Talking about Hama-Mono

[reinhard]

Poor Tim accidentally got in the line of fire with his "HISANORI"-tsuba. The topic of Hama-mono and foreign influence in Japan during later 19th c. has not been circumstantially discussed yet on NMB. The topic has been taken somewhat controversial here and it has been neglected by scholars in East and West for a long time.

It would be nice to start a talk about works made for export and their importance for understanding Japanese aesthetics and Western preferences.

When my interest in Japanese arts started some 20 years ago, I was fascinated by mere skills at first, attracted by designs I felt familiar with. - By now I'm appreciating works of ToSho artists as well as works of Kano NATSUO. They are all in line with Japanese principles of aesthetics, sometimes stretching them, but never giving them away. On the other hand there are works by (technically) skilled artists just calling for (Western) money, renouncing roots and dignity. Some of their works look like "old Japan goes Walt Disney". Over-sized plates, overloaded with flamboyant eye-catchers; rolling eyes, wide open, watching frontally at the viewer; shiny colors etc. The Japanese anticipated very quickly. Many of these works remind me of a cheap hooker abandoned by all dignity and any sense of humour.

 

What do you think?

 

Attached are some examples obviously made for export. Some of them with a false mei.

 

reinhard

[Bugyotsuji]

Fascinating area , I agree.

[Brian]

I think this is an interesting topic, and one that does need to be visited on its own.

I would encourage discussion and examples, but please let's keep arguments out of this one. I will delete any comments that stray off the topic or venture into other subjects.

Some nice examples there Reinhard.

 

Brian

[george trotter]

Reinhard,

with respect, isn't it incumbent on you to state your case in favour of these items being "obviously made for export" and then ask for comment?

 

George.

[sanjuro]

Personally I'm not really convinced that the examples shown have any use in firstly the understanding of Japanese aesthetics or secondly any influence they may or may not have had either on Western preferences, or having been influenced by western preferences.

 

Firstly one must define 'western preferences'. Secondly, one must identify the Japanese aesthetic that has been influenced, and last of all proof of any influence must be identified.

You can discuss it all you like, but without at least this basis, then talk is pointless and will arrive at no conclusion.

[John A Stuart]

I agree, this could be a very informative discussion. The first question could be; What is the fundamental Japanese aesthetic and how does it differ from a Western one? Until this is defined the discussion will stall. Actually, instead of Japanese aesthetic, maybe, it should be Asian and then what is different between Chinese and Japanese art. All in all not a subject that can be resolved in a few paragraphs. Who's going to start? John

[george trotter]

Well said Keith...

even if the poster defines and identifies and proves instances of "western influence" in these tsubas, he still could not prove that they were "obviously made for export"...unless, under the rules of proof/evidence, an original source, such as an original document from say "Echizenya", the great Edo/Meiji era merchant can be found. This document, must be a commission for these specific Tsubako to make these actual tsubas , requesting that they be finished by a specific date so they could be included on a ship from Yokohama to San Francisco for sale there...this would be "Proof". Even with this proof, it would still only be one viewers opinion that these tsubas, because of their western influence, are reminiscent of tired old "Hookers".

I think that without clearly defined argument and supporting evidence or "proof" of what the poster means and intends, posting a few pics and asking what members think will end up as "waffle". So, to avoid that, can the poster provide the basis for his argument and we can proceed from there.

George

[Stephen]

What is the fundamental Japanese aesthetic and how does it differ from a Western one?

 

that's a mouth full right there John. The western mind thinks so much different than the east, where as in the West we see things as being build, constructed put together. The East as I see it, see things unfold, evolve, open up like nature. This could be very interesting thread and the thank Reinhard for bringing it up. Please lets not go down the road of "What is Art?".

[Clive Sinclaire]

Gentlemen

I can see that this discussion is becoming very much too academic for me at this time of day. However, if I might make a couple of points. Although hama-mono is considered as a derogatory term it does not always have to be so. If Reinhart's tsuba are hama-mono then they are of very good quality. We also know that people such as the Aizu Shoami tsuba group were copying and making tsuba almost exclusivelty for the babarians at Yokohama and of course, the Komai workers from Kyoto were making western objects with Japanese designs.

