Oriental art
william matthews
the size of some original wood prints.
I would be most grateful for some help since I am a fine-arts invalid when
it comes to this field.....
Thanks...
Bruce Matthews
boo.ma...@worldnet.att.net
Monterey, Ca
Charles Eicher
says...
>
>Could someone that knows something about Oriental art give me some help on
>the size of some original wood prints.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Try asking a more specific question.
BTW, the currently accepted term is "Asian Art."
Erik A. Mattila
There's no 'standard' size for these things. "Oriental" is a meaningles
designation in Art History - I mean that would include anything from North
Africa to the Kamchatka Peninsula. You need to narrow it down, i.e. Chinese,
Japanese, Indonesian, Indian etc.
But as for help, you need to get to a good academic library. I would think
that the two closest to you would be UC Sta. Cruz and Stanford. Take some
polaroids of photos of the prints in question, and end up standing before the
reference librarian's desk. You know, these librarians are always sitting
around twiddling their thumbs, but they absolutely love it when a client asks
questions and they are exceedingly helpful. Anyway, what you are looking for
are print catalogs. I don't know what the most well-known for your area
(Chinese, Japanese I'm assuming) since I've only worked with European prints,
but I'm sure there are a few. Asian art has been collected in the "Occident"
(ha ha ha) for a long time now, so the foundation of 'collecting' are always
the catalogs. Anyway, that is what you are looking for. Then you may have
several volumes before you and you have to start narrowing it down. You'll
need to begin to learn how to identify the style and period and origin.
There are several neat ways to do this. Paper identification, for one. With
a lot of Asian art, of course you will be dealing with signatures and text,
even though you may not be able to read it. But there are conventions tied
to styles and periods about where the callifgaphic text might appear in the
composition etc.
Sound like a lot of work? It is, but if you love the material it is very
interesting and sustaining, like getting thoroughly engaged in a great
novel. The detective works part of it is terrific - you feel like a real
sleuth. It's so rewarding and exciting when you finally discover an identity
of a print, after several hours of frustrations. In the process you learn so
much about the printmaking practices in the period and place you're studying.
Oh, BTW, everything in the literature on measurement will be metric, so you
need to get your measurements in centemeteres. The catalogs will always give
the measurements in their listing of the print. It's a good way to determine
if you have an 'original' (pulled from the original blocks) or a
photmechanical reproduction - although there are other ways to do this.
Also, you might want to consult if you are trying to identify some prints.
The curator (s)of the Asian Art collection at the De Young in SF is probably
accessable, if you call up there. You have to remember, that curators are
always interested in 'finds' and therefore usually interested in helping to
identify art that is brought to their attention. I'm not sure what or who
there is in Montere, but you have to ask around. You might check out the Art
Historians at Cal State or the City College there, just for leads, and you
never know, you can also stumble across an expert locally.
william matthews wrote:
> Could someone that knows something about Oriental art give me some help on
> the size of some original wood prints.
Marilyn Welch
"Art in America" this month has an article on prints, print collecting
etc.
william matthews
Charles....
I have inherited some wood prints by Hokusai - at least I think they are
wood prints
The prints are in three packets of about 50 prints each. Each packet is
bound in a stiff black cover tied together with strings. The prints are on
pages 9.5" x 6.5" and they are all 7.25" x 5" with a small black border - I
assume reductions from the originals. The pages are rather yellowed. There
is a note "100 views of Fuji -1877" and indeed Mt Fuji is in all of the
pictures. Some of the pictures are double, i.e., they are 7.25" x 10" on
two facing pages.
All pictures are printed on one side of the page only. A professional told
me from the above paragraph only that they were valuable but I seriously
doubt it. I would not think that reductions from the originals would be
worth much, and I can't imagine Hokusai making wood cuts of an original size
of only 7.25 x 5.
