, the interest of the west in the arts of Japan,
and the Japonisme trends, the government --i.e. the arts administration department--
felt a keen need for a "history of Japanese art," and this led to the rush to
write and edit such a publication by 1900, the year of the Paris Exposition.
Only two publications dealing with Japanese art history in general
had been published by the time of this preparation work. Both were written by
Europeans, one was Louis Gonse's L'Art Japonais, 2 vols., Paris, 1883,
and the other was William Anderson's The Pictorial Arts of Japan, London
1886. While Japanese had participated in gathering materials and information for
these two publications, the two books were clearly written from the westerner's
viewpoint, and according to the art historical concepts of their authors. Japanese
translations of these two works were then published --abstracts from the former
published in the March 1893 (Meiji 26) to April 1894 issues of the magazine, Nihon
Bijutsu Kyokai Hokoku, and the latter in a 1896 (Meiji 29) summary translation
and supplemented form, Nihon Bijutsu zensho, by Suematsu Norizumi. In other
words, while complete translations of these two works were not prepared, they
would have formed some type of reference material for the Japanese production
of a book on the art history of Japan.
This paper will attempt to clarify the influence these two works
had on the editing of the Histoire de l'Art du Japon, reactions and praise
for these works written by non-Japanese (Gonse's book was severely criticized
by Fenollosa), and a consideration of the introduction of the concepts and values
presented in these two books, in other words, the "state of editorial affairs"
at the time when Japan was producing its own "history of art."
The year after the publication of Histoire de l'Art du Japon,
a Japanese version of the work was published under the title Kohon Nihon Teikoku
Bijutsu ryakushi. Mr. Takagi Hiroshi has already published an article analyzing
the contents of this work and examining the process by which it was published.
According to his interpretation, the direction taken by the editor in charge of
this work, Kuki Ryuichi, was a continuation of that taken by the chief editor,
Okakura Tenshin, and Tenshin's view of art can be seen throughout the work. It
is well known that Tenshin learned his view of Japanese art and its importance
from Fenollosa, and it goes without saying that this kind of publication further
spread Fenollosa's ideas.
On the other hand, an exhibition was held at the 1900 Paris World
Exposition that allowed a general concept of Japan's antique arts. This exhibition
was directed by the head of the Paris office for the Japanese government, Hayashi
Tadamasa, and the exhibition included a range of contents that would not prove
embarrassing, even when lined up next to their European counterparts. Hayashi
was also the author of the foreword in the Histoire which he titled "Message
to the Reader." Hayashi was an art dealer primarily specializing in ukiyo-e
woodblock prints, had been one of the figures active since the 1878 Paris World
Exposition, and had provided a great deal of information to Gonse in the writing
of his work. In Japan, he participated in the Meiji Art Society, contributed to
the development of oil painting in Japan, and in general, can be said to have
taken a internationalist stance. In the 1890s he was in an adversarial relationship
to Tenshin, Kuki, and others who sought to protect Japanese-style painting, but
in events held by the nation as a whole, had to by necessity work with these men
in a cooperative relationship. Hayashi's foreword for the Histoire was
excluded from the Kohon Japanese version of the book, and all mention of
his name was excluded from the Japanese publication. I would like to reconsider
both this use of a private businessman, the great national event which constituted
Japan's participation in the 1900 Paris World Exposition and which contributed
to Japan's national prestige, and the role they played in positioning Japanese
art and the nation of Japan within the world.
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
Stefan TANAKA
University of California,San Diego
Discoveries : Japanese Art History as the Past of Japan
and the West
My paper inquires into a fundamental problem of modern nation-states:
on the one hand, modern capitalist society is characterized by incessant change
and transformation of socio-economic forms, while on the other hand the nation-state
demands stability and certainty. Japanese art history has served as one of those
stabilizing forms, identifying the spirit and Idea in artifacts of the past to
provide mysterious connections to the eternal. But the question in the case of
Japan is whose past? I argue that Japanese art history stabilizes both Western
notions of itself (the conceptual Orient still exists) and Japanese ideals of
the nation. The difficulty though is that art history reifies past sensibilities
ossifying itself and removing art from the processes of the arts. In other words,
art history values the romanticized ideals established in its founding moment
rather than changing along with society. This is compounded in Japan where its
art history has been characterized as the past of both the West and Japan.
KANEKO Kazuo
Ibaraki University
The Origins of Modern Japanese Art Education and Landscape
Painting
Art education in modern Japan developed from a consideration of
the art education systems of the west. Needless to say, this did not entail a
blind introduction of arts education from the west, but rather this adoption took
Japan's own unique form of conscious and unconscious selection and transformation.
The Meiji period's drive to modernize and westernize was based on the nationalism
of the late Edo period, and art and art education were not exempt from this trend.
Previous research has not, I believe, fully considered the nationalism present
in the arts of the Meiji period or in that period's art education.
The end of the goal statement of Kobu Art School states in a magnificent
spirit "--- we will pursue step by step, supplement the weak points of our country's
art, teach the realistic methods and attain the same level as the finest art schools
in Europe." Koyama Shotaro, a former student of this school, wanted to be an ideal
painter of use to the nation. This service to the nation can be defined as 1)
to push the west, to promote national prestige, 2) to be a model of noble loftiness,
and 3) to achieve an actual function in industry and other areas. Thus nationalism,
in reference to state and national citizenry, was more applicable to the western
painting movements of the early Meiji period than to the mid-Meiji drive to revive
Japanese art.
As a specific example of Japan's form of selection and transformation,
this paper will consider the pre-eminence of landscape painting in art education.
In the contract between Fontanesi, a painting instructor at the Kobu Art School,
and the Meiji government, his duties were defined as "landscape, oil painting,
the mixtures of forms and pigments, perspective techniques, the techniques of
pigment preparation, and other techniques." While the "landscape" genre is referred
to in this document, the fundamental academic genre of the figure was not included.
And even though western art was being introduced, the very fact that a Romantic
landscape painter was invited as professor was strange. This can be considered
a form of Japanese-style selection. The choice of a Romantic landscape painter
as professor was fortunate for the students of the Kobu Art School, the majority
of whom were the children of the gentry classes which highly valued traditional
Japanese forms of landscape painting.
In addition, arts education (drawing education) in general educational
programs in Japan was also based on a consideration of western drawing instruction
systems. However, while the various governments of the west promoted a drawing
education that centered on the preparation for decorative use, the images used
in drawing textbooks in Japan were the images found in privately-published model
books that were in widespread use in the west (particularly Britain) by amateur
painters and by ladies. These were depictive works that began with the representation
of geometric forms, and then worked the methods used for objects, plants, animals,
figures, and landscapes.
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
YAMANASHI Emiko
Tokyo National Research Institute of Culutural Properties
How Oriental Images had been depicted in Japanese Oil
Paintings since 1880's-1930's
It would be considered that new aspect to look at Asian countries
had been changed in Modern Japan since the Meiji government tried "Westernization
to get out of Asia" very seriously. My paper would be an experiment to make a
survey how oriental motifs were depicted in Japanese oil paintings exhibited in
the governmental exhibitions since 1880's to 1930's and to consider how their
meanings had been changed .
Generally speaking, in 1880's and 1890's, oriental motifs rest
of Japan had been decreased and subject matter of the paintings became more focused
on "Japanese" historical tales, landscape and genre. Typical examples were found
in the exhibits of the Third Domestic Industorial Exposition, such as "Hagoromo-tennyo",
"Wakeno Kiyomaro conveying Usa-hachiman's annunciation".
