Steve Waszak

As is true for so many things aesthetic, the Japanese have a term for the interplay between positive and negative space: Nohtan (濃淡) The content in the link below focuses on nohtan in painting, but it's worth thinking about how the term and concept apply to sukashi tsuba design. https://drawpaintacademy.com/notan/

My views include utsushi, yes, if we are speaking of utsushi of original early tsuba that many would agree are masterworks borne of the dynamics of their time. In saying this, and in saying what I will below, I am assuming that by "prototype," Terry means an original work (design, treatment, etc...) created by a highly worthy, if not master smith. After all, i doubt we would use such a term to refer to just any old early sword guard ("prototype" wouldn't really fit, then, would it?). Likewise, I don't suppose we would see many utsushi being made of mediocre pieces... Dale, you make a distinction between "mere copies," on the one hand, and (works) "emulating the spirit (of the original)," on the other. I'm not quite sure I see a clear, actually effective difference here. If the "spirit" of a work can even be perceived and felt (this does get a little mataphysical), how would/could that be "emulated"? The form of a work can be emulated or copied, and the same material used, the same motifs, etc.... But a great deal of the vitality, the energy, the power of a master work is generated from the circumstances of the artist/smith who makes it, both personal and cultural. This, I would say, is a big part of the "spirit" we (believe we) sense when we encounter and connect with their work. The sheer act of copying, or emulation, must immediately be lacking in that same spirit, if for no other reason than because that later artist's own unadulterated individual spirit and the cultural zeitgeist giving rise to him/her is not present in the emulation (or if it is, it is necessarily watered down). This leaves us with only the copy, then, that is, the form, the design, the motif, even the surface finish...the sum of the parts, perhaps, but far from the whole. Your quote from Wikipedia is intriguing, too. When it asserts, though, that "Utsushi promotes a dialogue between the artist and the masters of the past, connecting past, present, and future," it is being generous in calling the interchange a "dialogue." A dialogue should be understood, I think, as an exchange between equals. An artist copying/emulating the work of a past master cannot in doing this equal that master's work for the reasons I give above. So, this "connecting" that the quote mentions is more along the lines of derivation than it is any sort of exchange between equals. Which is to say, as we move from "past" to "present" to "future," what we get is an increasingly watered down version of the original, due to what is lost in derivation. Perhaps "homage" is a better term to describe the efforts of the artist creating the utsushi, since these efforts are, I believe, inspired by a profound respect and admiration for the original work being honored. Even this term, though connotes, if not denotes, a tacit admission of at least some derivation in the resulting work, I would say. Having said this, I need to make a distinction, too, between the work of a later artist simply copying/emulating/"homage-ing" that of the earlier master, and the work of a later artist expanding from what that earlier master expressed in his work. We can find good examples of this in certain tsubako groups, where a later smith generated his own ideas based on the potent sensibilities of the earlier smith(s), and produced work quite original to him, while still retaining the character of the original (I can think here of the tsuba of the "Nidai" Yamakichibei and the Sandai Shimizu Jingo as two such examples). One good case study in this discussion might be the Norisuke tsubako of 19th-century Owari. Both generations were/are celebrated for their utsushi, but these utsushi do not come close to the original masterpieces they paid homage to. They are very skillfully done, to be sure, but they are missing that resonant vitality so palpable in the originals. Their own original designs, though, sometimes do possess this strength, much more so than any of their utsushi (in my opinion, of course). Anyway, it's an interesting topic, Dale. Thanks for bringing in that quote. By the way, I'd be very curious to see any examples that could be provided of an utsushi that might illustrate Terry's words as presented in his quote. I do wonder what Terry would see as just such a "groping prototype," as well as what he then would present as a later work that is a "much superior" example of that prototype. Perhaps I am missing entirely what he intended to express... Steve

