Jump to content

Blades and kodogu-modern and by non-Japanese: What is it?


cabowen

Recommended Posts

I haven't said that non-Japanese can not create work in the Japanese tradition, I have said that, in my opinion, the results of their work are "in the tradition", "in the style", "homage", etc. The whole point of this thread was to solicit opinions as to what other people consider this work to be-do people collect it and consider it the same as that made in Japan by trained craftsman, or do they consider it something else?

 

I have said that Keith Austin's work is considered by most to be "nihon-to". He was trained and licensed in Japan and his work has been licensed and can be imported into Japan. I know from conversations with those that knew him, both Japanese and Westerners, that despite this, his work was often seen more as a curiosity in Japan and wasn't accepted on the same footing as that made by Japanese nationals. I lived in Japan for a long time and know well how closed a society Japan remains, thus this is easy to understand though always hard to accept.

 

No matter how sincere, dedicated, or talented the practitioner, it is ultimately the paying customer that decides whether or not the performance is what they want to spend their money on.

 

Again, a lot hinges on the art vs artifact view of swords and kodogu. If you collect solely on the artistic value of the item, then questions about authorship or location shouldn't matter. However, if you also value the artifact aspects, then there is a whole other world of factors that come into consideration. Judging by the responses here to questions about art vs artifact, it seems that most consider the historical and cultural context connected to these items to be of great value.

 

Being able to copy something to the point where it can fool a knowledgeable collector is a testament to the skill of the craftsman but I think that the point made here previously is it isn't necessarily only the artistic or technical merit of the item that collectors find attractive, but the mystique of the culture and history that the object embodies. That is what is missing in the minds of many I suspect when it comes to works by non-Japanese in the Japanese tradition.

 

When I look at one of my modern Japanese swords, I think of the smith sitting in his forge, praying before he starts to the kamidana, the same one his father and grandfather prayed to....Using the same tools his father made and used during WWII...Drawing water for the quench from the spring on the grounds of a shrine down the street-the same water that MInamoto Yoritomo was said to have drank....and on and on...When I visit the forge and see a modern sword by a Western smith, I see the Nasel air hammer, the Chevy pickup, the Rolling Stones on the radio, the bottle of Gatorade on the table....

 

As I have said, the form is there, but not the essence, the history, the romance....For better or worse, collecting Japanese swords, in the minds of many I believe, is about more than just art, it is also about something you can not make, learn, or buy- the connection with the past, the romance...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that you've summarized the thread well, Chris. But considering your statement

That is what is missing in the minds of many I suspect when it comes to works by non-Japanese in the Japanese tradition.
would it matter if the modern smith was, in fact, Japanese?

 

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem to matter to many as even modern smiths in Japan are struggling. Many collectors have no interest in modern blades because they do not have that "history" many collectors covet....To others it seems to not matter as they look at modern swords as just another point in the time line....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the OP noted, elements covered in "Do you collect swords as art or as artifact?" are pretty relevant here.

 

In answer to the OP, what "it is" comes down to what individuals value to be or consider as "art". Thankfully there is no definitive answer, it differs between individuals. Modern made kodogu, albeit the high quality work of Ford and some others, to me, is equaly valuable as any other quality made modern kodogu, Japanese or Australian.

 

I suspect that some of the other "western" nihonto related craftsmen (including all areas of the art) over the last 20 years, claiming to work in the Japanese style, have done sub par work and have sullied the names or muddied the waters when it comes to collectors and enthusiasts judgement re: western nihonto craftsmen. This is regrettable, but anyone that can use their eyes and has a modicum of taste will be able to pick the good apples. Racism in this art is a very lazy filter - but those who apply it will miss some of the most beautiful gems in the trove. More fool them is all I can say.

 

Lastly, re: the modern workshop with gatoraid etc. As long as the work itself is correct, high quality and aesthetically pleasing - it doesnt matter to me that it wasnt quenched in spring water once washed in by miyamoto musashi. The fact that the work is correct and high quality is ENOUGH romance to me - the spirit of old lives on in the work - the spirit of good work, the spirit of quality and beauty. Those in themselves are enough of a connection to the past, for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Alex.

 

Dear Chris, in one of your earlier posts you said:

 

I have a hard time believing that if some fellow in France insisted on only buying German made cars, he would be considered racist.