In 1893, Kuroda Seiki came back from Paris and introduced the
Impressionistic Style. Under his influence, new expression of landscape depicting
new geographical beauty of "Japan" came out. As already pointed out, it should
be noted that Shiga Shigetaka's "Essays on Japanese Landscape" was published in
1894.
In 1899, Yomiuri Newspaper sponsored a contest of "Subjects of
Oriental History (Toyo Rekishi Gadai). The First prize was given to "Susanoo-no-mikoto
crying" and the second prize was given to "Monk Saigyo worshipping Ise Great Shrine".
It is observed that "Japanese" myth or historical tales were prefered to the Chinese
history or Buddhist subjects.
But after the latter half of 1900's, increasing number of paintings
depicting Chinese subject matters had been exhibited in Japanese governmental
exhibitions. It is observed that motifs relating to China, Korea, Taiwan and Manchuria
had been also increased. It should be recognized that each of these nations established
governmental exhibition under the instruction of Japanese government. Many Japanese
painters visited these regions, and some of them played the juries of these oriental
governmental exhibitions.
In such socio-historical aspect, new description of paintings
in late 19th and early 20th centuries could be possible. It also raise a question
to the effectivity of one of the majour methods of descriptions and analysis of
modern Japanese paintings which tends to depend straightly on the painter's words
and diaries.
Session II : East Asia as Internal Other
As the modernist discourse on Japanese art evolved, how were
the visual cultures of other parts of East Asia drawn into its polemic?
The arts of the East Asian regions had provided models for Japanese
creativity since early times. A deep history of contact and adaptation ensured
that East Asia was firmly written into the centre of Japanese practice. It constituted
an 'internalised' Other. After Meiji the wealth of data on the East Asian arts
grew commensurately with the development of art history as a whole, and this
has continued to be the case. The scholarly purview has enormously increased.
But if on the one hand the importance of East Asian art to Japan has been clarified,
on the other it has become obvious that received categories of analysis can
no longer cope with the range of issues involved.
This Session will consider the history of Japanese scholarship
on the art of other East Asian countries. It will be concerned with the viability
of the discourses applied, the meaning of nation-based histories of the East
Asian arts, and the relevance of 'East Asia' as a category.
(tranlated by Timon Screech)
SATO Doshin
Tokyo National University of Fine Arts and Music
Reorganizing World Views, Reorganizing Historical Views
The "history of East Asian art" and the "history of Japanese art"
as they occur in art historical research in Japan are given approximately the
same territory as the "history of Japanese and East Asian art." In the history
departments of general education, however, East Asian history is considered under
"world history" not under "Japanese history." For Japan, is "East Asia" internal
or external, or is it the internalized Other, or the externalized Self?
The historical recognition of "Japanese art history," "East Asian
art history," and "western art history" in Japan was formed in the modern era.
The major premises behind this awareness, namely "west," "Japan," and "East Asia,"
were all part of the establishment of a new geographically civilization-based
world view. As each historical view was then constructed on top of this framework,
the reorganization of the new historical view and that of the world view which
occurred in modern Japan were thus two sides of the same coin. At the same time,
this also meant that we cannot divorce this process from the international power
politics which urged a reorganization of historical views and world views.
This meant a switch from the East Asian-centric world view which
was made up of "Japan," "China," and "the west," to the more global world view
of "west," "Japan," and "East Asia." In this reorganization process which spanned
the pre-modern to modern age in Japan, the center of Japan's external view shifted
from China to western Europe. This meant that the "East Asian art history" in
Japan that perforce centered on China, was constructed, conversely, during the
period when the advance of western powers meant the loss of a centrifugal focus
on East Asia. As a result Japan's "East Asian art history" is characterized by
the following traits.
First, the ideal central pillar of this construct of "East Asian
art history" was the same as that of "Japanese art history," namely the Japanese
imperial historical view which contained nationalism and the imperial system.
The object of this history was East Asia, and thus had no actual connection to
the Japanese imperial historical view, but as Japan, the victor of both the Sino-Japanese
and the Russo-Japanese Wars, saw itself as the "leader of East Asia", "East Asian
art history" was constructed as one element of Japan's exultation of its national
prestige. While there actually was a deep connection between "Japanese art history"
and "East Asian art history" based on interactions in the past, the formation
of "Japanese art history" and "East Asian art history" as a unified form was also
strongly influenced by the fact that both were based on a Japanese imperial historical
view.
The second trait can be found in the active pursuit of the subject,
in the same manner for both Chinese art and Japanese art, which meant the preservation
of antique art (its judging and designation), the detailed process of the construction
of an historical lineage, and the publication of images in art compendiums. Chinese
art, which was originally intended to be the "internalized Other" was thus made
"into Self," and then later, in the research on East Asian art done in the era
that proclaimed the Greater East Asia Coprosperity Sphere, we can see how China
was construed as the "externalized Self."
Third, from the exhibition of works in antique art exhibitions
to the publication of reproductions, the examples of Chinese arts which were the
object of these efforts were all objects within Japan. This meant that Japan's
"East Asian art history" was constructed of objects within Japan that had sometime
in the past been filtered through Japan's tastes. This of course resulted in a
history that was quite different from China's history of its own arts. We can
see how an image emerged that was just like that of the view of Japanese art (history)
that occurs in Japonisme.
Fourth, there are many instances where Korean arts are given an
ambiguous position in the "East Asian art history" in Japan. In this we can see
either an intentional "internalized self," or a hidden awareness of the "internalized
other".
This framework of "west," "Japan," and "East Asia" created in
modern Japan as both consciousness and as research system has continued almost
unchanged until today. If we consider that the reexamination of "historical" views
that is presently occurring is actually a re-thinking of the framework itself
that includes the world view, the actual nature of each historical view, and their
relativity, then this recognition of the problem itself can be seen as rooted
in the present world situation, the reorganization of the world after the collapse
of the Cold War structure. Especially in the Post-World War II view of "East Asia"
which excludes the imperial historical view, there is a strong sense that this
view has become frozen with this omission as is, and this too can be seen as heralding
an important turning point.
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
OKADA Ken
Tokyo National Research Institute of Culutural Properties
Footsteps to the Longmen Caves: Okakura Tenshin and Omura Seigai
Buddhist arts began in far-off India and were then transmitted
eastward, to finally arrive in Japan. For the Japanese people, thus positioned
at the mouth of the great river flow of Buddhist arts, it is natural to want to
consider the establishment of Japanese Buddhist arts by tracing them back to their
source. However, when individual art objects, individual regions of China and
the Korean Peninsula are addressed from the viewpoint of the establishment of
Japanese arts, there has been no connection to the arguments posed by scholars
of China and Korea who do not share this same viewpoint.
The view of Chinese Buddhist sculpture, from the first half of
the Meiji period, when no one in Japan had actually seen the Buddhist sculptures
of China, had a preconceived notion that China was the birthplace of Japanese
Buddhist sculpture, and that Chinese sculpture was "almost the same" as the Buddhist
sculptures of Japan. However, at this time when there was absolutely no knowledge
of concrete examples, there was in fact no handhold for the description of these
works as art history. Okakura Tenshin was despatched to China in Meiji 26 (1893)
as one aspect of the editorial plans for the history of Japanese art being written
by the Imperial Museum, and thus was the first Japanese art historian to visit
the Longmen Caves in Luoyang, Henan. This journey proved a symbolic starting point
for the research on Chinese sculptures "according to Japanese scholars."