"In this connection it is worth remembering that many modern works of art are in reality much superior to those of the past. The present-day craftsman is often much defter than his groping prototype, and where equally good materials are employed, new work is not infrequently preferable to the old." Dale, This is an interesting opinion. I'm sure there must be examples to suggest the truth of it; however, we should also recognize that frequently, not just sometimes, the "groping prototype" exudes originality and the potent vitality that accompanies it, while the "defter present-day" craftsman's "much superior" work, despite this deftness, comes across as lifeless. We all value various characteristics and aspects of art differently, of course. So, for those who see mastery of intricacy and super-human abilities in the fine detailing and flawless finishing of a piece as the zenith of artistic achievement, "superior artistry" is thus realized, and we may see this in the present-day craftsman. But for those of use who, while still appreciating the technical virtuosity of such works, strongly prefer the resonant energy of the "groping prototype," the (much) superior art is to be found in this latter. I might add here that something profound is lost when "present-day craftsm[e]n," however technically skilled, produce works that simply copy the designs of the "groping" artist whose works emerged organically, and with piercing resonance, out of the zeitgeist of a time and place. The resulting authenticity of the latter, with vanishingly few exceptions, simply cannot be captured by the former, regardless of his "superior" abilities.

Thanks, again, Piers. Much appreciated.

Thanks, Piers! Would you be able to confirm if that lone kanji in between the two tsuba-and-text means something like "the same"? And I'm guessing that for the second tsuba, "kiku" would be one of the kanji? Thanks again.

Looking to have the writing accompanying the upper two (Yamasaka Kichibei) tsuba translated. If anyone could assist, I'd really appreciate it! I can read a little of it (like the artist's name), but much I can't make out. Thanks for any help! Cheers, Steve P.S. A bonus would be having the writing on the other side of the page translated, too, some of which can be made out through the paper...

Thanks for posting these, Lance. I can't help but wonder, though, whether inferences were made after observing the few and then applying that "knowledge" to the whole. Quite a few generalities here. Then, too, if the point made at the end of the second video regarding the ambiguous nature of Japanese language and communication is to be taken as true/accurate, how can the European account be confident of its understanding of the Japanese? After all, a use of language that prizes ambiguity and indirectness would seem likely to give rise to misunderstandings. Still, these presentations of first contact and early interaction of cultures so alien to one another are always fascinating. I recommend the various Michael Cooper publications, such as This Island of Japan: Joao Rodrigues' Account of 16th-Century Japan, and They Came to Japan: An Anthology of European Reports on Japan, 1543-1640. So often, we get our "knowledge" of early Japan from publications that date to centuries after the period they're focused on. But how does such passage of time and evolution of culture distort the veracity of what is reported? First-hand reports, though, while obviously not immune to biases and misapprehensions, offer at least the impressions of those who were there at the time, and perhaps a somewhat more accurate account of the period and place in question. They are really intriguing reading, if first/early-contact narratives are of interest.

Jean, Hmmm... "technical requirements"? This term would have to point to practical applications such as the basic purpose of a sword guard, no? If so, a distinction needs to be made, as I said in my first post, between such practical applications, on the one hand, and aesthetic purposes/considerations, on the other. Trying to combine these or failing to distinguish between them will lead to a convoluted discussion, I think. My recent post had entirely to do with the latter -- aesthetics. That the tsuba I posted images of might or would also satisfy effectively "technical demands" was not my aim in posting them. So in addressing the question of what a "good iron" tsuba is, for purposes of this discussion, I am mentioning only those aspects or features which contribute (in my opinion) to making a given tsuba "good" as far as its iron is concerned. And I have already mentioned them: elements such as masterful forging and hammering, application of yakite-shitate, the presence of sensitively realized tekkotsu, the color of the metal, and the patina the steel takes on, ALL contribute to what makes an iron/steel tsuba "good." And "good" in my eyes, only, I must emphasize, as we are talking largely, if not entirely about taste, from a necessarily subjective perspective. Again, when looking at the aesthetic aspect, subjectivity rules; when looking at the "technical requirements" aspect -- the practical applications/considerations -- things can be much more if not wholly objective. For those who think that tekkotsu is clumsy, or that a yakite finish creates a "smeary muddiness" on the surface, or that anything but a perfectly polished surface comes across as clunky and uncouth, tsuba such as those made by Hayashi Matashichi would certainly be "better" than those coming out of Owari. And such a viewpoint is, needless to say, perfectly valid. But again, we're talking about TASTE, and taste is a very personal, and obviously subjective thing. So your post above is one that I find a little confusing to try to address, since it seems you're alluding to the possibility of arriving at objective criteria for a category of assessment that is dependent on subjective appreciation. I have to run here just now, but later, I can provide images of what I would consider to be beautifully-forged steel, which for me is one of the chief criteria for what makes a tsuba good/great. Cheers, Steve