In the same box as the set of prints above is what I believe might indeed be
a valuable set. It is a book of 45 Japanese prints where each print is
tacked in two corners to a very stiff page (so they can be removed without
damage) and each is covered with a very light tissue on which is printed
both in Japanese and English the name of the picture and the artist and a
description of the work. They are all 9" x 12" and in color. Ten have only
Japanese descriptions so that I cannot tell who the artist is but all have
the artist's mark on them. There are 27 different artists and some have
several prints. For example, Hiroshige Ando has seven - the most by any one
artist. Mitsuoki Tosa has four. There is only one by Hokusai entitled Mt
Fugi in a storm. The book has no title or index or any identifying pages
except that on the inside cover is written in pencil "To Miss Smith, Tokyo
1945." Miss Smith is the Charleston artist Miss Alice R.H. Smith. So it
would appear that it was "confiscated", shall we say, after the war. Below
the closing is a list of the artists and their works.
Finally, there is a book entitled "Chinese Color Prints from the Ten Bamboo
Hall" by Hu Cheng-yen" which has 16 10" x 12" color plates. It says it was
printed in Switzerland by the Holbein Publishing Company, Basle,
Switzerland.
All this material is in "mint" condition without tears or stains. From this
crude description can you advise me as to the general value of these
packages? I mean: are they very common or very rare I would be glad to
add any further detail that you might require. Your comments or suggestions
would be most appreciated. You asked for specifics; I hope I didn't
saturate you....
Sincerely,
Bruce Matthews
boo.ma...@worldnet.att.net
Monterey, Ca
Artists and Titles -
Hanabusa Iieho Fete Day Dance
Mitsuoki Tosa Mat Maker, A Dyer, Pattern Maker, A Blacksmith,
Carpenters
Kawamata Jogyo Street in the Evening
Moronobu Hishikawa The Stage
Morikiyo The Gay Quarters
Kunihisa Utagawa Washed Hair
Hiroshige Ando Tatsutagawa, Ueno in Iganokuni, Asakuma Mountian in
Ise Province, Takashi No Hama in Idzumi, Otokoyama, Hill in Kawachi
Shozaburo Toyoharu Ichiriusai Tajimaya Feast at a Water-side Pavilion
Hoitsu Jonin Ishiyama Temple in Omi Provence, Green
Pheasant, A Frothy Poppy
Hokusai Katsushika Mt Fuji Amidst a Storm
Kokan Shiba A Beauty
Harunobu Suzuki Beauty at Kotatsu
Wang Je-Shui Crimson Camellias
Doiku Untitled in English
Takakane Fujiwara Armour Maker
Shunsho Katsukawa The Seven Beauties
Wan Shan Chin Chung Red Flowers
Seiko Miyakawa A Jollification
Seitei Watanabe Snake Gourd
Kogyo Terasaki A Chinese Beauty
Naonobu Kano A Cock
Nobuzane Fujiwara Nakatsukasa, Sosen
Okyo Maruyama Peacock
Godoshi National Treasure: Fugen-bosatsu
Unknown (in English) Image of Kichijo-ten Godess of Happiness (8th
Century)
Unknown (in English) Portrait of Jon Daishi (10th Century)
william matthews
Thanks a million Erik; you have been most helpful. I know absolutely
nothing about this field. And because you seem really interested, please
see my description of the things in my post to Charles Eicher's response -
indeed I didn't give anyone much data.
Bruce
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <38A43874...@tomatoweb.com>...
>william matthews wrote:
>
>> Could someone that knows something about Oriental art give me some help
on
>> the size of some original wood prints.
>> I would be most grateful for some help since I am a fine-arts invalid
when
>> it comes to this field.....
>>
>> Thanks...
william matthews
Thanks Marilyn .... I'll dig one up.
Bruce
Marilyn Welch wrote in message ...
>
>"Art in America" this month has an article on prints, print collecting
>etc.
>
Erik A. Mattila
17.78 cm) is just right, double-sided. James Michener wrote a wonderful book
about Hokusai's Manga (Sketch Books) in 1958, and it even has an insert showing
the appearance of the original editions. Look's like they're worth about a
hundred bucks apiece. Not too shabby. However, if you have a full set of the
"100 Views of Fuji," which is a very famous series, I think they would be worth
considerably more. There's some confusion about this, though, as his "36 views
of Fuji" is often cited. These prints tend to be bigger, around 7.25 x 10
inches. But his Manga was quite a large body of work. I suspect the '100
views' may be from this series (If there actually is a hundred views series,
that is). To make things worse, Hiroshige also has his "36 views of Fuji"
which I have heard called "100 views..." It may be a Japanese idiom - "100"
meaning 'many.'