The results of his experiences in the survey of treasures held
by ancient shrines and temples which had taken over ten years to complete and
focused largely on Kansai sites, and his lectures on the structural framework
of Japanese art history given at the Tokyo Art School formed the immense basis
for Tenshin's critical judgment and his grasp of the Buddhist sculptures at Longmen
was surprisingly accurate. The Yakushi Triad at Yakushiji and the Sakyamuni Triad
in the Kondo of Horyuji functioned as the basis of his standards. At the same
time, Tenshin was able to discover the Chinese sculptures which had formed the
basis for these Japanese works.
Tenshin's thoughts returned, however, once again to the Japanese
sculptures. Tenshin was able to explain the graceful elements of Japanese art
on the basis of his new knowledge of Chinese sculptures. Tenshin considered Chinese
Buddhist sculpture through the filter of Japanese sculptural history, and then
once again his thoughts returned to Japanese Buddhist sculpture. Here there was
no room for the introduction of a Chinese person's perspective. It was the perspective
of a Japanese person viewing Chinese Buddhist sculpture. But Tenshin's awareness
of Chinese sculpture was not then repeated by Tenshin himself in later years.
It is hard to say that Tenshin's own words or thoughts on this subject themselves
remained in people's memories.
Actually we have Japanese Buddhist sculpture because we have Chinese
Buddhist sculpture. It is natural for the Japanese to want to know the Chinese
Buddhist sculpture which formed the starting point for Japanese Buddhist sculpture.
The Japanese view of Chinese Buddhist sculpture was not begun by Tenshin, even
today it is being born within each of us.
On the other hand, Omura Seigai published his Shina Bijutsushi-chosohen
[ Chinese art history-sculptural volume] in Taisho 4 (1915) in which he broadened
his view to include both the north and south of China, and aspects of art other
than Buddhism. He include genres with no direct connection with Japanese art,
such as Daoist arts, ancient bronzes and jades. He also provided a compilation
of photographs and rubbings carefully using ancient textual sources to provide
a summary of Chinese sculptural arts. This publication appeared 20 years after
Tenshin's visit to China. Omura's work included the results of work by specialists
in the fields of architecture, Buddhism, and art history such as Ito Chuta, Sekino
Tadashi, and others, and he also developed a general explanation of the Longmen
Caves and a stylistic discussion of their works. This book provided a thorough
view of Chinese sculpture, and it gives no sense of having been constructed on
the basis of looking from, or looking at, Japan.
Of course Seigai had himself also participated in the survey of
arts in Kyoto and Nara and there are passages in his book which mention Japan's
Asuka style of sculpture. And while we cannot deny that the impetus for Seigai's
study of Chinese Buddhist arts lay in a Japanese perspective, in his work he separated
from such a stance and to the greatest degree possible sought to discuss the history
of Chinese sculptural arts from an objective stance.
From the outset, however, this book was greeted with criticism,
with remarks such as "this is nothing more than a massive compilation." Seigai's
plan was to take up as many elements of Chinese sculpture as possible and then
grasp them as a single whole. Regardless of the fact that he was able to create
such a large theory, it was not well received.
In this paper, I would like to consider the methods of Japan's
research on the history of Chinese Buddhist sculpture, from Tenshin and Seigai's
approaches to the caves at Longmen through to our work today. Then, acknowledging
that I myself stand in the viewpoint of a Japanese person, I would like to suggest
that we must now positively seek research on objects that allows an understanding
of the entire structure in order that we may acquire a larger viewpoint that includes
both Japanese sculpture and Chinese sculpture.
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
MIYAZAKI Noriko
Jissen Women's University
The Study of Chinese Painting during Japan's Modern Era
Japan's longing gaze directed at Chinese culture, a yearning that
has continued throughout the past, faced a major change with the coming of the
Meiji Restoration. With the new use of the term "Asia" which presumes the presence
of the "west," the previously cultivated China-centered world view was replaced
with a western-centric world view. When Japan was confronted with the west, then
where did they place, where did they relegate, the former center known as China?
Art historical studies, a western academic discipline, were begun
in Japan as one element of Japan's modernization. The pioneers in this field,
Earnest Fenollosa, Okakura Tenshin, Omura Seigai, and others spoke of "Toyo
bijutsu," or East Asian art, from a western perspective; they "rediscovered"
the beauties of this art and praised it. The flow of research on "modern" "East
Asian art" then proceeded largely at such institutions as the Tokyo Imperial University
and the Tokyo Art School.
A state of affairs completely different from those which had prevailed
in earlier generations then occurred during this period, thanks to the burgeoning
exchange of scholars and material with China. Japanese visited China, and it became
possible for them to see first-hand the works of art that they had never before
seen. Soon, in the midst of the disarray of the end of the Qing dynasty, a great
number of superb examples (including many forgeries) of painting and calligraphy
(literati painting) and other Chinese art objects came to Japan in search of a
market. Chinese art was then rediscovered, preserved in Japan instead of China,
and studied by the Japanese from a western perspective.
In the midst of this situation, paintings, namely the literati
painting which had long symbolized Chinese culture and lay at the heart of Chinese
painting traditions, did not sit well or easily with western methods. Fenollosa
and others stated that literati painting was too dependent upon literature, and
they thus chose to not evaluate it, to critisize it. But the arrival of great
number of Chinese works in Japan by the Taisho period resulted in Japan experiencing
a literati painting boom. Omura Seigai, Kyoto University's Naito Konan and other
former critics of literati painting ended up as the focus of this trend.
Kyoto witnessed a considerable flourishing of Chinese studies
that centered on exiles from the Qing dynasty, and these studies were based on
the Qing dynasty investigative research newly conveyed to Japan. This group then
became the more successful, progressive successor (thanks to their knowledge of
western methodologies) to the Chinese cultural traditions which had declined in
Japan. Chinese painting and calligraphy (especially literati painting), the stronghold
of the traditional literati-style scholar, was noted and discussed in the midst
of this scholarly atmosphere. The works of Naito Konan and Aoki Masaru are representative
of this trend.
While it would seem that this literati painting boom was greatly
distanced from the past assertions of Fenollosa and Tenshin, on a deeper level,
they can be seen as sharing --as the "rediscoverers" of Chinese culture and as
the correct inheritors of the lost traditions-- the modern Japanese view of China
which placed Japan in a position superior to the actuality of China.
As seen above, the flow of Chinese orthodox literati paintings
which first appeared in modern Japan also had the good fortune to escape China
at the right time. These paintings (and calligraphies) were completely different
from the Chinese paintings which had been known by the Japanese people, and they
were works that the Japanese did not easily warm to. They were firm examples of
Chinese culture itself, and Japan did not have a way to receive and fully understand
these works. Further, the avant garde painters of the day were not interested
in these works. Unlike the Chinese paintings which already existed in Japan, these
works were not easily internalized into existing Japanese culture. Finally, literati
painting was not taken up as a subject in later art historical research, the traditional
manner of Chinese literati interest in art as an adjunct to scholarship did not
play a large role in the Chinese study settings in Japan.
Thus, a considerable number of the new works brought to Japan
simply passed through the country and settled into collections in the west or
in Taiwan. The works which remained in Japan and the works that did not remain
in Japan reflect as a whole Japan's existing tastes in this regard. The Japanese
rejected the works that were not familiar and enjoyed those which were; thus,
with the eventual reopening of interaction with China, Japan's research on Chinese
painting of this period using "modern" stylistic analysis was based largely on
the works long-held in Japan and on these newly arrived works.