Hi Pietro, Well, there are several things to note here on why this piece is pretty clearly not of the Momoyama years. The shape is not in keeping with the usual Mino/Shino expression of the turn of the 17th century. Momoyama Shino ware will usually have a more elongated and distorted or "warped" shape to it, irregular, with a rim that is far from so "perfectly" formed and round as we see in the piece you posted. The rims on Momoyama Mino ware, including Shino will have a highly irregular form, and often will be missing glaze here and there along the edge. The glaze, too, is wrong for the period on the bowl you posted. It is much too new looking, lacking in depth and in any sort of "patina." While it's true that pottery doesn't quite take on a patina like ivory or iron will, there is still a richness to the surface borne of those centuries that more newly formed objects don't seem to reach. I can say that in my experience, anyway, I have yet to see a more recently-made ceramic (under 100 years old) carry the same "luster" that a 400-year-old chawan (that was used) will have. Further, the glaze on "your" bowl is lacking any imperfections, damage, scuffs, chips, etc... Again, too perfect. And the color of Momoyama Shino is a hard-to-describe creamy white that is not so bright white as we see with newer Shino pieces; additionally, newly-made Shino ware often goes over the top with its translucence and milkiness. Real Shino works from Momoyama times have that mellow creamy-white punctuated with imperfections, bare patches, etc... And very important to note: real Momoyama Shino chawan will often present with that skin-of-an-orange "pitting" all over the surface. When this is juxtaposed with the reddish hues coming through the creamy-white glaze, you get a pretty iconic Momoyama Shino look. Finally, the foot on the bowl you posted does not exhibit the type of clay I would usually expect to see revealed on the foot of a Period piece. Have a look at the images here. These are all Period Shino chawan. One of them might be recognizable as a National Treasure piece. Compare the clay, the foot, the glaze, and the form of the bowl, the rim, etc... on this piece to the bowl in question. Big, BIG difference. Cheers, Steve

lol... Thanks, Pietro. Moved too quickly to answer you to remember the link! Looking at those photos, I would say no, not of the period. Several details point away from that, I think. Certainly inspired by the period, though...

Hi Pietro, Really need to see the foot of the bowl to start to have a better idea if it could be period...

They say a picture is worth a thousand words... Thought I'd throw a few thousand words into the conversation... #1 Shodai (Hanare-mei) Nobuie #2 Shodai Nobuie #3 Nidai (Futoji-mei) Nobuie #4 Nidai Nobuie #5 Yamasaka Kichibei #6 Yamasaka Kichibei #7 Yamasaka Kichibei #8 Meijin-Shodai Yamakichibei #9 Shodai Sadahiro #10 Shodai Hoan #11 Nidai Yamakichibei

Hmmm... "Best" is a tricky term here. Are you thinking mostly in terms of aesthetics or of more objectively practical considerations (corrosion resistance, ability to withstand blows, etc...)? Of course, these needn't be entirely mutually exclusive. For my money, while Higo metal is renowned for its aesthetic magnificence, it is the steel guards from Owari Province that impress the most. The forging, hammering, finishing, color, and patina found in works made by the early (genuine) Nobuiye, Yamakichibei, Hoan, and Sadahiro tsubako, together with early Owari sukashi and Kanayama tsuba outclasses all others (in my opinion only, of course ). In the years I've spend studying and collecting almost exclusively early steel sword guards, my conclusions on this have only become firmer. Other excellent traditions include Ko-Shoami works, as well as early Saotome and Tembo, and some of those tsuba called "Ko-Tosho" and "Ko-Katchushi," but none of these can match the best from Owari, in my view. Again, "best" is a term that needs some clarification. Without that, it's difficult to proceed with the discussion.

