The 37th International Symposium on the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
Statement of Intent / Keynote Address : A Dialogue
Résumé

10:10-10:50　Statement of Intent

　In the 1990s it was clarified that the discipline of art history in Japan was established around 1887 (Meiji 20) as a new modern scholarly pursuit, and that Japanese art history played a major role in Japan’s national cultural strategy towards the recognition of Japan as a modern nation. So called kobijtsu or pre-modern art, such as Buddhist sculpture and paintings, were categorized as art amidst the Japanese modernization process thanks to external influences, and were given special status within the new system.

　After the relativization of the “art” concept, scholarly attention turned to the marginal items that had fallen by the wayside of the valuation structure in art research, and this established a research approach that included the social context in which such objects were created and used. Along with this re-examination of the “history of history studies”, Japanese scholars adopted the “new art history” methodologies then flourishing in the West. This new methodology criticized traditional views that saw “art objects” as things that existed cut off from society, and aimed to include within their purview the social aspects that surrounded the art works within a social history context. From the 1980s onwards, numerous different scholarly disciplines focused on objects in their studies, and explored the relationship between humanity and objects. Amidst these trends, the discussion moved from a history of the “form” of objects divorced from society to a discussion of the history of objects enveloped by the environment or history surrounding the object, in other words, the study object was expanded from just “form” to “context.” This led to a richer, complete study result based on the unearthing of the previously overlooked rich historical context surrounding objects.

　Conversely, this type of research focused interest on the “form” as completed result as well as the history of its reception. The process by which we can imagine that form was made and the issue of relationship between materials and expression dropped from scholarly favor. Further, the value of an object can easily change in the process of its reception, and it was clarified that its material qualities are not necessarily directly linked to its valuation. As a result, a discussion of an object’s formal and material qualities was not as easily addressed as in previous decades.

　Indeed, context determines quite a bit of how a form behaves. However, conversely stated, we must also consider how form affects context. At present, while fully considering context, we must also consider the issue of how to investigate the relationship between form and context.

　In light of this, this paper presents a decorative, garment swirl motif seen on the drapery of early Heian period wooden sculpture as a case study of this approach. How much does the external appearance or meaning of “form,” in this case the swirl pattern, change in its relationship to context? Conversely, how much does the changed “form” define the meaning of other examples? I would like to examine these questions in light of the summaries of Sessions 1 through 3.

10:55-11:45　Keynote Address : A Dialogue

　My hope is that this symposium will be a springboard for discussion as well as a shared forum for stories of artists who are continuing to create new forms even today, not just those who have already created forms. As an example, I contacted the artist Leiko Ikemura, who is based in Berlin, and in May 2013 conducted an email exchange with her. My first email contained the prospectus for this symposium and I posed the following questions.

　“What shall I express through form, and what shall I convey through form? These seem to be important questions for artists. I believe that both research on art today, and contemporary art itself, have become too segmented and too clever and that as a result we have entered a dangerous stage where we are unable to see the essential richness and fascination of artistic expression, or of art itself.

　However, it seems to me that you explore various issues related to form and method or material, or form and text or language, whether Japanese, English or German, or questions of form and time (history), or form and space, such as the spaces of Japan and Europe, or the space where form is displayed.”

　Ms. Ikemura kindly responded to my query with the following passage, here translated from the Japanese version of her email response.

　“The extremely fascinating theme of ‘reconsidering form’ is also very important for the re-examination of today’s art view and worldview.

As you say, ‘making form’ is the fundamental creative act and is a life in a sense. Thus for me, I see form as not a solid thing but something that has a fluid potential. Also, it is extremely stimulating for an artist to approach a major theme from amidst a wide range of connections.”

　In this keynote address we would like to speak about Ms. Ikemura’s creative activities, the forms born of that process and what that process reveals, be it tangible or intangible. [Abstract text content and editing of Ms. Ikemura’s text by Tanaka Atsushi]