 

For your analogy to be fair and fit this situation, we would have to imagine that there were French-made cars that were equal to German-made cars in terms of aesthetics, quality and price (I know, a very difficult stretch of the imagination - sorry Jean.....). But adding that condition when contemplating your quote above is fair in light of your admission that some modern Western-made kodogu equals that made by modern Japanese craftspersons. With that assumption in place, yes - your imaginary fellow in France who refuses to consider an equal French car and purchases a German-made car not because it is better but simply because it was made in Germany would be guilty of racism (and bad judgement).

 

Please remember that I’m not talking about those that prefer antique or historical “cars” (kodogu or artifacts). Instead, I’m talking about your original post where the assumption was that the buyer was willing to purchase modern work, and it was simply a question of whether the maker was Japanese or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think with many of the classifications in Nihonto, Japanes provenance for a lot of collectors is a must.

 

A newly made sword by a Japanese smith is called Gendaito, and a sword made in the exact same manner by a European is not classed as NihonTo nor Gendaito. No matter how good the modern day European or American smith is, it is not classified by the collecting world as a Japanese sword but as a rendition, fair, good or almost perfect of a Gendaito/Nihonto.

 

If that is not racist I dont know. I sometimes wonder, and that is highly anachronistic, if a Samurai wanting to buy an O-wazamono sword who would have the choice between a Japanese made sword and a Western made sword, both mumei, would choose the Japanese sword if he just would see the two blades without knowing who made them.

 

They looked at different qualities in a sword perhaps than modern day collectors.

 

The term racist is not that bad for a distinction in ethnicity, because only since the last century or so the term "racist" has become laden with negative connotation and meaning.

 

Furthermore, and I know full well that this is highly generalising, at Leiden University some of my professors used to forewarn students of Indonesian, Korean as well as Chinese descent wanting to study Japanese that they should be prepared not to be accepted in Japan in a lot of situations and even in job seeking because the Japanese themselves were very "racist"

 

Now the professors themselves might have been biassed by some of their own experiences as "gaijin" but there must be a small truth in there somewhere.

 

It is all in the definition I think, and as long as we are not agreeing on the definition of what makes a Japanese Samurai sword Japanese and a Western made Samurai sword not, or even the definition of racism, we are talking past one another, with our opinions dissolving in the wind.

 

KM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you start putting limitations and restrictions on an art form that has nothing to do with raising the quality, it usually impedes the overall level of work.

 

I think tradition is important to remember and follow to a point, but it shouldn't end up being something that stops foward progress. Why do something the "traditional" way if a "modern" way can produce better results? On the other hand, there are many jobs where the traditional way will produce the best results. Notice that either way, achieving the best QUALITY is the final goal.

 

For me, the appreciation of these crafts has always been partly about romanticism, but more about the amazing level of craftsmanship and asthetic... and no nationality has a monopoly on either of those things.

 

All that being said, I understand what Chris is saying, and I think it's going too far to call it rascism. I think people who have the view Chris is talking about may be allowing their interpretation of tradition to cause a slightly biased outlook... and I think they have the right to that outlook in this situation, whether others think it's completely fair or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lastly, re: the modern workshop with gatoraid etc. As long as the work itself is correct, high quality and aesthetically pleasing - it doesnt matter to me that it wasnt quenched in spring water once washed in by miyamoto musashi. The fact that the work is correct and high quality is ENOUGH romance to me - the spirit of old lives on in the work - the spirit of good work, the spirit of quality and beauty. Those in themselves are enough of a connection to the past, for me.

 

That is good to hear. While it sadly seems a minority opinion, this is the outlook that will keep the craft alive.

 

I am curious as to what modern pieces you have collected- please tell us about them....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Please remember that I’m not talking about those that prefer antique or historical “cars” (kodogu or artifacts). Instead, I’m talking about your original post where the assumption was that the buyer was willing to purchase modern work, and it was simply a question of whether the maker was Japanese or not.

 

I should have said made in Japan by a traditionally made craftsman as there have been non-Japanese smiths in the past who were trained and produced there and their work is considered nihon-to.

