gimei and the lazy genius

[Stever]

I don't disagree with that statement, but where do utsushi-mono fall if that's purely the case. Also, it seems to me that Kajibei was copying styles and workmanship, not the exact details of a single piece, which could be argued to require creativity and artistry as well. Particularly if he was able to do this with many different smiths.

 

Did Kajibei ever make blades that weren't passed off as someone else's work?

 

cheers,

/steve

[Brian]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1490

Doesn't look like there are any swords under his real name. Hence I expect none are papered to him, and his workmanship has never been judged merely on its own merits.

I expect under his own name, his swords would have had good reputation and might even have been known as a good smith in his own right.

 

Brian

 

ETA: The Index to Japanese sword literature does give some references on him, not sure if those swords refered to were under his own name or not?

[Ted Tenold]

There's a difference between a craftsman and an artist. As Jean stated, an artist has an element of individual creativity that surpasses just employing techiniques for making an object. Kajihei made a living creating not just signatures, but *works* that are difficult to detect not only in the mei, but in the work as well. The mei was the icing on the cake that sold the work as an original. So in this respect, I would offer that he was an artist in that his works are so good that they were (and still can be) very difficult to distinquish. Add the fact that he worked very competantly in the diversity of style and that solidifies his prowess. A craftsman knows what he's making when he makes it, but an artist, to a lesser extent, relies also on someone else's interpretations of the work to identify it. So if it's taken as an original by someone else, I think that says something.

 

Arguably, this kind of discussion borders on the "art is in the eye of the beholder" debate that's timeless and endless.

 

In the art world there are many examples of fakes that were so good they fooled the best of the best, and some are even *collected* as such great copies to the point that the fakes are in short supply and copies of the fakes are appearing. I offer this aritcle:

 

http://www.numismaticnews.net/article/G ... llectible/

 

Remember, these works are not just gimei, they are gisaku; made as counterfeits. Counterfeiters by nature are ambitious and a bit arrogant. So placing a little "catch-me-if you-can" is their form of signature.

 

Utsushimono on the other hand are re-creations of a work by a smith as a nod of respect and admiration, and not made in an effort to decieve. There may be some alteration afterward that changes that such as aging, removing or adding mei, or other treatment. Utsushi made to decieve are therefore gisaku. It's all about intent.

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Doesn't look like there are any swords under his real name. Hence I expect none are papered to him, and his workmanship has never been judged merely on its own merits.

 

 

Swords signed HOSODA HEIJIRÔ NAOMITSU exist. Oshigata of them can be found in the Fujishiro shinto hen and also in the shinshinto taikan by Iimura.

[Stever]

Thanks a lot, guys. Ted, that is very much the direction I was thinking in. It takes skill to make a copy, but it also takes artistry to imitate form and style as well. This is an entirely different level of fake, almost going so far as to require the faker to "be" the artist he is faking. The almost ephemeral aspects of the creation of top class nihonto would seem to make it so, in my thoughts.

 

In regards to utsushi-mono, I agree that they are done with reverence in mind; my question was more in a devils advocate mode regarding the view that copying requires no creativity. I'd like to see you say that to Ono Yoshimitsu's face!

 

cheers,

/steve

[reinhard]

Thanks, Ted, for saying all there is to say at the moment (and much better than I could).

 

This example was supposed to be, amongst other things, a reminder of our limits. There are many questions on this board about "gimei or not?" and some of the answers appear quite quickly and confident. This can be accepted when a poor gimei is crushed by undisputed evidence, but all of us should be very careful when considering a famous mei for the real thing. These swords (and tosogu) have been chased for hundreds of years in Japan by wealthy men and their sometimes highly educated advisors and many of them were faked on a level beyond hobby-expertise. - It has been said before and I would like to repeat it again: NMB can be a great help, but it is no (pre-)shinsa.

 

reinhard

[Ludolf Richter]

Hi all,there are the (very rare!) 2 vols.by Ikeda in Japanese:

Kahihei Oshigata.

The Oshigata of Kajihei Naomitsu the Famous Faker.

There are a lot of Kotetsu Mei examples,always with Shoshin Mei and Gimei, on pages 302 to 345 in the 2nd vol.with detailed explanation with shown strokes,not only the one of "our" example!Ludolf

[Ludolf Richter]

Here are three more examples from Ikeda's book.Ludolf

[Guido]

Thread pruned and re-opened - it would be a pity to have such an interesting topic locked only because of some ego issues of a certain forumite.

[reinhard]

Thank you, Ludolf, for this complementary and informative post. Would you mind telling us when Ikeda's books were written/printed? I'm asking for this in order to put his analysis in relation to Tanobe-sensei's lecture.

reinhard