Hokusai Sketchbooks Selections from the Manga
by James A. Michener (Editor)
Hardcover (December 1958)
Charles E Tuttle Co; ISBN: 0804802521 ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.33 x 10.38 x
6.81
If you want to view some on the web, here's a good site.
http://www.harding-giannini.com/hokusai_manga/index.htm
You'll probably find some that you have. There are also some other texts cited
on this web site.
Take a look at the SF Museum's Art Data base - there's 204 Hokusai's displayed
there, and they have a wonderful 'zoom-in' feature that you can get a good look
with. http://www.thinker.org/imagebase/index.html
Hokusai lived from 1760 until 1849, so 1877 would be 28 years after his death.
If this date you have is accurate, it is likely the prints were from his
blocks. Quite a bit of his work was published posthumously. Since then, there
have been more editions, as late as 1990, but I'm not sure about the value of
these.
I would say it is very likely you have some very valuable works of art. I
think you should pursue it - and along the way you should think about proper
conservation also.
Good luck,
Erik Mattila
william matthews wrote:
Charles Eicher
says...
>
>
>Charles....
>
>I have inherited some wood prints by Hokusai - at least I think they are
>wood prints
>The prints are in three packets of about 50 prints each. Each packet is
>bound in a stiff black cover tied together with strings. The prints are on
>pages 9.5" x 6.5" and they are all 7.25" x 5" with a small black border - I
>assume reductions from the originals. The pages are rather yellowed. There
>is a note "100 views of Fuji -1877" and indeed Mt Fuji is in all of the
>pictures. Some of the pictures are double, i.e., they are 7.25" x 10" on
>two facing pages.
I'm quite familiar with the Hokusai series in question, but are you sure it
isn't "36 views of Fuji"..? I guess there were a couple series of Fuji. There is
a "100 views of Edo" and a lot of them have images of Fuji, perhaps the note was
mislabeled. I'm not quite sure what you've got there. I'd have to research it.
I've seen so much Hokusai that I sorta turn a blind eye to it lately.
Hokusai worked in a lot of weird formats, but mostly in painting. The government
passed laws that regulated the size of sheets of paper for printing, so almost
all ukiyo-e are exactly the same size. Most of the Hokusai prints I've seen are
about 10x14 inches. Larger prints tend to be printed on multiple sheets, i.e.
dyptich or tryptich. I recall seeing some works bound in folios, but my
recollection is vague.
I would suspect these are reproductions. However, it is possible that they are
quite valuable, as you say they are yellowing and they are probably quite old.
The question is, are they 50 years old, or 150 years old? I would have them
appraised by a professional.
>In the same box as the set of prints above is what I believe might indeed be
>a valuable set. It is a book of 45 Japanese prints where each print is
>tacked in two corners to a very stiff page (so they can be removed without
>damage) and each is covered with a very light tissue on which is printed
>both in Japanese and English the name of the picture and the artist and a
>description of the work. They are all 9" x 12" and in color. Ten have only
>Japanese descriptions so that I cannot tell who the artist is but all have
>the artist's mark on them. There are 27 different artists and some have
>several prints. For example, Hiroshige Ando has seven - the most by any one
>artist. Mitsuoki Tosa has four. There is only one by Hokusai entitled Mt
>Fugi in a storm. The book has no title or index or any identifying pages
>except that on the inside cover is written in pencil "To Miss Smith, Tokyo
>1945." Miss Smith is the Charleston artist Miss Alice R.H. Smith. So it
>would appear that it was "confiscated", shall we say, after the war. Below
>the closing is a list of the artists and their works.
Hmm.. Its possible that these were printed for the "tourist trade" (so to speak)
or for presentation. Most of these reproductions aren't just cheapo offset
lithography, but are "original" woodblock print copies, minor artworks in their
own right.