 

Still, there is something about calling the preference for work by the originators of the craft racist that I can't swallow whole....If I am European and I prefer something made by a member of a race other than my own to something made by a member of my own race, I would be racist against my own kind....How is that possible? It is more like reverse-racism, isn't it?

 

In any case, most of the collectors I have spoken with about this that have said they wouldn't buy modern work by non-Japanese craftsman usually speak of wanting work by Japanese because it is part of a continuum, it carries on the tradition, the romance, etc. They are not collectors who focus solely on the piece, viewing it as it exists in a vacuum, so to speak. They don't view these items as modern art that can stand on its own, but rather as the latest growth ring in a 1000 year old tree. As we have seen here, not everyone thinks this way, which is great. Without people willing to support the arts for art sake, modern crafts people such as Ford would not be able to create.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, apart from Ford Hallam who in my opinion is one of, if not the best, there is Mark Green who makes tsuba and nice Saexes, and Pavel Bolf who tries making Samurai swords, as well as koshirae design shinken swords in the UK who also makes tsuba. In Japan of course there is the Japanese trained Pierre Nadeau who is a swordsmith.

 

There is also Patrick Barta who makes fenomenal late Roman and Anglo Saxon swords, though his Japanese items I am still not comfortable with... http://www.templ.net/english/weapons-an ... le_age.php

 

There are a lot of craftsmen/artists working in Japanese arts, using varying production methods and making works of varying quality and merit, but all have one thing in common, they have a tremendous respect for the ancient Japanese arts.

 

Most of these Western people engaged in these ancient Japanese arts are easily found on facebook or online.

 

One thing collectors should be weary of with their own NihonTo is that there are a lot of untrained, self taught people calling themselves togishi who can ruin your sword, as sometimes is proved, also on this board.

 

KM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious as to what modern pieces you have collected- please tell us about them....

 

Chris, I'll bite. Although I havnt got anything "in hand" your timing is good. I have nothing in the way of swords, but I have kodogu WIP with two non Japanese craftsman. One very highly respected and Japanese trained, doing issaku koshirea. The other is less well known and may be considered by some to be a bit of a gamble, but the stakes are not high and I have seen many photos of his work which is impressive; he is recreating some missing fittings from a Japanese set and has the existing original parts to work from. Perhaps I can post the completed work and have the forum guess what's new and what's old! :glee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

 

with respect,

 

Still, there is something about calling the preference for work by the originators of the craft racist that I can't swallow whole....

 

As I made clear on 2 occasions that personal preference is exactly what is suggests and no-one could rightly criticise that.

 

here

"It's always been evident to me that for many non-Japanese collectors the very 'Japanese-ness' and the historical age and associations are of primary concern. This is perfectly understandable and no-one can suggest it ought to be otherwise...this is simply a matter of taste and interest."

 

and then I wrote this;

"But the notion that one's nationality is somehow relevant in qualifying your work is racist no matter how you try to define it."

 

and repeated myself here;

"Of course everyone is completely free to admire, collect...whatever, anything they choose and based on whatever criteria they decide."

 

and then wrote this'

"It a very different thing to suggest, as you did, that non-Japanese cannot make authentic work (however we define that) in the Japanese tradition. As I pointed out by my references to various other art forms, the original cultural or national origin is generally regarded as being no longer a barrier to committed, sincere and talented practitioners....wherever they come from. "

 

The issue is not about your personal choice at all...it's about the claim that only a Japanese trained Japanese person can make a real Japanese sword. Of course this all hinges on what YOU mean by a 'real' Japanese sword. And to be honest I'm not at all concerned by the sword part of the argument and I have some views on that aspect that are probebly quite close to your own...what can I say, I'm a contradiction. :roll:

 

With tsuba, though, I have a different view which I'll try to encapsulate briefly;

 

I've argued before that in my view the over-riding 'function' of the tsuba was as a status signal and all that entails (the protective aspect is self evident and needs no further consideration really). The, rather lengthy, discussion is here. Looking at the history of the artefact (tsuba) and it's evolution it seems to me to have been a canvas for the aesthetic expressions and explorations of generations of different schools of artists working in metal.