I have a daisho of very good quality that was made by the Omori with undercut waves everywhere, but I cannot imagine it being worn by anyone, let alone a samurai and I am sure that it is hama-mono. I quite like the idea that it may have been worn by a "cheap hooker anbandoned by all gignity and all sense of humour" - my kind of gal!

Clive Sinclaire

PS Sorry to have dragged the discussion down to my level - please forgive me.

[Bazza]

Well, on the eve of departing interstate for a week with the prospect of a delayed participation in this thread, could I throw a "left-field" hook into this extreeeeemely fascinating topic. In terms of "What is the Japanese aesthetic vis-a-vis tsuba design?", what are we to make of the Japanese adopting Western trousers in the late Bakumatsu period leading to the so-called Zubon (trouser) koshirae, also known as the Toppei koshirae??? Are the forces of change as applicable to tsuba design as to koshirae worn with trousers?? With a different aesthetic in tsuba design?? The arrival of the "Black Ships" of Admiral Perry in 1853 (coincidentally or not, the beginning of the Bakumatsu period) brought to a sharp point changes already in the wind. The ukiyoe portray Perry and his crew with fierce faces, long beards, bulging eyes etc and must have changed Japanese artistic perceptions for anyone who saw them. These were very turbulent times with challenges everywhere, no less for artists, surely.

 

I'm not well read in this area, apart from writing an undergraduate essay titled "The Universality of Japanese Art" over thirty years ago, so I look forward to learning more. I would suggest that the discussion must focus on the aesthetics of tsuba design before and after the Haito Rei (the banning of wearing swords in public promulgated in 1876). Up until that moment tsubako were making sword fittings for samurai wearing swords.

 

In my little researches for these comments I found this website, which may offer interesting reading for some:

http://www.shadowofleaves.com/Koshirae%20History.htm

 

Regards,

BazZa.

[Eric H]

about works made for export and their importance for understanding Japanese aesthetics and Western preferences

It can be safely assumed that Tosogu were made in the traditional manner and in accordance to the appropriate schools until the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate, i.e. the abolition to wear swords. It is also proven by Philippe Sichel, a Parisian merchant who visited Japan in 1874 for shopping antiques, who writes in his memories, that he was offered boxes fully filled with sword mounts, but he was not interested to buy them, regrettably, as he remarks: Qui eut supposé...

In 1880/81 Siegfried Bing, who had contact to Japan and who is considered to be the "founder of Japonism" started his first shopping trip in Japan and in succession became the most important importer of Japanese art work. The world exposition in Paris 1889 gave birth to an increased interest in Japanese art. I believe that at that time a great demand for elaborately worked Tosogu grew up to meet western taste.

 

Wabi-Sabi...Sen no Rikyu established a bench mark for "Japanese aesthetics" and another perception is given with... Shibui.

 

In any case it is difficult to give the "right" answer. But as anybody knows ... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". What's your opinion on the pictures?... Shibui?

Eric

[Brian]

The obvious point is that the tsuba posted by Reinhard were not intended to be mounted. The question to me is this: Were all tsuba made in those late periods and not intended for mounting..made for export? Can they all be called Hama-mono?

Was there no local market in Japan for them? I don't know the answers, but would be interested in theories.

And without going down the road of "is this still a tsuba" or "butisi-tart" ?

 

Brian

[IanB]

The whole concept of making things for a specific European market has a long tradition in both China and Japan. Obvious examples can be found in the field of porcelain and perhaps even more pertinently to the topic in hand, of sawasa. In the latter case, sword hilts, boxes, urns and whatever were churned out in profusion during the 17th century. I am convinced that these latter products were in fact Chinese, despite being acquired by the Dutch in Nagasaki.

Somewhere I have a book written by an artist whose name escapes me but who was a follower of Whistler. In Japan he was captivated by its art and commissioned a Japanese antique dealer to obtain, of have made for him, objects for his London house. The acquisition of a suitable door knocker is hilarious, the object eventually produced being a weight on a string that struck a gong. It does however give a great insight into the market in real antiques and pseudo antiques of the period.

Ian Bottomley

[george trotter]

No offence intended to anyone but does anyone else think this discussion is turning into "waffle"? I think the crux of the "Hamamoo" discussion is still that in a specific instance Reinhard said that a tsuba of a horse by Hisanori was full of western influence and was thus unquestionably Hamamono...he followed this up by stating that a second tsuba of hoofprints, also by Hisanori, "illustrated" his point. In this post he has said that the items in the above pics are "obviously made for export". I would like to hear his discussion in support of these statements (or at least be told the sources he is quoting from).