There is a long history of collecting Chinese paintings in Japan;
yet, given the convoluted relationship between Japan and the Chinese mainland,
the research on Chinese paintings carried out in Japan developed a form that differed
from that seen in the west or in China itself. This study was based on works transmitted
in Japan, not on those transmitted in China itself. There was an acceptance and
rejection of works, new collections were formed, and "modern" stylistic analysis-based
research was once again carried out on these collections. In this paper I will
follow the flow of ideas noted above as I probe a bit deeper into which period,
which individuals formed the art historical framework we have come to use in our
studies.
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
YAMASHITA Yuji
Meiji Gakuin University
Perceptions of Sesshu
How are most Japanese today aware of Sesshu? Not in a consideration
of scholars of Muromachi period ink painting or in the context of the Art History
Society, rather, I would like to begin at this basic level. I believe that this
will prove an effective approach to today's theme of "The Present and Japanese
Art History Studies."
Sesshu's name is quite famous. At the very least there is no question
that he is the best known Japanese painter of the pre-16th century period. But
compared to the ukiyoe artists of the Edo period or the great painters of the
Meiji and later years, how far has his name permeated Japan? While there is no
specific data on this matter, there is considerable awareness of Sesshu as "an
historical personage," " a great man," and in many cases this awareness is linked
to the tale of "the person who painted a mouse out of tears." There is no great
distinction between Sesshu and Mito Komon and Ikkyu.
Fortunately or unfortunately, since Sesshu has never been the
subject of a television drama, a distorted or dramatized image of his life has
not permeated Japan. On the other hand, we should be more aware of the extreme
gap that exists between the visual recognition of his paintings and the logical
recognition of his name. The more specialized a person becomes the more that gap
broadens and thus I would like to reconfirm this matter here. Compared to the
"major" works of Japanese modern painting, such as Sotatsu's Wind and Thunder
Gods, Korin's Poppies, Utamaro's beautiful women or Sharaku's actors,
which many people have a "real sense" of knowing thanks to the spread of reproductions,
there is almost no real dispersion of a sense of Sesshu's paintings, no matter
how broadly his name is recognized. How many people have a real sense of the difference
in scale between Sesshu's Hui Ko Presenting his Severed Arm to Bodhidharma
and his Autumn and Winter Landscapes, works which are normally reproduced
as full-page photographs in most art anthologies. How many are aware of the colors
in the ink on the surface of his Long Landscape Handscroll, or the fact
that this long handscroll is a massive 16 meters in length? The false reality
of these works as conveyed through either yellowed or bluish photographs is somewhat
unreliable, and yet strangely, widespread.
But why is this the case? We can anticipate that the majority
of the scholars in this symposium will primarily indicate the illusory contradictions
created by modern "history of art studies," while it seems that, in Sesshu's case,
these recently fashionable statements will somehow not apply. In the case of the
single work of Sesshu's Ama no Hashidate, it is correct to designate this
painting as a "major work" selected by the "modern eye." We can probably align
the image of "an ink painter who studied in China" with the image of "a western-style
painter who studied in Paris." But the Meiji and later "study of the history of
art" has not brought about a great increase in commentary on Sesshu's works themselves.
The traces of Hasegawa Tohaku, who broadcast his connection to Sesshu's painterly
lineage during the Momoyama period, the trade in Sesshu fakes as monetarily important
daimyo furnishings during the Edo period, or the "special handling" of
Sesshu in painting histories, all indicate the establishment of a construct of
the "great value" somehow accorded to Sesshu. While it is not that easy to clarify
the nature of that construct, at the very least, modern "history of art studies"
have extremely limited that special status, and to a certain degree, has clearly
taken Sesshu's paintings in the midst of a chronological "history of art" in order
to further "spread" the awareness of this artist based on an honest "actual sense."
This process has led to a variety of distortions. Aren't what at first appear
to be diametrically opposed opinions-- "the sainted painter of our nation, Sesshu"
and "Sesshu who is linked with the true tradition of East Asian painting history"--
in fact nothing more than stereotypical expressions of the inability to make relative
the relationship between our country and East Asia as a whole? I think that a
convenient paean of "reconsideration" some 500 years after the fact would have
truly bewildered Sesshu, a painter who created his works as the spirit moved him.
I am grieved by this process and this present state, and as I
am swept up in the wild idea that I am somehow able to come into direct connection
with the feelings of Sesshu some 500 years ago, I would like to make a proposal
aimed at some degree of correction to this issue. For example, five of Sesshu's
paintings have been designated National Treasures. All of these works are landscapes.
And there are a number of works which are all the larger, all the more Sesshu-esque,
all the more likely to evoke a viewer's "ah!" reaction. Many of the people who
occasionally encounter Sesshu's paintings when they are dragged to "National Treasure"
exhibitions think of Sesshu as "the person who painted a picture of a mouse out
of tears" and thus find it hard to have "an objective opinion." From the beginning
I have not believed in an "objective opinion," but I cannot deny this valuation
system has cast its shadow as far as the issue of delicate art appreciation. I
would like to begin the process of reconsidering Sesshu from the re-examination
of this point.
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
IDE Seinosuke
Tokyo National Research Institute of Cultural Properties
The Identity of "Border" Art: As Seen from Research on
Buddhist Paintings Brought to Japan
Today there is a questioning of the need for research that considers
the trends in pre-modern art in China, the Korean peninsula, and Japan, the need
for a consideration of the East Asian world. In general, there has been a general
central direction to research activities carried out under the name of "East Asian
art history," in the sense that they are a reconstruction of art history based
on the actual facts of history, an aligning of the framework of the history of
arts of each scholar's own nation, histories which were systematized along with
the establishment of modern nations and peoples, from amidst the relationship
between forms shared in the East Asian cultural sphere prior to the modern age,
and these activities have had a considerable number of results.
The history of painting that is taken up in the "history of East
Asian art" as seen in Japan, is basically a structure of adversaries, pitting
the mainstream of Chinese painting history centered on "written history" through
stylistic analysis with that of Japanese painting, and various effective discourses
have arisen in the midst of comparing and examining this mutual relationship.
However, while on the one hand there is a reconsideration of the false statement
of the "autonomous development of Japanese art history," it is frequently the
case that the group of works that do not fit within the "written history" of Chinese
painting history are simply relegated outside of correct understanding.
A great number of full-color Buddhist paintings exist in Japan
which were brought to Japan from the Asian continent in Japan's medieval and later
periods as either Tang paintings or Song paintings, and these works have been
evaluated as the work of Chinese painters. The great majority of these works consist
of the group of narrowly defined Ningbo Buddhist paintings which are recorded
as having been produced by the painters of Ningbo, Zhejian province, China, and
the great number of Korean Koryo dynasty Buddhist paintings. But some of these
Chinese Buddhist paintings cannot be categorized under the narrow definition of
the Ningbo paintings, and the nationalities cannot be determined for many works,
with debate still out on whether they are the work of China, the Korean Peninsula,
or even of Japan itself. Depending on the work, some have been placed on the edges
of the mainstream of Chinese painting history, or there have been cases where
this positioning was canceled, and they have been assigned other nationalities.
Further, progress in recent scholarship has shown that some of the works which
had been reassigned to the Koryo dynasty were, in fact, very likely to have been
created in China or Japan. Thus some of the Buddhist paintings brought to Japan
are a form of conceptually "border" art which lies in the Japanese-Chinese gap
between the mainstream of Japanese art and the "written history" of Chinese painting
history. These works appear to have been placed in an extremely unstable position
vis-a-vis art history.