Greetings all, Just wanted to offer a heads-up here regarding some new listings on Elliott Long's Shibuiswords.com site. They concern a number of Yamakichibei sword guards that he is offering, some of which I used to own. Others of them passed through my hands without ever belonging to me (unfortunately) . They are worth a good look, so please check them out. None of these belong to me now, so I have no horse in the race here. If anyone would like to discuss any of these tsuba with me, I would be happy to do so. Just PM me. http://www.shibuiswords.com/tsuba.htm#yamakichibei Cheers, Steve

Really too bad. Never a problem with them. Always quick, polite correspondence, excellent service. Sigh...

Ah, yes, I hadn't scrolled down far enough to catch the dimensions. Thanks, Pietro. Yes, these dimensions are in keeping with what I would expect from an actual period bowl. Revival works usually have a smaller diameter across the rim, often 12cm or less. All considered --including photos of the rim (thanks for these, Ed) -- and working only from photos, I would say with some if not full confidence that this is a Momoyama Period work. Beautiful chawan. A couple of years ago, there was another Momoyama Kuro-Oribe chawan that went for nearly 3.5 million yen. It was spectacular. Kind of amazing they're ever available at all, really... Cheers, Steve

Hi Ed, I know the feeling. All too well. My sympathies. There was a Yamakichibei tsuba up for auction once. A really good one. I put a really good bid on it, which turned out to be laughably inadequate (it ended at over a million yen, just as this chawan did). This bowl does seem to be a worthy piece all right (would still like to see photos of the rim, though, as well as to know the dimensions, as later "homage" works are often significantly smaller than the real thing). Thanks for these extra photos. Actual Period Kuro-Oribe chawan available for acquisition are very rarely encountered, in my experience. Thanks for posting this, Ed. Cheers, Steve

Ed, Thanks for posting. Do you have any other photos of this chawan? Dimensions? I'm wondering if this is really Momoyama... Cheers, Steve

Thinking of you, Ford. Really sorry to hear this, needless to say, and wishing you the best. Very glad you're getting the attention necessary: that's not something to take lightly and brush off. And really sorry to hear of the negativity you've had to endure. Here's hoping that these weeks of rest will bring some clarity in any areas it may be sought. Cheers, mate. Steve

Nobuie. Steel. 8.2 cm. Yattsu Mokko-gata. The thickness of the tsuba swells considerably from the nakago-ana (4 mm) to the mimi (6 mm), creating an "expansive" effect to the motif, which I believe to be a stylized lotus blossom. Tsuchime-finished surface. The signature is of the type that is referred to as "Futoji-mei," attributed by most scholars to Nidai Nobuie. I do not know if the plugs are solid gold or another material with a gold sheeting applied. Momoyama Period.

...and let us remember, too: sometimes, it really is only the bath water that needs to be thrown out, rather than the baby, the soap, and the whole damn tub. :beer:

Hi Ford, Okay, well, I guess we'll just always have different requirements for our epistemological confidence about this topic. If I ever make it out your way, or you mine, we'll have to sit down over a bottle of 18-year-old something and hash this out properly! As can be seen by my ponderous posts, fora have their limitations, and given that I have a lot more speculation/circumstantial evidence than what I've scratched the surface of here, a good two- (or four-?) hour conversation, books and tsuba at the ready, is what we're primed for... Cheers

Ian, Well, two examples, both from later periods, hardly suggest that "information is [usually or even often] there in full when somebody took the trouble to look for it" to any degree where we should be suspicious about any lack of such information pertaining to 16th-century smiths. Your singular example of the armorers for the Maeda functions as the exception that proves the rule, or at least, certainly could. Think about it: there is no more illustrious name in Tsuba than Nobuie. Those two early smiths, the Hanare-mei and Futoji-mei Nobuie, represent the pinnacle of steel tsuba making in the history of Japan, with good reason. IF the "information [were] there in full [for] somebody [to take] the trouble to look for it" as concerns the "real names, dates of birth and death, where they lived...[as Ford would like]," of these two unsurpassed masters of the craft, how on earth could/would it be explained that far more information than merely real names, dates of birth and death, and where they lived wouldn't be known? There would be no other smith more deserving of such dogged and relentless inquiry, investigation, and interrogation than these Nobuie. And yet, virtually nothing is known (as fact) about them, biographically. This would seem to be the rule, not the exception: how many 16th-century tsubako do we have reams of reliable biographical information on? Are there any at all? Essentially, what we have as regards the Nobuie are their sword guards...and also critically examined, carefully considered, informed speculation that allows us to arrive at likelihoods, however tenuous or otherwise. Even the most tenuous likelihoods reached in this manner, though, are a far cry from knowing "nothing" about them. The guards themselves say A LOT. *Note: my comments about "useless speculation" were not directed toward you, Ian. Ford had implied earlier that speculation carried little if any value. Since this sentiment is incorrect, and since much of his post appears to have relied on it, I needed to refer to it again.