I think, with respect, that we should hear from Reinhard on his claims, and then perhaps we will have a base to build a proper discussion.

Regards,

George.

[Grey Doffin]

Where are these objects now? If predominately in the West, most likely made for export. If predominately in Japan, not so. I understand that much time has passed between when they were made and now, and that art has continually flowed back and forth across borders, but if these were made with a Western aesthetic and exported to the West, it seems likely that they would have stayed where they were to be appreciated, rather than to have returned to Japan where they wouldn't be. Does that make any sense?

Grey

[sanjuro]

Since any observation made by a Westerner is bound to be subjective at best, this is and will remain the views not of experts but of enthusiasts. May I be so bold as to suggest there are few westerners who have an accurate grasp of Japanese aesthetics, since they have not experienced those aesthetics within the cultural atmosphere of the people that originally described them. To further suppose that we could disect with any accuracy the western influence from the Japanese, is in the light of our ignorance, a little presumptuous.

 

One certainty arises from the introduction of this topic and that is we can say without fear of contradiction that the so called 'namban' style of tsuba and tosogu are almost definately the product of western influence. (albeit that the west was in turn influenced by the elements of Chinese design at the time) Beyond that, any other observation concerning the inherant western influence or otherwise of tsuba supposedly made for export is purely speculative.

[Eric H]

I have added 5 Tsuba's. Overloaded, shiny colors?

 

Three of them show no signs on the seppa-dai, which could be interpreted that it never was intended to be mounted on a sword. They are made by well-known Tsuba-ko. Who will insinuate now, that they were made for export? Two of the Tsuba's have Juyo status. Those who believe to be familiar with the Japanese principles of aesthetics will recognize them instantly.

Eric

[sanjuro]

Who is to say they were not? Juyo status does not preclude them from originally being made for export. That status was conferred upon them long after they were made.

Likewise, who is to say they were, since they were probably made as art objects rather than to be mounted.

 

Incidentally, I think you meant aesthetics not anaesthetics......

[raven2]

I think I have to agree with Grey. If the Japanese were making these pieces for western export, why are so many of them found in Japan and not in the west. Could it be that the makers really misunderstood what the west liked and so they didn't sell or was it because they just were expanding their techniques and interpretations?

[Jean]

Who is to say they were not?

 

Not Eric in his post. Me, for the first one .

[sanjuro]

Jean. First tsuba or first person?

 

And I tend to agree with you for what my opinion on such things may be worth.

I think Grey and Fred have a good point though. The presence of so many in Japan does raise its own question as they have pointed out.

[John A Stuart]

Whether a tsuba can be mounted or not is not a defining aspect of its being Hamamono. We know tsuba were given as gifts as were various other art forms, the Tamamono. Other tsuba were bought by people purely for their artistic merit and preserved as they were bought. The artists knew this and tsuba were made that were impractical for mounting. This happens in many fields of art, where functional everyday items are made that are no longer functional or impractical to use for their original function because it would reduce their value. So, in this discussion, I think that characteristic proves nothing.

Art of many forms was exported from Japan since the 16th century for the European market. Before that it exited to nearer markets as tribute and trade goods. Like any good merchant the product was adjusted to make it more appealing to the market it was bound for. It only makes sense. I don't think many of the metal crafts meant for martial use would have made it to Europe except a few as adjuncts to gifts to high officials. With the coming of the Americans and Europeans in the 19th century and the subsequent interest in Japanese products these things became more desired by the western art collectors. This was driven by the fascination in the Chinese art and trade goods coming through the trade ports in China which had its own period of influence on Western taste and upon the producers making them desirable for the western market. Pottery was an extreme example. Chinese export pottery is easily differentiated from that made for the local market and you can learn to tell the difference by studying it, you don't have to have been born in Asia or had intensive immersion to do so. Delft ware was one of the early attempts by European potteries to replicate this export pottery and highly collectable in its own right.

I see a comment earlier about Namban tsuba. These were influenced by Chinese style art and I guess you could consider that as western influence, but, we are really talking about European influence on Japanese tsuba and art in general.