Originally the process of considering the identity of each individual
art object was not synonymous with asking the painting's nationality. A discussion
of "East Asian art history" which neglects a consideration of the social and cultural
contexts occurring in the specific region and time and their role in the formation
of the identity of each individual art object, a form of history which firmly
stamps the national labels of China, the Korean Peninsula and Japan onto each
work's formal characteristics, is contrary to the original intentions of the field
and fraught with the danger of eliciting statements which easily reinforce the
structure of each nation's own history of art. This does not mean that there has
been enough debate on whether or not there is an effective function in the frequent
comparison between the framework known as Japan or the Korean Peninsula within
specific time periods and the framework known as China, which is macro in breadth
and not easily contained.
With this awareness of the issues involved, this paper will attempt
to search for an effective approach to "East Asian art history" from the stance
of research on the Buddhist paintings brought to Japan which have been placed
in this "border-line" position.
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
HONG Sun Pyo
Center for Art Studies,Seoul,Korea
The Viewpoints of Korean Art Historical Research and
East Asia
The research and description of the history of art in my country
that relies on the methods of modern scholarly systems was fostered under the
influence of the nationalist ideology that appeared along with the establishment
of the nation. While there was an independent conversion to a modern nation-state,
the history of my country's art as it occurred in Korea was, along with the existence
and absence of many given conditions and in the face of frustrations brought about
by the Japanese occupation, begun by the official camp, as represented by Sekino
Tadashi and the folk-art camp of Yanagi Muneyoshi and others, and also functioned
as a means of expanding the colonialist ideology.
The official doctrinal camp, with the aim of rationalizing and
legitimizing colonial rule, took the government-encouraged colonial history viewpoint,
thus viewing the history of Korean art as heterodox and stagnate. Sekino Tadashi's
Chosen bijutsushi [History of Korean art] and other works stated that Korean
art began from the Nakrang arts which were part of Chinese colonial culture, and
through the development of Buddhist arts, reached its peak during the Unified
Silla period. He went on to state that after the Koryo period, the arts of Korea
regressed and declined under the influence of the worship of power and Confucianism.
The folk-art advocates, emerged more from an aficionado base than
a scholarly base, and took a stance that was more aesthetic than art historical
as they sought the special characteristics of Korean art. At the time, Yanagi
Muneyoshi was infatuated with such low-quality products as the decorative arts
of the Choson dynasty, officially denounced as a period of decline, and in his
Chosen to sono geijutsu [Korean and its arts], extolled the "beauty of
pathos" and the "uncontrived beauty" that characterized these arts and thus defined
the models of Korean beauty. This then had a considerable influence on solidifying
the fatalistic, adaptive mental image of the Korean peoples then in a state of
enforced occupation.
This dismissive, conservative view of Korean art and Korean art
history promoted by the Japanese doctrinal advocates and the folk-art advocates
represented the rebirth of the view of Korea formed by the nationalist kokugaku
camp of the Edo and later periods and the Orientalism that was both part of the
Imperialist ideology and the interest in mystical foreign lands of the Euro-centric
development of the discussion of the intellectual and cultural dominance of Europe
over East Asia. This might be thus called a reflection of Japanese-style Orientalism.
In particular, the authority known as the west objectified East Asia, affirming
the single period of a fossilized ancient period, and considering anything that
came after it as a period of decline and stagnation. This construct of idea including
the admiration for Westren European as well as a contempt for East Asia (West
vs. East Asia = modern, civilization, preeminence vs. pre-modern, undeveloped,
inferior) was at once the central characteristic of the "Japanese-style Orientalism"
that was the Imperialist, expansionist discourse then spreading on the Asian continent,
and also can be seen to have become the basic viewpoint of research on Korean
art history.
Korean art history studies carried out in line with this viewpoint
were begun by the archeological scholars of the doctrinal camp and the decorative
arts specialists of the folk art camp as one element of the interest in Korea
and Korean studies in the occupied territory, and they primarily focused on Buddhist
art objects, such as Buddhist sculptures, temples, and stone stupas, or ceramics
and other forms of decorative art. Research on paintings, a genre which had developed
to a stunning degree during the Choson dynasty, was excluded entirely as the principal
culture itself of the Choson dynasty was denigrated by the colonial history viewpoint.
As a result, an active recognition of the development of the history of Korean
art was difficult. The nationalist scholars of Korea who were the leaders of the
Nationalist instruction movement and the ethnic culture movement under the Japanese
occupation also blamed the Choson dynasty for the death of the nation and the
decline into a colony status, and thus emphasized and sought the rebirth of the
ethnic soul through the purist national history viewpoint that extolled the glory
of ancient history, and the splendor and personality of ancient arts. As a result,
research on the history of Choson dynasty painting was not popular and declined
even further, a trend that continued after independence into the 1960s.
Korean art historical studies began to emerge from the colonialist
period viewpoints when the discipline encountered the internal development theories
which were used to criticize and conquer the colonialist view in history studies,
and thus actual research on the history of Choson dynasty painting did not begin
until the 1970s. Korean art historical studies then began to shed the colonialist
viewpoint that emphasized the heterodox and stagnate nature of the arts, and along
with seeking to grasp the Korean stylistic characteristics that occurred in all
periods of history, they began to emphasize the independent and modern aspects
found in the true view landscape paintings and genre paintings of the later Choson
dynasty. The principal viewpoint of these activities sought to clarify the impetus
for change in the arts via such internal factors as the history of philosophy
and other such logical contexts. This trend became the mainstream of research
on painting history. This viewpoint based on a theory of internal development
rooted in ethnicist and modernist ideologies effectively shed the historical views
of the colonial period, and yet I believe that a considerable number of problems
remained vis-a-vis its objective grasp of the actual facts of the history of Korean
arts. Namely, this theory of internal development was based in the western modernist
ideology and modern nationalism and emphasized the independence of the history
of the arts of Korea, while at the same time it recognized the western stages
of development in the development process in Korean arts.
These research attitudes used in the history of Korean arts have
occurred within the prejudices and warps made by the dominance of the nationalist,
Orientalist and modernist ideology which emphasizes subjective accomplishment
in terms of attributes, and thus they lack a clear, objective recognition of the
actual facts of these arts. The abolishment of this modern ideological viewpoint
will deepen the maturity of Korean art historical research as a scientific discipline,
and in order to establish a correct image of the history of Korean arts, one corresponding
to facts, first I believe that it is important to revive the East Asian vision
that was the world structure of the history of Korean arts prior to the modern
era.
By an East Asian vision I do not mean a Sino-centric focus on
China, a Japan-centric East Asian supremacist ideology, or the propagandist viewpoint
which recognizes the influence relationships between the countries, but rather
the new establishment of a general theory which is able to understand the artistic
traditions of the East Asian cultural sphere that were mutually created through
the mutual interactions within the region. I believe that we must reconfirm this
amidst our search for the universal development laws of this general theory. The
revival of this kind of East Asian vision will provide an objective understanding
of the actual facts of the art histories of each country in the region that have
emphasized the special characteristics of each scholar's own nation and the universal
application of western art history, and will allow the construction of an universal
history of East Asian art. I also believe this will prove extremely important
work toward a balanced recognition of the history of the arts of the world.
