Retouched carvings?
John Yamamoto-Wilson
of fine antiques, a master craftsman of Japanese Buddhist effigies
(http://www.kouundou.com/; click on the links to see examples of his work,
his tools, his way of working and also some of the antique material he deals
with).
Like a lot of Japanese people in this field, he is not troubled by concepts
of authenticity and purity. What matters to him is the actual appearance of
the pieces. Consequently, he's quite happy to take a beat-up old carving and
retouch it almost out of recognition.
I have bought several pieces from him which have *not* been retouched in any
way, but just recently I've been attracted by some statues of the
Junishinsho (the twelve gods of the zodiac). He's shown me photographs of
what they looked like before he restored them, and I'd have bought them like
a shot if he'd left them like that. However, he has retouched them. In fact,
I'd seen them before and assumed they were his own original work, and only
took a closer look the other day. They're lovely, really, but could easily
be mistaken for new.
I'm sure he knows what he's doing (after all, his family has been in this
business for many generations, though he is the last of the line), and that
he has good chances of finding Japanese buyers who will pay him a good price
for these pieces (which stand about a foot high, or perhaps a little less),
but I'm wondering how this appears to Western collectors.
Do people here consider what he's done a heinous crime that destroys the
value of the pieces? Or does the fact that they have been retouched by
someone who is practically a piece of living history himself (not an
officially-designated "living cultural treasure", but something along those
lines) give these pieces any potential value?
I'd be interested to know people's reactions. I'm just asking for people's
views *in principle* at the moment, and don't have any pictures, but I'll be
happy to provide some if responses to this posting warrant it.
T-13
-------------
Ah, the clash of cultures. I always love that stuff.
It's like the Hell's Angels meets Revenge of the Nerds.
We Westerners have predictable opinions about such things.
What one must wonder is this... what is the Oriental point of view?
T.
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> We Westerners have predictable opinions about such things.
Presumably that it's a heinous crime, destroying the authenticity and value
of the pieces, is that right?
> What one must wonder is this... what is the Oriental point of view?
I don't think there is one single "Oriental point of view". At one end of
the scale, untouched art treasures of a certain age - say the Kamakura
period (1185-1333), or that kind of vintage - are incredibly valuable; even
in poor condition, they can fetch quite high prices. At the other end of the
scale, the first time I visited a Japanese castle I was amazed to find that
it had been constructed only some twenty years previously, in exactly the
same way as the one before it, which in turn had been constructed exactly
the same as the one before that. Telling my companions that an 800-year-old
castle in England would be considered quite a youngster merely drew smiles.
This is not to say there aren't any genuinely old castles and shrines, etc.,
around; there are a few, but most have been reconstructed, either lock,
stock and barrel or piecemal over the years.
I really can't say whether some Japanese purists might be upset at what he's
done to these statues, but I think I can safely say that the majority of the
Japanese public is going to be more interested in them in their restored
state.
I frequently go to antique markets, and when I ask the price of a genuine
Edo-period statue sellers who know me will often say "three" or "five" or
"seven". On several occasions bystanders, thinking they are being helpful,
have said, "that means three/five/seven thousand yen". Of course, I and the
seller know that we're talking "man" here (the "man" is a unit of ten
thousand), but the point is that the general public consistently undervalues
items like this, and imagines the seller is asking, say, $50 for an item
that is worth $500. On the other hand, the same people cluster round stalls
that sell mass-produced imitations and novelties. And if they wanted a
Buddhist statue for their family shrine they'd pay hundreds of dollars, but
for a new one, such as Yamaguchi-san (the person in question) carves.
Yamaguchi-san has revamped his store over the past couple of years. The shop
window used to be filled with all kinds of amazing antiques but now, from
the outside, it just looks like a souvenir shop; he makes his bread and
butter from people who drop in and buy trinkets. Most of the interior's
taken up with his own work (most of which he sells by mail order or to other
retail outlets) or old pieces in tip-top condition, and the kinds of things
I'm interested in (this kind of thing:
http://rarebooksinjapan.com/Kotouhin/Buddhism1.html) are in a separate room
at the back of the shop, where very few people ever go.