Anyhow, my question still remains; what shows a European aesthetic in any of these tsuba? I have my own idea, but, what is different between Eric's examples and Reinhard's? John

[Jean]

Keith, Tsuba B of course, the first one listed.

 

There is of course the Kenjo Tsubas topic ....

[docliss]

Keith G states that ‘we can say without fear of contradiction that the so called “namban” style of tsuba and tosogu are almost definately (sic) the product of western influence.’

 

Oh dear — I have always believed them to be the product of Chinese rather than of Western influence. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

John L.

[drbvac]

DOC:

 

Was it yourself or a namesake who wrote the book on the re-appraisal of the Namban Tsuba ?

 

In either case you are probably entitled to an fairly expert opinion. This link is also interesting :

 

http://www.shibuiswords.com/foreigninfluence.htm

[reinhard]

Firstly one must define 'western preferences'. Secondly, one must identify the Japanese aesthetic that has been influenced, and last of all proof of any influence must be identified.

You can discuss it all you like, but without at least this basis, then talk is pointless and will arrive at no conclusion.

 

This thread is not supposed to arrive at any final conclusion. It is about collecting ideas and infos.

 

First of all, my examples posted here are from Western collections. It is quite difficult to find tsuba like these in Japan (or Japanese books) that have not left the country in the meantime. You will never find them in the legacies of Daimyo families. In Japan their prestige was obviously quite low at the time of their manufacture. Why? Some of them were quite skillfully executed, but educated Japanese didn't like them. Some of the older schools and masters made spectacular tsuba as well. What are the differences?

After a while you get a feel for them, but putting this sentiment into words and creating criteria is not easy. That's why I started this thread.

 

Here are a few ideas to consider and to discuss (this is not supposed to be a lecture):

 

- traditional Japanese design "knows when to stop". There should be a balance between empty spaces and the one(s) occupied by actual design. Some Meiji-period tsuba are crowded and (over-)loaded with too many things. The tsuba with fish and ray is a good example.

 

- the motto "the bigger the better" might suit McDonald's and simple minds, but is contradictory to Japanese aesthetics. This goes for the size of plates as well as for the space occupied by design.

 

- colors should always be in harmony as well as the finish of the ground material. Japanese favoured ones and disliked others, but most of all: they should go on well together. Many Meiji-period tsuba are lacking this quality. Flashy "bling bling stuff" and mismatching colors are as far from the "real thing" as they can get. Well-made tsuba are glowing, not shining.

 

- understatement: hard to believe, but this was a real quality before Meiji-period. Even spectacular works by Ishiguro-school artists, Mito KinKo and others are not displaying their true qualities at first sight. Many Meiji-period tsuba however are pretenders at first sight. Trying to capture the eye, but disappointing at second sight.

 

BTW I had to go quite deep into my library to find (confirmed) tsuba of Meiji-period illustrating my point of view. Please stick to these examples unless you are sure of what you are posting. Otherwise confusion is sure to come. Thank you.

 

reinhard

[Ted Tenold]

I think this is all very well stated by Reinhard. Especially the part about "knowing when to stop".

 

Taking this a step further, I fear there is an underlying generalization that the Japanese were only manufacturing what they believed would suite western tastes, but to my understanding, there were Western/European Importers that also actively sought to fill requests by affluent western buyers utilizing Japanese craftsman that were best suited (or willing) to fill the order. So the determination is not singularly attributed to interpretations of native artists, but also their efforts to fulfill these specific desires of Western demand to the best of their ability. While I've seen some pieces that exhibit wonderful workmanship, they are awkward and clumsy, and/or are overtly garrish and ostentatious, likely because the artist was trying to translate what they thought was the best way to create a piece in unfamiliar territories of interpretation, so something quite literally is lost in translation. Silver tea sets from the Meiji period are a classic example of a serious clash between the Western and Japanese art and craft aesthetic and specifically in *how* tea is presented and served so very differently between the two cultures. I could almost hear a shiroganeshi of the period asking himself, "How will they enjoy the tea if they're distracted by all these dragons???" :lol:

 

As an example; How about this piece, which many might assume to be a Boy's Day tachi, but is not. As Guido Schiller so eloquently put it when he saw this image; "No self-respecting Samurai ('s son) would have been caught dead with a gaudy Koshirae like that." I agree whole heartedly.