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
Stanley K. ABE
Duke University
Exhibiting China
I will discuss three recent exhibitions in which an idea of China
as an "other" was produced in the United States. One is the permanent exhibition
of Chinese people in the Hall of Asian Peoples of the American Museum of Natural
History, New York; another is the "Splendors of Imperial China" exhibition in
New York in 1996; and third is a work of contemporary Chinese art, "Tian Shu,"
an installation by Xu Bing. The first exhibition is an anthropological view of
Chinese kinship relations; the second is an extravagant, international fine arts
exhibition; and the third is an installation by a Chinese artist. Each exhibition
presents a different kind of China to the U.S. viewer. How is the "other" of China
made understandable to the audience in each exhibition? Together, what can these
exhibitions tell us about the way the "other" is constructed? How does the difference
of an "other" reinforce the identity of majority group? What is the purpose of
exhibitions of the "other"?
Session III : The Present Speaks about the Past
The categories created under the Meiji rubrics of 'art' and
'art history' continue to provide the mainframe of scholarship. For example,
a disciplinary division was established between ko-bijutsu (all before
Meiji) and kindai-bijutsu (all after it); this continues to forestall
analysis of the continuums of what we might call the pre-modern ('zen-kindai')
period.
Scholars generally shun study of the present, but it is what
provides us with the structures on which we rebuild our images of the 'past'.
We are at last becoming aware of the modernizing strategies located in the early
formulations of Japanese art history, but do we adequately appreciate how our
own situatedness sets our late-twentieth-century agendas and regulates how we
speak about the 'past'. What, in the light of this observation, are our intentions
for new departures and researches?
This session will aim to foreground the synergy between speakers
and the past about which they speak. We will use specific cases to identify
the issues enveloping art history today, and look at what potentials remain
for the discipline as a whole.
(tranlated by Timon Screech)
YAMAGUCHI Masao Sapporo University
A Painter's Sense of Identity in Modern Japan: Several
Issues Related to the Boundaries between Art and Non-Art
The concepts of painting are various and diverse, whether we speak
from the point of motif or from the point of expressive medium. The birth of abstract
painting, then smashed painting as the expression of the visual form, with the
exception of the tableaux. The art which remained after the destruction of the
concept of representative painting can be called the dismemberment of the painting
concept. Kitazawa Noriaki advocates the reexamination of the terminology of art
as it occurred in the Meiji period, Kinoshita Naoyuki's experiments with the abolishment
of the boundaries between art and non-art, and in addition to their importance
in the study of art history, these studies have had great influence on research
on the history of thought in modern Japan.
Along with the collapse of the firm definitions of art, there
has been a considerable change in the definitions of those who specialize in art.
This paper will give a number of examples in its examination of how self image
was established by those defined as artists since the Meiji period. Thus I will
attempt a redefinition of that which is called art, and of society.
1) Painter and photographer --Yokoyama Matsusaburo, Shimooka Renjo
and others were pioneers in the field of photography at the same time that they
freely moved between the two genres of painting and photography. Awashima Chingaku
also constructed a loose alliance between event impresarios and aficionados who
included the Buddhist clergy.
2) Those related to early journalism --Nishiki-e woodblock
prints first flourished in illustrated newspapers, and Kobayashi Kiyochika and
Kubota Beisen created images of social realism in their Ponchi-e caricatures
and occasional illustrations. As in example 1) these individuals discovered the
means of living outside the pyramidal social sphere of the period. Kobayashi Kiyochika
had an unusual relationship with the free citizens rights movement from his connection
with Hara Taneaki's Jujiya. In Kyoto, Kubota Beisen first formed a group who focused
on serials and witticisms in the Kyoto edition Marumaru-chinbun and the
Garakuta-chinpo. This connection then led both Beisen and his son Kubota
Beisai to become members of the early Mitsukoshi intellectual group of the turn
of the century. Thanks to his characteristic preference for "two groups of friends,"
he also participated in the independent Negishi-to Party (including Koda Rohan
and others).
3) Political cartoon draftsmen influenced by Koyama Shotaro --The
magazine contributors who centered on Kosugi Misei can also be added to this group
through the medium of sports. Especially, Misei, along with Kurata Hakuyo, Yamamoto
Kanae, and Fujii Koyu who formed the Tabata-based club known as the Poplar Club,
interacted with the Tengu Club which centered around Oshikawa Shunro, and had
a diverse array of interactions with the world of publishing, including Hakubunkan,
Kobunsha and Ars, and thus stimulated this period (from the Meiji into the Taisho
eras).
4) Remnants of the Futurists --The remaining factions of the Mavo
made up of Shibuya Osamu, Tagawa Suiho and others, joined with Umehara Hokumei
who published the Grotesque-shi magazine and actively carried out provocations,
mainly through the form of pranks called "Ero-guro-nansensu".
5) The artists who returned to Japan from Europe in the 1930s
-- These painters such as Miyata Shigeo who had imbibed Fauvism and then returned
to Japan created covers depicting the circus and clowns for the magazine Yoshimoto
published by Yoshimoto-kogyo Co., Ltd. and thus can be linked to the popular culture
of the day.
6) In addition to those above, there is also the important question
of the experimental illustrations by the artists who emerged from the limited
traditions of paintings, but I will not touch on this here as it has been ably
discussed in the book Egakareta monogatari --Bijutsu to bungaku no kyoen
[Painted stories --the co-stars art and literature] by Sakai Tadayasu and Hashi
Hidefumi.
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
Joshua S. MOSTOW
The University of British Columbia
"Miyabi" in Japanese Art Historical Discourse
Recent years have seen the introduction of the term "miyabi" into
Japanese art historical discourse, along with such related terms as "ocho no bi,"
"ocho-bi," and even "ocho kizoku no bi-ishiki." However, the elevation of the
term, "miyabi" itself into an aesthetic concept is a very recent phenomenon,
dating only from the 1940s. Moreover, the promotion of this concept was strongly
associated with the war-time cult of the emperor.
I will first trace the development of the concept of "miyabi"
in the writings of literary scholars such as Endo Yoshimoto, Okazaki Yoshie, Ikeda
Tsutomu, Watanebe Minoru, and Akiyama Ken. Then I will examine how the concept
of "miyabi" has affected the conceptualization and presentation of extant art
works from the Heian period. The result of the insistence on "miyabi" is on one
hand the wholesale feminization of an entire epoch of Japanese history, while
on the other hand reinforcing a kind of cultural nationalism centered on the emperor-system.
The feminization of the Heian period in turn becomes part of the modern Japanese
general commodification of culture and education that relies on the female consumer.
At the same time, emperor-centered art history is in many ways a continuation
of the imperialist art history project of the Meiji era.
TAMAMUSHI Satoko
The Seikado Bunko Art Museum
"Decorative" in Japanese Art Historical Discourse
The statements "Japanese art is decorative," and "It is characterized
by a decorative quality," have become so ubiquitous that they have come to be
seen as self-evident facts. Indeed, the term "soshoku" or decorative, is known
to have been used in Chinese literature since antiquity, as seen in the literature
of the Later Han, the Gokanjo, Gyokuhen and other classical sources
quoted in Morohashi's Daikanwa Jiten, the Chubun Daijiten, and the Kango
Daijiten, but there are few examples of this term's use in pre-Edo period
Japanese literature. We can only cite three examples of its use in reference to
plastic arts, namely 1) Gyokushu gashu (1790, by Kuwayama Gyokushu), 2)
Nagasaki Gajinden (prior to 1830, by Watanabe Hidemi) and Itsukuksima
homotsu zue (1842, by Okada Kiyoshi). In 1) the term is used in reference
to wall paintins, byobu screen paintings and hanging scrolls; in 2) exterior fittings
for swords; and in 3) the decoration of sutra scrolls.