Ian, Running out the door here, but real quick: 1. Your first point doesn't really counter-argue my position. You say "some of the craftsmen working during the Edo period and earlier did leave...details..." Sure, no doubt. Some. During the Edo Period especially. Some does not equal most, nor of course, does it equal all. And I specifically make my points concerning PRE-Edo workers. Your Muneyasu example doesn't accomplish anything to undermine my concerns, Ian: you note that he is, "admittedly, a Bakamatsu smith." So that's 19th-century, some two hundred and fifty years plus after the period I am speaking of. I did say that post-1700, information was more plentiful and probably reliable, didn't I? I'm not sure what your Muneyasu illustration has to do with the early Nobuie smiths. It seems not to be germane to the points I was making. If anything, it helps to support them. 2. At the end, you observe that the problem of the chronology between workers who used the same name persists, saying that "[t]he only resolution of this problem would be if someone, whose dates are known, wrote about an identifiable signed tsuba." Yes, perhaps so. But when you use "resolution," you seem, too, to be speaking of arriving at 100% known fact, and would appear to be discounting anything short of that as useless speculation. This line of thinking, as I said earlier, is problematic. There is a reason that circumstantial evidence is known to convict: if you have enough of it, especially in the absence of any other reasonably plausible explanation for the existence of the evidence, probabilities may be arrived at with some confidence. And I'll say it again: PRE-EDO, much of what we understand about swords and fittings is based on informed speculation, circumstantial evidence, and logical likelihoods, if not necessities. So, sorry, Ian, but your points here don't really take away from anything I've said, as far as I can see. Cheers, Steve