>Finally, there is a book entitled "Chinese Color Prints from the Ten Bamboo
>Hall" by Hu Cheng-yen" which has 16 10" x 12" color plates. It says it was
>printed in Switzerland by the Holbein Publishing Company, Basle,
>Switzerland.
I couldn't even guess, Chinese art isn't my specialty.
>All this material is in "mint" condition without tears or stains. From this
>crude description can you advise me as to the general value of these
>packages? I mean: are they very common or very rare
I couldn't even hazard a guess without seeing them in person. There's a lot of
Hokusai material, and it varies in quality and value. I've even seen two
authentic Hokusai prints from the same blocks, one is an early print and is
crisp and beautiful, the other is a later print, the woodblock is degrading and
the print looks terrible, almost worthless.
I'd suspect that the buyers for these materials are in the antiquarian book
market, and many books of this type are quite valuable. A good appraiser could
look at the printing quality and overall desirability and assess this easily.
Sorry I can't be more specific.
Charles Eicher
>
>Hey, Bruce -- you have some of Hokusai's Manga prints.
Nope, ukiyo-e, not manga. The "manga" were a specific series of works, not
related to this series. They are typically caricatures of people and animals in
a sketchbook, not Hokusai's famous scenic views.
>Yep, 5" x 7" (12.7 x
>17.78 cm) is just right, double-sided.
Nope, that's a 50% reproduction. Ukiyo-e were typically about 25x35cm. Go look
at some of the authenticated originals from this series at:
http://search.famsf.org/4d.acgi$Search?list&=1&=hokusai%20&=and&=Yes&=&=&=&=
You can easily sort on the series by entering Artist=Hokusai, keyword=fuji. Note
the dimensions, which are typically around 25x35 cm.
> However, if you have a full set of the
>"100 Views of Fuji," which is a very famous series, I think they would be worth
>considerably more.
A complete set of this series, in mint condition would be worth a fortune.
Half-size reproductions are of indeterminate value.
>There's some confusion about this, though, as his "36 views
>of Fuji" is often cited. These prints tend to be bigger, around 7.25 x 10
>inches.
Still off by 50%.
>Hokusai lived from 1760 until 1849, so 1877 would be 28 years after his death.
>If this date you have is accurate, it is likely the prints were from his
>blocks. Quite a bit of his work was published posthumously. Since then, there
>have been more editions, as late as 1990, but I'm not sure about the value of
>these.
It was quite common for descendants (real or imagined) to take the name of a
famous artist and print in a related genre. But the demand for works by famous
artists was huge, and even within their lifetimes, forgers would often appear.
I've seen ukiyo-e with printed messages begging the buyer to insist on authentic
works by the original artist only..
It was quite rare for prints to be struck from original woodblocks after an
ukiyo-e artist died, as the blocks were very soft and tended to wear out after
only one edition. Some artists even cut holes in the woodblock and replaced
sections that wore out before the edition was finished. Copy blocks from an
orignal print are not hard to make. That's how the prints were made in the first
place, transferred from a drawing to a block.
Bogdan Tudose
Charles Eicher wrote:
> In article <YaGo4.3854$%M5.7...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "william
> says...
> >
> >Could someone that knows something about Oriental art give me some help on
> >the size of some original wood prints.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about. Try asking a more specific question.
>
> BTW, the currently accepted term is "Asian Art."
Well, as long as anyone understands what it means, I see no reason one should use
so-called "currently accepted terms"; but then The Committee for the Creation
of Currently Accepted Terms would be out of business...
Bogdan
Erik A. Mattila
In article <38A52DC8...@tomatoweb.com>, "Erik says...
>
>Hey, Bruce -- you have some of Hokusai's Manga prints.
Nope, ukiyo-e, not manga. The "manga" were a specific series of works, not
related to this series. They are typically caricatures of people and animals in
a sketchbook, not Hokusai's famous scenic views.