On the other hand, the term "soshoku" as a translation of the
English term "decoration" began to appear in Japan at the end of the Edo period,
and there was a considerable use of the term "soshoku" in this sense in the active
reception of western aesthetics and art criticism by Spencer, Veron, Hartmann
and others as carried out in the Meiji period. This term then began to be applied
to the style of specific elements of Japanese art and artists. Those who furthered
this trend include such early proponents of art history studies in Japan as Okakura
Tenshin and Omura Seigai, and the major incentives for this development lay in
the underlying fashion for "decorative art" that occurred in Europe in the latter
half of the 19th century, and its recognition of Japanese art as "art for use"
as opposed to "pure art." In the 1880s Louis Gonse and other art critics of the
west named Ogata Korin as the representative decorative artist, this interpretation
was later translated into Japanese and was applied in various ways within the
Japanese language context. In the major work of the early 1900s, Nihon teikoku
bijutsu ryakushi ko, Tokubetsu hogo kenzobutsu oyobi kokuho jo and
Toyo bijutsu taikan, terms such as "soshoku," "soshoku bi" (decorative
beauty), and "soshoku ga" (decorative paintings) were used in the descriptions
of the art objects of the Nara period, of the styles of the Buddhist paintings
and sutra scrolls of the Fujiwara period, the gold fusuma and byobu
paintings of the Toyotomi period, and the Korin school (Rimpa) of the Tokugawa
period. The use of these terms continued to spread thereafter.
There was an expanded use of the definition of "soshoku" in the
Taisho period in such positive statements as "Momoyama painting's 'return to the
decorative' resulted in the revival of Yamato-e painting," or "the special decorative
art which can be seen as the true spirit, the truest nature of the arts of our
country," (both by Fukui Rikichiro, 1915) and "The decoration of Japan is refined
and elegant, with a nimble handling of naturalism," (Nakai Sotaro, 1918). On the
other hand the term also appeared as the opposite of "realism" (Taki Seiichi,
1919 and Fukui Rikichiro,1927), and in the first half of the Showa period, i.e.
the 1930s and 1940s, there appeared an argument that denounced the "decorative
quality" of Japanese art (Taki Seiichi, 1943). Even those who took a positive
stance added such subjective and emotional terms as "symbolic" and "sentimental"
to their use of decorative, and thus deepening the "psychological" meaning of
the term (Yashiro Yukio, 1943).
The evaluation of Japanese art as "decorative" does actually note
such specific traits as the considerable use of gold and pigment, the planar quality,
the asymmetry, and the inclusiveness of genres --all characteristics not indicated
before the modern era-- but when Japan's art historians also use the low ranking
accorded "decorative" arts in the west, they invite a complex rivalry of self
approval and denial. This critical term "decorative" of the mid-Meiji and later
periods was applied thereafter to Japanese art, in demonstrates a peaceful coexistence
of the western concepts of naturalism and the decorative, or in a Chinese sense,
truth and beauty, but it seems that an important aspect of this term was overlooked
in this usage.
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
Timon SCREECH
University of London
The Good and The Bad in Ukiyo-e
Ukiyo-e is hailed as among the finest expressions of Japanese
art. In the West, it is taken as representative of Japanese art as a whole, and
even in Japan, there is an increasing tendency to treat ukiyo-e as a summation
of what are problematically taken as 'indigenous aesthetics'. The favor that ukiyo-e
found with the Impressionists is often mentioned, and in some ways, ukiyo-e
is constructed as a Japanese equivalent of Impressionism: the two movements did
share a tendency to concentrate on popular, demi-monde, or even louche themes,
to use bright, sunny colours, and with these, to deliberately contradict the canons
of classical art. The importance of both movements (the argument continues) is
that by breaking the stranglehold academicism, the artistic spirit of the people
was liberated.
This interpretation of ukiyo-e are so widespread as to
have become generally accepted as fact. It is my contention, though, that it is
wrong, or rather, it is unhistorical. I find it more important to know what ukiyo-e
meant in its own time (I shall not deal with Impressionism since that is outside
by area of competence), than to denude it of its context in order to turn it into
a nationalist tool. It is precisely because the ways of thinking about representation
forged by ukiyo-e (and Impressionism) remain coercive today that we must
apply a proper academic objectivity to its study.
It is my intent to use replace ukiyo-e into its original
social setting. When this is done, we find little to suggest that this was anything
ideal, indeed, many thinkers of the period were profoundly unhappy with it. Ukiyo-e
may have been turned into something pure, 'Japanese', and unthreatening, but in
its own time it was regarded as suspicious or even dangerous. Ukiyo-e was
impregnated with the culture of the brothels which, though tolerated, were not
supposed to provide society with its role-models.
I would like to introduce the comments of some of those who spoke
out against ukiyo-e, so as to correct our moderns readings. When this is
done, ukiyo-e comes to seem more, not less, important, for its real political
impact comes to the fore. For those who first saw it in the Eighteenth Century,
ukiyo-e was bad as well as good.
NAGAOKA Ryusaku
Tokyo National Research Institute of Cultural Properties
In and around Discussions of Buddhist Sculptures
In the discourse on "Japanese art history" which began to accumulate
around the middle of the Meiji 20s, "Buddhist sculpture" was the object of endless
discussion. Buddhist sculpture was addressed in some contexts and was seen as
symbolizing the ancient arts of Japan which were accorded the main position in
"Japanese art history." Buddhist sculptures were addressed in this context and
in terms of their possession of a universal aesthetic connected to ancient Europe
as the representation of the eastward expansion of Hellenism, or as the representation
of the ideal beauties which corresponded to the formulation of ancient Japan's
Ritsuryo system of national laws, or again as extant examples of the superior
skills of the craftsmen of the period. There has been particular interest in recent
years, and subsequent analysis on, the trends that appeared in this early discourse,
their historical background, and as seen in the later example known by Watsuji
Tetsuro, the longing for Buddhist sculpture by the authors and intellectuals of
the end of the Meiji period and later years.
At the same time, however, these various contexts acknowledged
the sculpture of the Nara period with its peak in Tempyo sculpture, and did not
address the majority of extant sculptures. Today, research tends to center its
discussion on the sculptures of the Heian and Kamakura periods, and this earlier
trend seems a different world. The early discourse created the major framework
for the later discussion, and while clearly this is still generally the case today,
when the question of "the discussion of Buddhist sculpture" is addressed from
the actual standpoint of research on the history of sculpture, there arises a
need for a consideration of the externals of these discussions of Nara Buddhist
sculpture.
This paper will reconsider the discussion of early Heian period
sculpture which is normally described as "Jogan sculpture" or "Konin sculpture."
This category of sculpture is frequently discussed in contrast to Tempyo sculpture,
and in addition, today's stance recognizes that the category includes good examples
to illustrate of the exterior of systematized "art."
First, returning to a representative discourse, let us consider
the establishment of the framework for the discussion of this category of Buddhist
sculpture. Early period statements declare that this group of sculptures conveys
the Tang style, at the same time that this discussion was short on actual examples
(Okakura Tenshin's Nihon Bijutsushi [Records of the Meiji 24 Lectures at
Tokyo Art School], the Kohon Nihon teikoku bijutsu ryakushi of Meiji 34,
and Shinbi Taikan of Meiji 32-41). More detailed descriptions were given
by the end of the Meiji period, and there was a massive growth in the number of
examples cited. (Tokubetsu hogo kenzobutsu oyobi kokuho jo, Meiji 42).