Ford, I'm pretty sure we've covered this Nobuie thing in the past (though a quick search didn't turn up our dialogue on the subject). Anyway, while I like a good heretic as much as the next guy, I'm afraid your dubiousness regarding the matter of Nobuie doesn't get much traction. There are several problems with what you say above. First, your saying that you're "still waiting to see some actual evidence of whose these supposed first and second Nobuie were," followed by a plea for "[r]eal names, dates of birth and death, where they lived...anything really," is patently disingenuous, and really, you should know better. In this field of Nihonto and Tosogu, how often do we EVER know the "real names, dates of birth and death, [exactly] where [artists and smiths] lived" or much of "anything, really"? How many swordsmiths and tosogu artists, say pre-1700, could you provide that information for with confidence? And since for smiths and artists after 1700, and especially after 1800, our knowledge of such biographical information is greater and more reliable, the very lack of this information pertaining to Nobuie is suggestive of their having worked (much) earlier. Is it proof? Of course not. But it is one brick in the wall. You then go on to to ask "which mei, fat or thin, was the first and which the second." Since you say you've read all the "bits and pieces of Nobuie 'scholarship'" (why do you have "scholarship" in quotes?), "with interest and great care," I'd have expected you to arrive at the likely answer to this question. Sasano and others see the "fat mei" (Futoji-mei) Nobuie as the first because of the highly dubious criteria of "looking older" and "being more consistently excellent," both of which reasons are hopelessly subjective, AND the latter of which would have nothing to do, anyway, with establishing which man was first. It is the "thin mei" (Hanare-mei) Nobuie who is much more likely to be first. As I do not have my library handy at the moment, I cannot access the specific content in Markus Sesko's translation of Nobuie Tsuba Shu where the point is made by one scholar that the Christian iconography seen on Hanare-mei Nobuie guards is strongly suggestive both of the particular period this smith was working in, as well as his being the Shodai. The connection between Oda Nobunaga and the Nobuie name is one I have seen for a long time, and Oda was a big fan of European imports, including his tolerance/support for Christianity (even if this support had at least something to do with his being "at odds" with certain Buddhist factions). The Christian iconography we see on some Hanare-mei Nobuie tsuba would not have been permissible with the Tokugawa, of course. And since Nobunaga dies in 1582, and having been effectively in power (or some degree of it) for around 20 years while Christianity's presence is taking root, locating Hanare-mei Nobuie within that period (and beyond by perhaps a decade or two) is not unreasonable. And since we do not see many, if any, Christian motifs in the tsuba of the Futoji-mei Nobuie, this suggests his being a bit later than the Hanare-mei smith. There is more we can consider here, too. The Futoji-mei Nobuie made more guards which were similar in finish and (apparent) technique to Kanayama and Yamakichibei works (heavy tekkotsu and yakite). We don't see many such works with a Hanare-mei signature. This peculiar Owari combination of bold and dramatic tekkotsu and yakite is not only especially, if not exclusively connected with Owari, it is also a late-16th-century phenomenon, continuing into the early 17th-century, fairly convincingly connectable to Furuta Oribe's sensibilities as the Tea Master of Japan for nearly 25 years in the 1590s on to his death in 1615. Neither of the above points proves which Nobuie was first, but to ask "how anyone has divined which mei, fat or thin, was the first and which the second" is answerable, as I have just done. As to whether this answer settles the question, well, go back to my earlier point: in this field, how much pre-Edo knowledge/"knowledge" is really reliable? Which leads me to the next weak point in your post. You deride "speculation without any literary evidence" as though speculation is an utterly worthless and dubious undertaking. There are at least two problems with this line of thinking. First, there is a rather large difference between wild speculation with nothing informing such conjecture, on the one hand, and the sort of speculation that is based on legitimate scholarship leading to knowledge in relevant contextual areas (e.g. Tea culture, Christianity's presence in Japan, political associations, etc, etc, etc), which, of course, is what we have with the topic of Nobuie. You seem to be implying that speculation not only isn't a valid exercise in intellectual inquiry, but that any (tentative) conclusions pointing to probability, rather than 100% definite fact, are thereby wrong. This is illogical, and in fact points to a biased agenda informed by strong leanings toward heresy. The fact is that since much of what we do know in any field began with informed speculation (inquiry), and in particular as concerns a complicated field whose focus is often on periods dating to many centuries ago, to hold or even suggest that anything less that 100% KNOWN fact means that prevailing ideas are then LIKELY to be wrong, as you seem to be doing, is itself demonstrably wrong-headed. There is more. Your comment that "trying...to ascribe specific pieces [bearing] this label to specific individuals who are unknown and anonymous seems like a fun fantasy games worthy of theologians" is really curious: it ain't exactly rocket science to look to tie certain and idiosyncratic design, motif, construction, and finish details to a particularly-rendered mei. Isn't this how kantei is pursued? If and when we can identify specific patterns of design, construction, etc... with a mei chiseled in a particular manner, again and again, the last thing we should conclude is that we have engaged in a "fun fantasy game" with zero legitimate understandings. And with the Nobuie men, such patterns and tendencies linked with the Hanare-mei smith and the Futoji-mei smith can be seen. It is not foolproof, of course, but again, working under the assumption that anything less than 100% certainty creates so much doubt that we cannot say we can be confident of anything is an extreme approach that does not hold up well to scrutiny. Your final comment may be the most head-scratching of all, Ford. You note that "there are some tsuba with the Nobuie mei that are wondrous, and many that are just so-so, and some that are dire." Huh? Let's see, could it be, just maybe, that the "wondrous" ones are authentic early Nobuie (those with the Hanare-mei and Futoji-mei signatures), that the "so-so" ones are (the better) efforts of students and/or those looking to copy the masters, and the "dire" ones are the product of hopeless hacks? How many works carrying the name/signature of a famous artist could your words be applied to? Hundreds? Thousands? Sheesh. Seriously, Ford, your various posts casting so much doubt on Nobuie scholarship and understanding seem so driven by a biased agenda that it seems to have warped what is your usual on-point critical inquiry and frequently resulting heresy. At least two of your points above make no sense even as abstract positions, never mind in direct application to Nobuie. Since this is so unlike you, I have to wonder what is causing this.