Nonsense, Charles. "ukiyo-e" is merely a genre name, literally 'pictures of the common world' which became jargonized into 'pictures of the floating world' refering to the sensuality of 17th-18th century Edo popular culture. I guess it's comparable in some ways to the French Barbizon painters 'revolution' in painting French peasants in the backgrould of the lofty neo-classicism of the academy. Much older though, having found its way from China to Japan in the 17th century. All it really means is art that is available to commoners, as opposed to the refined taste of Japanese royalty. Something as 'vulgar' as Hokusai's 'mangwa' is certainly 'ukiyo-e' - although Western print collectors may have a different definition of the term in mind. Also, the mangwa publications (there were many) typically included senic landscapes as well as people, mythological characters, animals, architecture, patterns, and whatever. "Typically'" there is about everything imaginable there.
>Yep, 5" x 7" (12.7 x
>17.78 cm) is just right, double-sided.
Nope, that's a 50% reproduction. Ukiyo-e were typically about 25x35cm. Go look
at some of the authenticated originals from this series at:
Well, you can't say this based on Bruce's description of his prints. The only hard info he gave was the size, 5 x 7, which happens to be the size that the mangwa was published in. You are assuming that these belong to the "36 views of Fuji" series, which hasn't been determined. But you're right about the sizes of this series, but you're dead wrong to assume that 'ukiyo-e' has any standard sizes. But it's beside the point, since what I was responding to was Bruce's statement that if they are 5 x 7 they must be reproductions of originals, which is obvously not true, since this small size was in fact a common publishing format in Edo.
http://search.famsf.org/4d.acgi$Search?list&=1&=hokusai%20&=and&=Yes&=&=&=&=You can easily sort on the series by entering Artist=Hokusai, keyword=fuji. Note
the dimensions, which are typically around 25x35 cm.
> However, if you have a full set of the
>"100 Views of Fuji," which is a very famous series, I think they would be worth
>considerably more.
A complete set of this series, in mint condition would be worth a fortune.
Half-size reproductions are of indeterminate value.
You know, after looking on the web a bit, I seriously doubt if there is a "100 Views of Fuji" series. Definitely "36 Views of Fuji" but now I'm even doubting that there are actually 36 views - probably more. I think it was a publisher's convention to evoke these titles - and I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers "36" and "100" have some special significance in Japanese culture. I'm only guessing, though, but it would make an interesting research. I did see reference to some series such as "100 Stations of So and So" and the print shows 7 people, and "100 Sayings of a WenNurse" and the print shows people walking up a trail to a city, so obviously the reference is to some cultural material.
>There's some confusion about this, though, as his "36 views
>of Fuji" is often cited. These prints tend to be bigger, around 7.25 x 10
>inches.
He, he he. I was looking on the web after reading Bruce's post, and the first example of Hokusai's "Fugi" depictions was 18.3 x 25.4 cm. So I jumped to conclusions.I have to concede that point to you, the trend seems to be in the range you're suggesting.Still off by 50%.
>Hokusai lived from 1760 until 1849, so 1877 would be 28 years after his death.
>If this date you have is accurate, it is likely the prints were from his
>blocks. Quite a bit of his work was published posthumously. Since then, there
>have been more editions, as late as 1990, but I'm not sure about the value of
>these.
It was quite common for descendants (real or imagined) to take the name of a
famous artist and print in a related genre. But the demand for works by famous
artists was huge, and even within their lifetimes, forgers would often appear.
I've seen ukiyo-e with printed messages begging the buyer to insist on authentic
works by the original artist only..It was quite rare for prints to be struck from original woodblocks after an
ukiyo-e artist died, as the blocks were very soft and tended to wear out after
only one edition. Some artists even cut holes in the woodblock and replaced
sections that wore out before the edition was finished. Copy blocks from an
orignal print are not hard to make. That's how the prints were made in the first
place, transferred from a drawing to a block.
I think you're wrong about this, Charles. It seems it was a common practice to reprint from the original blocks, which were typically a hard, durable wood like Cherry. Here, try this one out:
http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/art/notacq93.html
.."Katsushika, Hokusai. Hokusai Manga: the sketchbooks of Hokusai. New
York: Weatherhill, 1994.