 

What is also clear to me is that at least by the middle of the Edo period a significant number of artists were making work that was not created to always go on a sword. It is very obvious to me that the appreciation of tsuba had by then divorced itself from being merely an adornment on a mounted blade and were collected and enjoyed as objets d′art in their own right. Personally, I see no reason why this evolution can't continue in exactly the same way as it did for nearly 700 years. This is how I regard my work. I immerse myself in that stream of tradition and am trying to develop an authentic aesthetic language of my own, but one that is intelligible and coherent within the continuum of that tradition. I am deeply informed and responsive to the past and strive to sense the essence of the guiding spirit that informed the great masters of the past. In this, I maintain, my approach is exactly the same as the most authentic and venerated of modern smiths. How successful I've been thus far in my endeavours must be judged by others but my non-'Japaneseness' is not a criticism I can take seriously at this stage.

 

Amusingly, it's sometimes suggested by friends in Japan, only half in jest, that my apparent facility in this tradition and the sense of place I feel might be due to me having been Japanese perviously :D Perhaps being the re-incarnation of a long dead Japanese tsuba-shi might be a more palatable marketing strategy to advance 8)

 

In addition I would add that my teacher, Izumi Koshiro Sensei, has effectively adopted me and officially named me his successor and the right/responsibility to call what I teach the Izumi Ryu approach to classical Japanese Kinko work. At least in his opinion, the one that really matters to me, I'm not in anyway somehow less for not being born Japanese. In fact, not being Japanese could be seen as a significant advantage in terms of trying to breathe some life back into the tradition, coming as I do, from the outside I can see things more broadly and with fresh eyes.

 

respectfully,

 

Ford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of my favourite tsuba. It was created by Unno Shomin,1844~1915 , a student of Kano Natsuo and himself ultimately a Teishitsu Gigei-in (Artisan of the Imperial Household) which is considered the equivalent of the title of Living National Treasure used today)

post-229-14196826556413_thumb.jpg

post-229-14196826545609_thumb.jpg

 

This tsuba was never mounted on a blade and was never intended for that purpose. It was commissioned by a wealthy publisher, not even a member of the samurai class. None of that matters though because it's a masterpiece of art in metal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can make a case that the modern period for swords and kodogu started when the Haito-Rei was drafted. Many metal workers during the Bakumatsu and Meiji era made these exquisite tsuba in this quasi-realistic style which were never meant for use. SIgn of the times....

 

Personally, while I have always been dazzled by the amazing abilities of these later artists, these tsuba are a world apart, in construction and aesthetics, from the wabi-sabi of the simple iron tsuba made in an earlier age. And while they boggle my mind, they just don't touch my heart in the way the great iron tsuba do....Then again, I have always preferred the rustic pottery of Iga and the Shigaraki styles over the perfection of seiji (celadon) wares...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it important to reiterate that this trend away from 'old iron' and warrior taste begun in the early part of the Edo period. The Machibori artists, as opposed to the Ie-bori group, the Goto, catered to a great extent to the tastes of the merchant class. The styles and aesthetics that proliferated all the other art forms of painting, for example, are well represented in the tsuba genre. The Goto simply kept doing what they'd always done, albeit superbly, while the Machibori created their own version of the Italian Renaissance. And, as I wrote, many of their creations, being made for the merchant class, were also never intended for use but rather purely as objets d′art.

 

The style of the Shomin tsuba, btw, is taken very closely from 13th and 14th century Chinese painting, which served as models for later 15th and 16th cent Japanese paintings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many Japanese commentators have pointed out that with the unification of the country under the Tokugawa and the relative peaceful 200+ year period that ensued, the martial aspects of the craft went to seed as blades became canvases with pictorial hamons and soft metal tsuba such as the above, came to have more in common with sculpture than functional tsuba. Seems logical to assume that craftsman, facing less demand from an increasingly insolvent warrior class, reached out to the up and coming merchant class, and adapted their work to fit different aesthetic tastes.

 

When we talk about the tastes of collectors and the their preferences in regard to modern work, we can surely see all sorts of prejudices in not only what is thought of modern work, but to a lessor extent, in the attitudes held today regarding older work as well. Many collectors want nothing to do with anything later than Koto work as they feel the craft degenerated thereafter per the above and do not appreciate the decorative direction the craft assumed.