[george trotter]

Reinhard,

a very well stated and informative conclusion. I can certainly see now the point you were making about Meiji era metalwork and the aesthetics which lead you to conclude "western influence" = "Hama-mono".

May I add, in defense of we poor westerners however, that there is evidence that the Japanese aesthetic and "artistic spirit" was in somewhat of a decline by the early Meiji or earlier. This can be seen in the Goto and Ishiguro...(in my opinion) they are technical perfection in the making and the placing of design, but are "lifeless". The increasing irrelevance of swords led to the slow decline of the master schools and even truly competent tsubako, so by Meiji, there were relatively few still working. The new and growing interest in this field by westerners, and the desire to fill that interest by metalworkers seeking a relevance and a living, led to the supply of what has become called "hama-mono". I think this is the situation that appeared...supply filled demand, but the demand was not necessarily for low quality, ugly "un-Japanese work. I feel it is not entirely correct to say that westerners have an inate poor taste, or that westerners' tastes are responsible for the poor quality and ugliness of the Hama-mono....some must have been purchased by Japanese also.

In the example given by Ted, the silver teapot...I have seen them with dragons etc, but I have also seen one which was a plain, unadorned "melon", just a tendril of leaf as the focus...true shibui. I have also seen garrish bronzes of high quality, all eagles and dragons...terrible taste...but I have also seen a bronze vase, made as a section of large bamboo, with a small bud and leaf (and a tiny snail) as the focus...again, true shibui. These were all Meiji Hama-mono....but to whose taste? I'd like to think that there are some westerners with taste, just as I'm sure there are some Japanese without it.

Hope this adds to the discussion,

George.

[John A Stuart]

A cause for overly-embellished metalwork being sought by importers for the European market may be the pieces had to attract buyers that were looking for pieces that were to be displayed to friends and cronies in a competitive atmosphere. In the second half of the 19th century in Victorian England at the height of empire and similarly in France at the end of the Belle Epoche there was a tendency to collect from all types of artistic disciplines and locales. If you were to tour a great old house there would be a room with African art and hunting trophies, a room with North American Amerind masks and beaded work, a room with Chinese pottery and sculpture, a room with Italian or French painting, Japanese art, etc. etc. depending on where uncle or father or grandfather were stationed or where they went on their grand tour. Almost every conceivable shelf, wall and nook and cranny was crammed with something. It was a way to display a persons wealth and worldliness. Given that display pieces had to show as much craftmanship as possible foreign aesthetics had to bow before this European acquisitiveness. This ostentatiosness lost its appeal with the coming of the arte nouvelle and arts and crafts movements, where simplicity and organic representation became dominate in the vein of senren and mono no aware of the Japanese aesthetic. Still the question is "How do you tell the difference?" Familiarity with style and technique of lots of pieces and damn good books. John

[docliss]

Reinhard has initiated an interesting thread on the subject of Hamamono kodōgu but, as has happened before, it has become mired by the attempts of members — many of them both erudite and literate — to explain their personal interpretation of Japanese aesthetics. Surely the subject is much simpler than that ….

 

If we accept a definition of Hamamono kodōgu as ‘work created in Japan for the export market’, this will include a wide range of fittings that vary greatly both in quality and style. At one end of this spectrum we have the tatty work produced for sale to tourists on the docs at Yokohama while, at the other end are Meiji works, comissioned by wealthy Western collectors from such artists as Namekawa Sadakatsu, Unno Shōmin and Unno Moritoshi.

 

Clearly we would be in error to assume that all work that demonstrates a Western influence qualifies as Hamamono work. The Japanese market experienced fashions in style just as do all commerce-led economies. The enormous popularity of the Namban style in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and the Art Deco influence demonstrated in the work of Itō Masayoshi (1744-1796) are both clear examples of foreign influences not intended for export.

 

Thus only two groups of tsuba may be confidently labelled as Hamamono — those that were commissioned by Western collectors and have a clear provenance; and those rare pieces that acknowledge their commission on the mei — the remainder remain a matter of opinion.

 

In closing, it is interesting that there has been no mention in this thread of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts publication, Lethal Elegance, which contains many fine examples of such work, commissioned by William Sturgis Bigelow and Charles Goddard Weld in the late 1800s.

 

Regards, John L.