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> Is this a serious question, John?
Yes; you have to realise, I know next to nothing about antiques!
> Why would this be any different to any other antique item, or
> item of antiquity, which has been "restored" or in some cases
> bastardized.
Well, OK, suppose it is no different. Would that mean it is pretty much
beyond the pale as a collectible?
> Seems to me this question of yours is no different to the
> recent thread on the discussion of pool cues.
I can think of reasons why it *might* be different, but frankly, while I did
try to follow the pool cue thread, I never did quite work out what the
answer was to the OP's original question. It seemed that there were about as
many opinions as posters, but I thought a large part of the argument
revolved around whether the refinished cues could be claimed to be
"original". The question I'm asking isn't whether these statues are
"original" - clearly they aren't - but whether they are something people
here would be likely to consider as collectible (not just in the sense that
anything can be collected, but in the sense that antique collectors collect,
if that makes any sense).
> That is, take something by the work of another
> artist (craftsman) and modify it out of all recognition. Then
> what does it become?
Well, when it comes to Japanese Buddhist statue effigies, all artists are
supposed to be working towards the same ideal; the specifications are very
clearly laid down, and the conventions (as I tried to explain in responding
to T-13) are very different from those which pertain in the West. The aim is
to *obviate* individuality, so which craftsman (or craftsmen) worked on it
is of less importance than it might be in the West.
Just to clarify, the carvings retain their original shape, but the original
colours had been lost and they have been repainted. I don't know what he's
asking for them, but we're not talking thousands of dollars per piece; I'd
imagine that the original items might have fetched around $300-$500 (but I
can't be sure since I never actually *saw* them in their untouched state),
and original craftwork of the same quality would probably fetch around the
same price. Since it was, I think, as much a labour of love as anything
else, perhaps he won't be asking much more than that but, as I say, I
haven't actually asked.
The only thing I can compare them to that I've got a picture of is this (a
beam-end advertising that the house ran a food delivery business):
http://rarebooksinjapan.com/Kotouhin/beamsign.JPG. This retains its original
colours. The pieces he retouched were in much worse condition and scarcely
had any of their colouring left.
T-13
>Well, when it comes to Japanese Buddhist statue effigies, all artists are
>supposed to be working towards the same ideal; the specifications are very
>clearly laid down, and the conventions (as I tried to explain in responding
>to T-13) are very different from those which pertain in the West. The aim is
>to *obviate* individuality, so which craftsman (or craftsmen) worked on it
>is of less importance than it might be in the West.
>
>Just to clarify, the carvings retain their original shape, but the original
>colours had been lost and they have been repainted. I don't know what he's
>asking for them, but we're not talking thousands of dollars per piece; I'd
>imagine that the original items might have fetched around $300-$500 (but I
>can't be sure since I never actually *saw* them in their untouched state),
>and original craftwork of the same quality would probably fetch around the
>same price. Since it was, I think, as much a labour of love as anything
>else, perhaps he won't be asking much more than that but, as I say, I
>haven't actually asked.
Thanks, John. I figured there would be some cultural differences.
And yet, I cannot help but seeing this through Western eyes.
OK, what if we were talking about Santos? Here's a nice pair.
http://www.butterfields.com/areas/ethnographic/7437e/detail/7437e-5159.htm
If such things are completely repainted, they lose much of their value.
They are not worthless in their new state but... durn!
Sure, you can buy some that have been "restored" for a LOT less
money. But what have you got?
T.
T-13
(stole that joke from Bartcop.com, although in our
case it might well be true) wants to read up on
Southwestern stuff, may I recommend "Hispanic Arts
& Ethnohistory in the Southwest". Abebooks has a few
used copies for like $10-15 plus shipping.
It's not bad.
T.
Andy Dingley
<mcki...@nowherenet.org> wrote:
>Why would this be any different to any other antique item, or item of
>antiquity, which has been "restored" or in some cases bastardized.