 

I have always appreciated the form follows function aspect of traditional Japanese art and thus have never fully appreciated these art works in the shape of tsuba as tsuba...Obviously, they are a metal working tour de force, and have their admirers, but it is hard for me to call something a tsuba that was never meant to function as one......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but it is hard for me to call something a tsuba that was never meant to function as one......

 

The logical extension of that view implies that those Nihonto not made to be used are not 'real' Nihonto. Clearly all swords could be used to cut and all tsuba (even tsuba shaped objects) can perform their practical function but you're speaking about the intended use when the object was made/commissioned. It follows then that you may find it hard to see Shinsakuto as 'real' Nihonto. :dunno:

 

I also find it interesting that you describe works like the Shomin tsuba as a 'tour de force' (An outstanding display of skill or technical mastery) :? of metalwork. Do you believe it to be completely devoid of aesthetic and artistic expression then? If so I can only put that down to an lack of understanding of the art form because while it is technically quite excellent the real genius this piece displays is far harder to describe in purely technical terms. I can wax as lyrical about Shomin's artistry as eloquently (dare I say more so :roll: ) as any aficionado of Momoyama Iron or even Paul Bowman when he spoke of how certain blades moved him to tears. ;)

 

Here's another masterpiece in metal, this time a carved steel tsuba with silver and gold inlay. Kano Natsuo 1828-1898 . Boston Museum of Fine Art, Boston, USA.

I regard this a the 'Pieta' of tsuba and travelled to Boston some years ago solely to see it in hand. It's actually quite small but it has an indescribable presence that is palpable.

 

post-229-141968265608_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any shinsakuto could be used at any time. When they are polished, they are still given a sharp edge and are completely functional. That is why the Japanese government requires they be licensed as they are still considered weapons. While no one wears and uses a sword these days, it is hard to say they are not made with use in mind. They are also not being made in such a way that their functionality is impaired in any way....Many collectors express a disinterest in them and/or do not collect them specifically because they are made in a time when they aren't worn-I have heard your statement before and I can't argue with that viewpoint.

 

When artistic expression becomes the overriding raison d'etre (pardon my french) of creating the tsuba and the practical requirements take a back seat, or are simply thrown out, then the tsuba shape is simply a canvas for the artist to perform on and we no longer have a tsuba but rather a tsuba shaped metal art piece. When something which started as a functional item, becomes appreciated due to the perfection of the form-function relationship, and is then made from the start firstly and simply as an art piece, then, at least to me, as a tsuba, it is art for art's sake, decadent and corrupt.

 

Yes, I love many soft metal tsuba and consider them fine art but not necessarily fine tsuba. They represent a different aesthetic in my mind than the older iron works. One is a work of art in the shape of a tsuba, the other a tsuba whose shape transcends the practical and is thus considered art.

 

Much of the Japanese aesthetic is derived from the perfection of form following function, not the other way around.

 

I have seen soft metal tsuba cut nearly in half by a skilled swordsman wielding a shinsakuto. Modern or antique, they scare me....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if required any disc of non-ferrous metal in the position of a tsuba will stop the hand sliding onto the blade and provide at least as much protection as the average Owari or Kyo-sukashi guard. Functional requirement met...methinks. But, I've yet to see any of these venerated old iron guards exhibit convincing evidence that they did in fact serve as hand protection against wayward sword cuts. I maintain that this is simply a romantic projection. Show me a masterpiece Owari guard, Nobuie even an Onin guard with convincing battle scars and I may be persuaded to reconsider my opinion but while we can point to a number of great old blades that do exhibit exactly such evidence with tsuba the case is far less certain...where one would expect it to be far more obvious if indeed they did serve as protection.

 

The 'form follows function' notion is an interesting one to examine in terms of Nihonto because it's often cited yet there are a number of aspects of the mounted Nihonto that are demonstrably not driven by this concept. From the very first hint of artistic expression on a tsuba-like plate pure functionality has been overlaid very conspicuously with a completely different concern, namely aesthetic expression....and all that implies.

 

Menuki are an obvious case in point. We're told variously that they are vestigial reminders of the decorative heads of mekugi on early tachi....then it's suggested they are there to help improve the grip ...but no-one can agree exactly how that works. Some schools favouring the menuki in the palm and others between the grip....thereby negating the improved grip effect. And then we have to ask why anyone would lavish so much work on something that is mostly hidden under a wrap if the main 'raison d'être' is form following function. It's a satisfying idea to think the Nihonto to such a rational and purely efficient weapon but the reality is far more emotional and idiosyncratic I think.

