|
It is indisputable that art history
studies in Japan underwent major changes during last decade or so of
the 20th century. Particularly striking was the surge in research on
art of the modern era. This research clarified the fact that the universality
of the definition of the Japanese term for art, "bijutsu,"
which has been silently assumed in art history studies, was in fact
not self-evident, and consequently that the definition of "bijutsu"
is simply a term created within a specific historical context.
In December 1997—just 5 years
ago this month—a symposium entitled "The Present, and the Discipline
of Art History in Japan" was sponsored by our research institute.
That symposium stands out as both an interim report on these movements
in art history studies, and indeed, an accounting of that trend overall.
To recap, among other results, discussions at that symposium clarified
the ideas that major gaps and disparities emerged between "bijutsu"
and the fine arts, beaux arts, etc. that stand as the original model
for "bijutsu," and that the word "bijutsu" is entwined
in various invisible contexts and frameworks. In many instances, these
disparities and contexts occur because "bijutsu" has been
perceived and accepted as an artificial, institutional system.
Then, we might ask, why did one object
become "bijutsu" and another object not become "bijutsu"?
This question suggests basic issues involved in the formation of values.
When viewed synchronically, values are a construct created from various
differences, asymmetries, and hierarchies. When viewed diachronically,
values are deposits formed historically. Nevertheless, the structures
which form or change values are not easily identified. Because a group
consensus is essential for the maintenance of a specific value, even
if the questions of when, by whom, and how that value was formed are
investigated, the structure of that specific value is not necessarily
clarified.
In order to consider such problematic
questions, there only remains the method of examining the value structure
from the stance of the objects being subjected to that value system.
As an experiment, I would like to propose one concept model. That is
the extremely simple model that when a certain object passes by a threshold,
that object's value is changed. Whether or not it is an actual object
considered as "bijutsu" to which we apply this model, it is
the various conditions which enables the object to straddle or cross
a threshold that we should examine.
Surely we can apply this model to various
actual thresholds. Good examples of such thresholds might be found in
the boundaries of national borders or gender differences. In both of
these instances, the boundaries are either artificially or socially
constructed thresholds. Once made, these thresholds take on the appearance
of having existed since antiquity and of being inherently natural structures.
Surely we can find many examples of such thresholds. In many instances,
though it is difficult to discern or expose the value structure itself,
taking the stance of the transgressor of thresholds, or that of the
defector from boundaries, may make it possible to see the true form
of the value structure which fluctuates betwixt and between the positions
of solid and void.
This symposium takes as its theme "Moving
Objects." While the model I have posited is only one of many possible
models, I anticipate that new perspectives from which to observe the
21st century will emerge from discussions centered on this symposium
theme.
(translated by Martha J. McClintock) back |