15 v. Art Locked Stacks,
Small NE1325.K2A4 1993
From 1814 to 1878 the sketchbooks of the Japanese artist Hokusai (1760-1849)
were published in the form of wood engravings. 3,190 drawings were represented
on 1300 cherry wood
blocks. (The Stanford University Libraries' Department of Special Collections
has a few of these prints from the original edition.) This reprint edition,
made with the original blocks and
on special handmade paper, is an excellent facsimile of the 19th-century
set."...
But look, we're not dealing with artists making prints here, anyway. These are the productions of an industry engaged in mass production. Popular titles were published in editions of thousands - whatever the market will bear. Artist's didn't make prints, or even carve the blocks - it was all team work directed at the mass consumption of popular imagry.
Charles Eicher
>
>Charles, Eicher wrote:
>
>> In article <38A52DC8...@tomatoweb.com>, "Erik says...
>> >
>> >Hey, Bruce -- you have some of Hokusai's Manga prints.
>>
>> Nope, ukiyo-e, not manga. The "manga" were a specific series of works, not
>>related to this series. They are typically caricatures of people and animals in
>> a sketchbook, not Hokusai's famous scenic views.
>
>Nonsense, Charles. "ukiyo-e" is merely a genre name, literally 'pictures of the
>common world' which became jargonized into 'pictures of the floating world'
>refering to the sensuality of 17th-18th century Edo popular culture.
You have that backwards, it literally means "pictures of the floating world." I
don't know why you are disputing me, perhaps you're not aware that I'm fluent in
Japanese, and I've studied this subject extensively (from Japanese-language
materials too), I know the precise meaning of these terms.
"Hokusai's manga" is a specific term for a specific series of prints and
paintings. His manga are ukiyo-e, but not all his ukiyo-e are manga.
>..Something as 'vulgar' as Hokusai's 'mangwa' is certainly
>'ukiyo-e' - although Western print collectors may have a different definition of
>the term in mind.
These terms and classifications come from Japanese. I don't know where you got
ahold of "mangwa," there isn't even a "gwa" phoneme in the Japanese language.
>You know, after looking on the web a bit, I seriously doubt if there is a "100
>Views of Fuji" series. Definitely "36 Views of Fuji" but now I'm even doubting
>that there are actually 36 views - probably more.
There are actually 54 prints in the Fuji series, if memory serves.
> I think it was a publisher's
>convention to evoke these titles - and I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers
>"36"
>and "100" have some special significance in Japanese culture. I'm only
>guessing,
>though, but it would make an interesting research. I did see reference to some
>series such as "100 Stations of So and So" and the print shows 7 people, and
>"100
>Sayings of a WenNurse" and the print shows people walking up a trail to a city,
>so
>obviously the reference is to some cultural material.
There are plenty of cultural references, like "hyakunin isshu" (100 poems by 100
poets) but in this case, I think the note-taker mistook the title from the "100
views of Edo" series. The querent said the title was written in English on a
handwritten note. A perfectly understandable error, if I understand the
provenance of these materials, originating with a "Miss Smith" who was studying
Asian Art in postwar Japan.
>> >There's some confusion about this, though, as his "36 views
>> >of Fuji" is often cited. These prints tend to be bigger, around 7.25 x 10
>> >inches.
>>
>> Still off by 50%.
>
>He, he he. I was looking on the web after reading Bruce's post, and the first
>example of Hokusai's "Fugi" depictions was 18.3 x 25.4 cm. So I jumped to
>conclusions.I have to concede that point to you, the trend seems to be in the
>range
>you're suggesting.
You obviously didn't read my other note. Starting in the Tokugawa era, ukiyo-e
printing was strictly censored and regulated, due to the Shogun's intolerance of
a new genre of political satire in early ukiyo-e. As part of these regulations,
the size of printing paper was strictly regulated. Those stamps you see on
ukiyo-e prints aren't just the seal of the artist, there are secondary stamps
from the printing studios, where the edition was approved and certified to
adhere to all regulations.
This was an era where the Government issued many oppressive laws, they even
decreed what colors of clothing you could wear at specific times of year. The
lives of the Edo merchants were strictly controlled by the samurai class, as a
measure of revenge for the merchant class ursurping the economic power of the
military.
