What makes a sword a masterpiece?

[Bugyotsuji]

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2126614537572848&id=100054495068210&locale=ja_JP&http_ref=eyJ0cyI6MTc1OTkyODczMDAwMCwiciI6Imh0dHBzOlwvXC93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbVwvIn0%3D

Morimoto Naoyuki is the potter’s name.

(I don’t do f/b though…)

[Lukrez]

---

.."I felt a sense of shock from which I never recovered..."

Exactly—this is what I hoped to touch upon earlier. Call it bottom-up processing, a first-order experience, epiphany, shock, ...  or use Scotus's definition (props to Mushin—cut to the bone ); it is a visceral experience that happens to you, a unique connection between the object and the observer,  the gaze outward becomes a gaze inward ("du gleichst dem Geist den du begreifst").

 

If this can be learned, it likely comes closest to the concept of "Ishin-denshin", where the teacher acts more as a catalyst for the student, setting their process of self-understanding into motion (or elevating it to a new level). (Perhaps this was the role Darcy played for some forum members; at least, I got the impression that he was a good soul.)

 

Then, it seems to me that there is at least a second, very interesting central path of top-down processing: the study of primary and secondary literature, the field of quote assemblage, hearsay, and the translators and autistic data collectors and data enthusiasts (I have the utmost respect for them).

 

But also, and most importantly, the realm of fiction, self-worth, and the social sphere—in short, chaos. The social sphere, in my view, distinguishes the question of aesthetics (i.e., mastery) from questions about for example the essence of time or love. Aesthetics can, and often does, quickly become a socially constructed product. It can be easily manipulated and stretched.

In this regard, the social dimension in the question of what is considered beautiful seems particularly relevant in a collectivist country like Japan.

 

I would also place the following contribution here: ..."Paul relates that Albert Yamanaka held the opinion: Noda Hankei's arrogance was responsible for the blunt gracelessness of his shapes." Objective influences fade into the background, and the value of a work / a blacksmith becomes closely linked to the behavior of the social actors of the time— as well as the market, critics, curators, collectors, dealers, ...

The exchange relationships between these actors play a decisive role, as they create an informal socialization around rules, trends, and the language of the market. Such network effects, especially in Japan, play a crucial role in the development of a smith’s reputation and how it is perceived in the market, an aspect I’ve so far given too little attention to, but I hope to engage in more exchange about.

 

Specific signals, like positive evaluations by experts (the Honami family and their repeated crises of trust), protégés, peers, provenance, and familial relationships, imply a higher value. Must a sword be of higher quality just because it was owned by a famous Daimyo?

 

The status of a smith or an artwork is negotiated through such exchange processes. This means that if a blacksmith had a great need for recognition, the ability to stage himself and his skills, and gain the support of wealthy patrons, he would enter the annals of history. But the opportunities for a blacksmith to rise, cannot be seen as entirely equal or chance-driven.

 

In my opinion, it is 100% likely that there were blacksmiths who were nonconformists, obsessed with pioneering spirit, ahead of their time, uncompromisingly realizing their own visions and abilities, but who fell out  for example of favor with wealthy contemporaries, faded into obscurity, and whose works did not gain recognition because they lacked the positive influences of provenance or similar factors. The influence of actors within the social system is determined by their status, which is, in turn, affected by their interactions with associated actors. Status, thus, becomes a self-reinforcing process.

 

For many collectors and art buyers, interacting with the social system serves primarily to elevate their own status (how much status matters and self-worth is also frequently observed in our forum when the discussion quickly leaves the subject matter and becomes emotional).

 

 

 

Many interesting perspectives have been outlined so far, and I look forward to learning more. I’m eager to understand more about the technical intricacies. What are the key points in Paul R. Allman’s work?

Edited Wednesday at 04:05 PM by Lukrez

[Shugyosha]

Excellent post Lukrez. I suspect I’m completely unqualified to comment on this thread (but as usual I won’t let that stop me) as I seem to have reached a point in my life where nothing generates a feeling of awe or wonder any longer and I think any kind of masterpiece should do that.
 