Because there's a well established Japanese tradition of demolishing
and rebuilding temples on a regular basis. In the West, and
particularly in the USA, there's a fetish for originality over all
things, even when it's now in a parlous state. The Orient has an idea
of a Platonic ideal, an underlying _idea_ of an object that's
independent of the physicality. Provided that the restoration or
reproduction is faithful (and this can be hard for a piece requiring
real skill to make), then it's equally as good as the first one made.
Look at woodblocks - many of the 19th century prints were reprinted in
the '20s and their value in Japan isn't much different from the
originals (if the block itself isn't tired), yet it's a fraction in
the West.
--
Smert' spamionam
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> Look at woodblocks - many of the 19th century prints were reprinted in
> the '20s and their value in Japan isn't much different from the
> originals (if the block itself isn't tired), yet it's a fraction in
> the West.
Thanks to everyone for their responses. An especial thanks to Andy for this
one, as it pretty much tells me what I wanted to know. It fits with what
Yamaguchi-san himself says, which is that foreigners show more interest in
his older pieces than native Japanese do, and I guess I should just carry on
being one of those foreigners, and not get sidetracked by retouched or
reprinted stuff - at least, not if I'm buying on the Japanese market. The
market in Japan for the older stuff is depressed, and that's where I can
pick up good pieces. Probably, one day, when there's precious little of the
older stuff left, the Japanese will decide that whatever's left is worth a
fortune; until then, that's what I'll be buying!
Japanese prints are a classic example of just how little I know (and, since
mistakes in that area can be very costly, I'm wary of learning the hard
way), but I was very pleased to pick this up for a pittance a couple of
weeks ago:
http://rarebooksinjapan.com/scans/Inoueprint.JPG
(actual size 34.5 cm x 23.5 cm. - about 14 x 9.5 inches - including
borders)
It's an original Tankei Inoue print, dated 1886. The seller didn't value it
because, he said, it was in very bad condition. I was delighted, when I got
home, to find from online sources that Inoue (who died at the age of 25) is
held in such high standing. I was also able to confirm the signature and
seal online; he used several different versions of his signature and several
different seals, but I found one that matched, and I found undated Inoue
prints (which I imagine are worth less) being offered by Western sellers
online at very much more than I paid for this. Admittedly, it's an unusual
Inoue print - he's famous for landscapes with a hint of French Impressionist
influence, and this one is neither of those things - but I loved it. I
especially like the way he plays with the medium - a picture within a
picture, a painting faintly visible through the rear of the canvas, etc.
I concluded from that experience that prints were potentially a very fertile
area for me to develop, with a fine array of online resources, both in
English and Japanese. Now all I have to do is find the time to track down
some more sellers with prints they're willing to part with for a low price
because (being old) they're so "tatty"!
T-13
Anyway, I checked some old Southeby's catalogs and didn't see
any old Japanese wood carvings that had been repainted.
T.
John Yamamoto-Wilson
> >>Why would this be any different to any other antique item,
> >>or item of antiquity, which has been "restored" or in some
> >>cases bastardized.
Andy Dingley replied:
> >Because there's a well established Japanese tradition of
> >demolishing and rebuilding temples on a regular basis.
To which Ronnie:
> Well then perhaps John should have posed his question in a
> Japanese woodcarving ng. Or a DIY castle building ng. Or
> here's a temple I made earlier ng.
Not at all! They would never have given me the following:
> So in the West we have a Western POV? There's a
> big surprise. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong in
> seeking out, getting as close as we possibly can to the
> originality of an object. Nothing to do with having a fetish.
> A well established Western tradition. Preferring objects
> which are in the state they are in today because of the
> passing of time etc., etc., etc., I do believe that is the
> backbone of the antiques trade and *antique* collecting
> in general.
That's what I wanted to know - whether antiques people in the West were
likely to make any concessions or adapt their approach in any way when
dealing with material from Japan. Given the different perception that
prevails in Japan I thought perhaps they might, but you have set me
straight. I will henceforth ignore people like Patricia Salmon, who is
constantly suggesting various adaptations of Japanese antiques for use as
doorknobs, lamps, flowerpots, or whatever!
> Anyways, I think John got the answer he was looking in
> your response.
All the responses were helpful. Thanks.