>> It was quite rare for prints to be struck from original woodblocks after an
>>ukiyo-e artist died, as the blocks were very soft and tended to wear out after
>> only one edition. Some artists even cut holes in the woodblock and replaced
>> sections that wore out before the edition was finished. Copy blocks from an
>>orignal print are not hard to make. That's how the prints were made in the first
>> place, transferred from a drawing to a block.
>
>I think you're wrong about this, Charles. It seems it was a common practice to
>reprint from the original blocks, which were typically a hard, durable wood like
>Cherry. Here, try this one out:
>
>http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/art/notacq93.html
I'm familiar with that edition. It was condemned amongst contemporary ukiyo-e
artists in Japan as an exploitation of Hokusai's work, and it was denounced for
its poor quality. Many of the blocks had to be recreated, as they were damaged
or lost.
I assure you it is quite uncommon to reprint from older blocks. But under
economic pressure for more prints from the most popular ukiyo-e artist, people
will do anything for a buck. I assure you that it is almost unheard of to
reprint from old blocks, this case being a rare exception.
As to the durability of the block, it just isn't so. I've inspected woodblocks
with inserts that replaced worn sections of the block with newly carved
sections. It was quite common for an edition to be stalled in production when a
plate would be damaged during production, and the damaged parts were redone. The
finer the work, the more likely the plate would sustain damage.
>But look, we're not dealing with artists making prints here, anyway. These are
>the
>productions of an industry engaged in mass production. Popular titles were
>published in editions of thousands - whatever the market will bear. Artist's
>didn't make prints, or even carve the blocks - it was all team work directed at
>the
>mass consumption of popular imagry.
One of the reasons why paper sizes were standardized was because old prints that
were out of fashion (which happened quite quickly) were recycled into new paper,
old prints were collected in the tens of thousands, it was a lot easier to
collect uniform bundled units of old paper. The blocks were typically reused
too, the old artwork being planed down, and a fresh, blank surface was created.
Erik A. Mattila
Charles Eicher wrote:
> In article <38A72CC2...@tomatoweb.com>, "Erik says...
> >
> >Charles, Eicher wrote:
> >
> >> In article <38A52DC8...@tomatoweb.com>, "Erik says...
> >> >
> >> >Hey, Bruce -- you have some of Hokusai's Manga prints.
> >>
> >> Nope, ukiyo-e, not manga. The "manga" were a specific series of works, not
> >>related to this series. They are typically caricatures of people and animals in
> >> a sketchbook, not Hokusai's famous scenic views.
> >
> >Nonsense, Charles. "ukiyo-e" is merely a genre name, literally 'pictures of the
> >common world' which became jargonized into 'pictures of the floating world'
> >refering to the sensuality of 17th-18th century Edo popular culture.
>
> You have that backwards, it literally means "pictures of the floating world." I
> don't know why you are disputing me, perhaps you're not aware that I'm fluent in
> Japanese, and I've studied this subject extensively (from Japanese-language
> materials too), I know the precise meaning of these terms.
How would I know that you are fluent in Japanese? And why would that make any
difference anyway? You said "ukiyo, not manga" and I was disputing that by saying
'ukiyo' is a general term, which includes 'mangwa' -so it's like saying, when we see
a frog, that it's not a frog because it's an animal. But you agree below that
mangwa is ukiyo-e.Viola, we have our semantic hierarchies straightened out a bit.
Dang, Charles, you keep saying I have things backwards. I'm a real novice at these
things Japanese, but I can read and comprehend. Now look at
http://triton.towson.edu/~jdarca1/history.htm and read the interesting text --
.."There have been many changes in those two and a half centuries, including the
meaning of the name, Ukiyo-e, itself.
Around the seventeenth century, the daimyos (or lords) and their samurai were
required to spend time in Edo (today’s
Tokyo), stimulating the entertainment and recreation industry. Edo quickly became
the economic and political center of
Japan. This way of life was referred to as the "floating world" and the word Ukiyo
changed to this from its original
meaning, "sad world". The "floating world" was one of transient pleasures and
freedom from the cares and concerns of
the world. Thus, the word Ukiyo-e, or "pictures of the floating world", obtained its
current meaning. "...