Obviously that is totally subjective but I think a masterpiece in any media needs to leap above the run of the mill but I’m struggling to see anything more than “nice” at the moment.

[Jussi Ekholm]

Unfortunately I cannot identify a masterpiece amongst very good quality swords. I understand my limitations and as Reinhard wrote out so well about Japanese taste and appreciation points, I cannot achieve that understanding. I am limited to my own quite biased appreciation of swords.

 

Just looked out my sword diaries and it seems I have seen 21 National Treasures, and to me it puzzled me as I couldn't even faintly remember all of them. Out of them only 3 swords were items that I immidiately thought that I personally see as masterpieces in my personal taste. Of course I think all National Treasures are masterpieces it is just that I lack understanding and judgement to understand them fully. And many might think that of course they will the 3 ōdachi... well yes an no. I do think the mumei ōdachi attributed to Bungo Tomoyuki is extremely well made for such a huge sword but is it unique when compared to other historical ōdachi. So the 3 most remarkable National Treasures that I have personally seen so far are Tomomitsu ōdachi, Nagayoshi ōdachi and Tokuzenin Sadamune wakizashi.

 

I was also thinking about Kosetsu Samonji tachi but when I spent a lot more time looking at Jūyō Bunkazai tachi by Kanemitsu in the same room, I don't think personally I would classify it as high as the other 3 on my personal list. Fukuyama Art Museum is a crazy place, they had lent 2 of their National Treasures to another museum when I visited but they still had 5 National Treasures on display in their sword room. Now the crazy thing is that I spent about 50% of my time looking at the wonderful Kanemitsu tachi that they have in their collection, to me it was much more interesting than any of their National Treasures.

 

Another difficult thing is to judge the work among the other works of that particular smith. I saw the Daihannya Nagamitsu tachi at Tokyo National Museum this summer. It is a very good sword and definately a masterpiece but I personally cannot really judge it in comparison to other Nagamitsu tachi that I have seen. Same thing with Kanemitsu tachi that I was mentioning there above. Last summer I saw 3 Jūyō Bunkazai tachi, and in my personal appeal they were Fukuyama Art Museum item, Tokyo National Museum item, Mitsui Memorial Museum item. Even though as I said I lack understanding to differentiate items at this very high level but Mitsui Museum one might have been the best one in quality. However for me there is no comparision as the shape of Fukuyama Art Museum sword blew the other 2 JūBu Kanemitsu out of comparison for me.

 

It is also fun to see swords many years after seeing them for the first time and see if perhaps the opinion has changed. Funny thing is that I am not a big fan of Awataguchi work in general (I think it takes much higher level to appreciate), however I still remember seeing the Nakigitsune in Tokyo National Museum many years ago. I don't even remember Masamune etc. that were in the same room, just the Kuniyoshi and Kagemitsu naginata that was in their naginata spot upstairs. For fun thing at the end we can take Yoshifusa (吉房) as the smith. I have found 41 tachi by him and 4 of those are National Treasures. I have seen 5 of his tachi and 2 of the National Treasures but there is no way I could really make a meaningful point about their relative quality amongst each other. Also human perception is a funny thing and at least for me I would optimally need to see the swords side by side, as I have found out that even seeing wonderful swords by the same smith in different location during the same day my memory already fails me.

 

Also from someone with extremely heavy focus on books I can say the swords can look very different in real life at museums/shrines etc. I can even imagine how much more you could some cases see if you would have the opportunity to view the item in hand. Very valuable occasion would be to also look at the items with someone with very good eye. I was fortunate to visit few museums in Tokyo with a fellow member with very good eye for swords, I was so happy he could teach me parts where to specifically look and could offer so valuable insight I could not have gotten just viewing the swords alone. I really struggle with the high art aspect but threads like these are really valuable to learn and broaden the understanding. 

[Kantaro]

The maker not the beholder.

Edited 14 hours ago by Kantaro