 

I love many soft metal tsuba and consider them fine art but not necessarily fine tsuba. They represent a different aesthetic in my mind than the older iron works.

 

Of course they are a different aesthetic....that's a natural consequence of societal change. But to judge one aesthetic superior to another is merely the imposition of personal preference pretending to be an objective judgement. It's a bit like saying darker colours are considered more serious than brighter ones so therefore light coloured things are by definition frivolous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When something which started as a functional item, becomes appreciated due to the perfection of the form-function relationship, and is then made from the start firstly and simply as an art piece, then, at least to me, as a tsuba, it is art for art's sake, decadent and corrupt.

 

And this started the moment the purely functional guard plate (however that function might be defined) was made with even the merest hint of design or aesthetic expression. The suggestion that the move to artistic considerations is 'decadent and corrupt' sounds very meaningful but in any discussion like this really needs to be more clearly defined. Art for art's sake is actually not meaningful either, in this context, because clearly these object did have meaning and relevance to the people who commissioned and bought them. These are all valid cultural and aesthetic expressions....romantic, post hoc notions of warrior sensibilities and ideas of what constitutes proper samurai art aside.

 

You've mentioned the 'wabi/sabi' aesthetic that informs the pieces you do value and admire....how is wabi/sabi a functional quality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if required any disc of non-ferrous metal in the position of a tsuba will stop the hand sliding onto the blade and provide at least as much protection as the average Owari or Kyo-sukashi guard. Functional requirement met...methinks. But, I've yet to see any of these venerated old iron guards exhibit convincing evidence that they did in fact serve as hand protection against wayward sword cuts.

 

There is a well known fight that broke out in a ryokan at the end of the Edo era. I don't recall where or exactly who was involved, but I have been there and the story goes that when the fighting was over, there were fingers all over the room...Perhaps someone here will recall the details (I am sure Tom Helm is familiar with this story)...

 

Tsuba did more than protect the hand. They provide balance, the ability to deflect blows, etc. They have a practical purpose and there is no doubt they are there for a reason.

 

I have seen many tsuba with cuts, not as many as on swords, but that is to be expected given the way swords are used.

 

The point is, they have a practical function that came first and would always be foremost in the minds of those who relied on the sword dayly in matters of life and death. Of course they were later embellished-from plain plate to mon, to religious symbols, etc. It is human nature to embellish....The less they were used, the more embellished they became....That doesn't replace the requirement that they were functional first, nor that when made, they were made to be mounted. And there are indeed kyo-sukashi and the like that became so delicate and open that they became bad tsuba because they didn't meet the primary objective of a tsuba: to offer protection.

 

This is the same with swords; it doesn't matter how beautiful the hamon is- if it doesn't cut well, or breaks easily, it isn't a good sword. First and foremost, a sword has to do what it was created to do. Shinto swords with their wide, beautiful hamon were found to break easily and while they were beautiful to look at, they were functionally deficient. Suishinshi Masahide started his career making o-doran in the style of Sukehiro but after seeing several of them break, launched the whole koto revival as a direct consequence of the decadent level sword making had come to by the shinshinto period. The fact that one sees many tosho and katchu-shi revival tsuba made in this period would seem to indicate that this movement wasn't limited to swords.

 

Modern smiths have gone to great lengths to prove that their swords are more than pretty art work- they are often tested. There was a video made of a Yoshihara Yoshindo (or was it Kuniie?) blade cutting threw a motorcycle gas tank some years ago. Ask any modern smith if his blade is a work of art first or a functional weapon first and you will quickly find that the focus is on function.

 

Clearly menuki had a function as well at one point. They became almost vestigial but tradition loving as the Japanese are, they have stayed and evolved into something that some might consider simple adornment.

 

The point isn't that there are adornments, the point is all of these added flourishes were additions that simply added beauty to an already function weapon-they didn't make swords so they had a place to put their tsuba. They exist because of the weapon, not independent of it, as these "not meant to be mounted" "tsuba" do. If there was no Japanese sword, there would be no need for tsuba, of any sort. Making tsuba that aren't meant to be mounted is like the tail wagging the dog....Again, not saying they aren't fantastic art, just that if they aren't made with functionality in mind, how can they be considered fantastic tsuba?