These authors then emphasized the connection with the Late Tang and with India,
evaluating the works as having a "plump," "strong, solemn, heroic and vigorous"
style and "dancing knife work" in their carving technique. In this kind of statement
we can get an overall sense of what would later be basic critical criteria for
this group of Buddhist sculptures. Further, "universal quality" and superior techniques,"
terms used by the three contexts cited above in their discussions of Tempyo sculpture,
also appear in the discussion of this group of sculptures. The remaining concept
of "ideal" was then used in later years to emphasize the difference between Tempyo
sculpture and Jogan sculpture.
As we retrace our steps through these discourses, we can reconfirm
that this paper is most interested in what was considered when the external elements
were imagined for the framework for a discussion of early Heian period sculpture.
This focus also includes the issues 1) what was not discussed in this context,
and 2) what happened when the viewpoint of the object under discussion was changed.
The first is a question of the "place" in which Buddhist sculpture occurred, and
the second is a question of the "materials" of Buddhist sculpture, and I would
like to consider these issues as external issues of "art."
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
CHINO Kaori
Gakushuin University
The Importance of Gender in Japanese Art Historical Discourse
My talk this time is directed towards those who feel suffocated
by the present state of art history in Japan. The scholarly field called art history
that we are involved in is a discourse that has been only recently constricted.
Accordingly, art history in Japan is inexorably entwined with the ideas and values
of the age in which it was created. If, unaware of this, we continue art history
as it has been, we will be unconsciously forcing the ideas and values of the past
onto ourselves and others.
Now, if we are to practice scholarship of our own time, we cannot
be unconcerned with the problems of class and status, race and ethnicity, and
especially gender. I have decided to focus this time on gender. The reason for
this is I believe that within all Japanese scholarship --and not just art history--
the issue of gender has been largely ignored and its importance completely unrecognized.
Now then, when we introduce the perspective of gender, what changes
in art history? The answer is: everything changes. When we pay attention to the
issue of gender, we realize that the objects and themes that have been treated
up to now by art history are no more than those chosen on the basis of the value
system of one group of heterosexual men. And then we realize that our faith in
that art history as "universal" and "mainstream" was also fundamentally mistaken.
And even when we realize just this, doesn't half the suffocation that we feel
dissolve away? This is becouse it becomes possible to think of we ourselves going
on to construct an alternative, new art history, that differs from that of the
past. Research from the perspective of gender is not something that can be simply
added on to the art historical hierarchy of the past. Rather, it is something
that invalidates that hierarchy and opens up the possibility of a whole new field
of study, a new discipline.
In my presentation, I will give one concrete example. The work
I will be discussing is the panel paintings of the Narutaki Room of the abbot's
quarters at Nanzenji. These are pictures that were painted for Shinjotomon In
(The mother of Emperor Goyozei) in 1601. Although when, where, and for whom these
pictures were painted are questions that have been unanswered until now, based
on the research advances in architectural history, the details have for the first
time become clear. My analysis of this work will include the issue of gender,
in the hopes of showing how, even in the field of Japanese art history, the practice
of the "new art history" is possible.
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
KINOSHITA Naoyuki
The University of Tokyo
The Beginnings of Japanese Art
In the history of art, and in discussions of history, there is
always a beginning and an ending. I will not touch here on the act of discussing
the future, as I have yet to find a Japanese art history scholar who specializes
in the future.
The end of the discussion can be easily seen. Because it is OK
to talk up to the present. However, when we consider which work by which artist
to put on the last page of a history of the art of Japan, we notice that it is
not that easy to have the present appear as is in history. The term "contemporary
art" is malleable, and yet is convenient and comfortably understood. The majority
of people who talk about "contemporary art" sometimes make pronouncements about
the present of art that includes the future, and regardless of the fact that they
often will discuss the end of art, this does not mean that they are considering
the issue of the end of art history.
On the other hand, discussions of the beginning of art history
are accompanied by even greater complexities, and truthfully stated, it is far
from our normal consideration. And, when compared to the case of contemporary
art, there are almost no scholars addressing the issue of the beginnings of art
history. The majority of scholars designate some narrow field somewhere between
the beginning and the ending as their own area of expertise, and then happily
are able to proceed without an awareness of either beginning or end. This might
be seen as the same as living without considering the far reaches of the universe.
The latest history of Japanese art, Nihon Bijutsukan published
by Shogakukan in 1997 starts with the stone implements of the Paleolithic Period,
and ends with Takamatsu Shin's building, the Ueda Shoji Photography Museum. This
same publisher Shogakukan published an art compendium Genshoku Nihon no Bijutsu,
and the first volume of this series Genshi Bijutsu [Primitive Art] begins
with the stone figures of the early Jomon period. We must be amazed to find that
in a mere 27 years the beginning of Japanese art has been pushed back some thousands
of years.
Reconsidering this fact, we recognize that the logic for beginning
the discussion of the history of Japanese art with the stone figures or clay figures
was formulated unbeknownst to us. The reason for this choice lies in the fact
that these figurines are human in form, and clearly this beginning reflects the
art history of the west which is centered on the human-image and revolves around
painting and sculpture. Then the clay vessels of the Jomon period enter our field
of vision. These are undoubtedly a case of the idea that utensils can be seen
as art. There should be some stone implements immediately before these clay vessels,
and from early on these stone objects were displayed in early Meiji period expositions,
but they later excluded from museum collections, not included in the history of
art.
The Kohon Nihon teikoku bijutsu ryakushi compiled on the
occasion of Japan's participation in the 1900 Paris World Exposition begins with
the wall paintings and stone figures of the Kofun period, and Okakura Tenshin
began his Nihon Bijutsushi lectures at the Tokyo Art School (1890-92) with
the Buddhist arts of the Nara Period. Then, I would like to indicate the following
issues, while recognizing that the beginning of Japanese art has been pushed back
at an increasingly rapid rate in the intervening 100 years.
First, the tacit acceptance of the beginning of Japanese art at
the dogu figurines and their contemporaneous clay vessels was brought about
by the publication of Japanese art compendiums in the Post-World War II era. Second,
the reason that the stone implements were not brought into our line of vision
for the longest time was not simply the result of the decision that they were
not art, but that they were not necessarily Japanese art as they were not necessarily
made by members of the Japanese race. Third, a discussion of the beginning of
Japanese art necessitates a category called "genshi bijutsu," or primitive
art. This category has a warped temporal angle, going so far as to include the
arts of contemporary Africa, and as yet, these glitches have not been eradicated.
From this viewpoint, I would like to consider how Japanese art history ignores
these stone implements, or indeed, how it handles them.
(tranlated by Martha J. McClintock)
Organizing Committee of the Symposium
| Chairperson
| A. WATANABE |
| Advisors
| T. UCHIYAMA |
National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo |
| M. SAKAMOTO |
Seitoku University |
| T. KAGESATO |
Yokohama Museum of Art |
| M. SEKIGUCHI |
Keio University |
| Y. MURASHIGE |
Waseda University |
| Members
| T. TSURUTA |
Tokyo National Research Institute of Cultural
Properties (and so forth) |
| S. GAMO |
| S. MIURA |
| K. MASUDA |
| K. MATSUSHIMA |
| N. MIYAMOTO |
| K. NAKASHIMA |
| S. YONAHARA |
| Secretariat
| M. YONEKURA |
| T. NAKANO |
| A. TANAKA |
| Planning Office, Japan Center for International Cooperation
in Conservation, Tokyo National Research Institute of Cultural Properties
|
Next