 

Of course they are a different aesthetic....that's a natural consequence of societal change. But to judge one aesthetic superior to another is merely the imposition of personal preference pretending to be an objective judgement. It's a bit like saying darker colours are considered more serious than brighter ones so therefore light coloured things are by definition frivolous.

 

I haven't said one aesthetic is superior to the other. What I have said is tsuba made first and foremost as "art" might be great art, but they are not necessarily great tsuba.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And this started the moment the purely functional guard plate (however that function might be defined) was made with even the merest hint of design or aesthetic expression. The suggestion that the move to artistic considerations is 'decadent and corrupt' sounds very meaningful but in any discussion like this really needs to be more clearly defined. Art for art's sake is actually not meaningful either, in this context, because clearly these object did have meaning and relevance to the people who commissioned and bought them. These are all valid cultural and aesthetic expressions....romantic, post hoc notions of warrior sensibilities and ideas of what constitutes proper samurai art aside.

 

I am not calling the move to 'artistic consideration" decadent or corrupt. I am calling the supplanting of the functional by the artisitc decadent and corrupt. I think I have defined it clearly: when the functionality of a tool become supplanted by the embellishment of the tool to the extent that the functionality has become an afterthought at best and the embellishment the main reason for producing the tool, it is then clearly art for art's sake.

 

You've mentioned the 'wabi/sabi' aesthetic that informs the pieces you do value and admire....how is wabi/sabi a functional quality?

 

It is clearly an aesthetic quality. I never said swords and kodogu can't have aesthetic value or artistic merit- I am saying that when functionality takes a back seat or worse to embellishment, we have a canvas rather than a tsuba. I am sure Masahide would agree....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly we have very different ideas of what constitutes a tsuba and what it's function and value was/is.

 

I await with excitement conclusive evidence that tuba suffered battle damage....as I've repeatedly written, as yet this is still a romantic projection without any verifiable evidence to support it.

 

And at the risk sounding repetitive I''ll say again, the moment tsuba were considered as suitable canvases for aesthetic expression, in all it's various forms, as long as the very basic functional requirement was met (whatever that might have been thought to have been, leather/lacquer or even no tsuba having been also favoured at various points in time :dunno: ) the rest was pretty much up for grabs. Notions of over-riding combat functionality are really just another expression of romanticism unsubstantiated by evidence. One only has to look at armour of the period you are so enamoured of...hardly the epitome of practical functionality at all. They are serious displays of status and ego, kabuto alone are enough to suggest that there was a very real desire to 'show off' way beyond the requirements of 'form follows function' :dunno: ....and the mountings of the most common swords as worn by higher ranking warriors is inevitably just a bit 'bling'...to say the least.

 

Anyway, we're all entitled to our own view of things. I hope I've provided some food for thought for those willing to take the time to think about the subject beyond the usual 'propaganda' and dogmatism our field of study labours under.

 

regards,

 

Ford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Chris, many of the "authentic" "Japanese" swords and fittings (e.g., dainty sukashi iron tsuba, etc.) that you offer for sale on your own site would not meet the criteria that you are trying to impose on Western makers. In my personal opinion, anyone that relies on a tsuba of any material to block a sword strike is foolish. It's not that a thick iron tsuba couldn't stop a blade, instead it's that swords tend to rebound and not slide nicely down the blade to be caught on the tiny area of a tsuba. If we apply your "must be made for the real use" criteria, most modern "Japanese Swords" would fail because few of them are being made with the intention of cutting human flesh and bone. How many times have we seen, on this very site, modern practitioners taking about their specialized swords for Iaido (longer, shorter or lighter than would be used in a real battle because practice tears up their shoulders....) or the swords being tailored for Tameshigiri of mats (which many say approximate the human body, but I'm sure that if any of these practitioners were really going to design a sword to battle another human armed with a sword, they'd design it differently). Many of the mass produced swords from 600 years ago weren't designed or made for optimum performance; instead they were made to outfit the many low level combatants. Therefore, I don't think that you can fairly disqualify tsuba that have traded some small amount of functionality for beauty (or weren't made merely for battle).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...