Of course a lift from a web page, even at a university, is not an 'authority' in and
of itself. But a peek at an English-Japanese on-line dictionary that I found that
would work gives these three translations for 'ukiyo':
ukiyo sad world
ukiyo the world, life, this transient world
ukiyo this world, transient life, fleeting life
"floating." on the other hand...
floating = fuwatto, furo-tingu, fudou
floating (in the air) = fuyou
So when you say "you've got it backwards" ( the 'it' being the historical change in
the sense 'meaning' of the term) and back it up with a boast about expertise in
precise meanings of terms, you are talking about apples and oranges. I'm talking
about literal versus figural meanings, not about precision of meaning. "Precise"
meaning can be atributes of either case - as one would be foolish to think that
someone who uses the words figuratively 'means' something different that one who uses
the words literally. Both usages refer to the same thing - i.e. the various works of
art, including Kabuki and fan art, that was popular in an historical period. The
point I was originally making was of course that the term 'ukiyo-e' is very general
and not a term one would use to distinguish between the various popular arts of Edo
culture.
So you are exactly incorrect, I haven't got it backwards at all. You are also sort
of incorrect that I'm disputing you. I'm merely defending myself. If you'll review
you will see that you are in fact disputing me, in terms of initiative. I don't mind
this - it makes for a good argument.
> "Hokusai's manga" is a specific term for a specific series of prints and
> paintings. His manga are ukiyo-e, but not all his ukiyo-e are manga.
>
> >..Something as 'vulgar' as Hokusai's 'mangwa' is certainly
> >'ukiyo-e' - although Western print collectors may have a different definition of
> >the term in mind.
>
> These terms and classifications come from Japanese. I don't know where you got
> ahold of "mangwa," there isn't even a "gwa" phoneme in the Japanese language.
Unlike you, I know next to nothing about the Japanese language. But I saw the term
spelled that way on some Japanese web sites, and it sounded good to me. Here, check
it out.
http://www.uragami.co.jp/hokusai_mangwa/info/main-E.html (Tokyo gallery)
http://antique.dealers-on-line.com/barrydavies/cata_5.html (London art dealer)
http://www.aplink.co.jp/synapse/Nippon_Asia/dickins.htm (another Japan site - looks
like a book dealer - citing the "Collected Works of Frederick Victor Dickins" who
apparently was the first to do a scholarly study on Hokusai).
.."The Mangwa of Hokusai. Katsushika Hokusai: A Biography from the Jimmei-Jisho. The
Prefaces to the Mangwa. The Contents of the MangwaÅf Trans. and Proceed. of the Japan
Society, London vol. 6, pt. 3"...
http://www.harrisauction.com/cat0214.html (Harris Auction Galleries - has several
pages from the "Mangwa" for sale. )
http://www.nvva.nl/hotei/cat15.htm (a Dutch Ukiyo-e dealer offering "Mangwa" among
it's inventory).
http://www.artcom.com/museums/nv/af/93703-99.htm (Fresno Art Museum)
Actually, I get better returns on the search sites using 'mangwa' instead of 'manga.'
But I couldn't find the term in my handy-dandy online dictionary, so there are a few
possibilities One is that it is an archaic form, and the art world wants to
distinguish Hokusai's work from 'manga' (comic books). I guess another is all these
web site authors are wrong, but that's a bit too much to consider. What puzzles me,
in view of your stated expertise, that you wouldn't have been aware that many do
spell the term "mangwa."
>
> >You know, after looking on the web a bit, I seriously doubt if there is a "100
> >Views of Fuji" series. Definitely "36 Views of Fuji" but now I'm even doubting
> >that there are actually 36 views - probably more.
>
> There are actually 54 prints in the Fuji series, if memory serves.
>
> > I think it was a publisher's
> >convention to evoke these titles - and I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers
> >"36"
> >and "100" have some special significance in Japanese culture. I'm only
> >guessing,
> >though, but it would make an interesting research. I did see reference to some
> >series such as "100 Stations of So and So" and the print shows 7 people, and
> >"100
> >Sayings of a WenNurse" and the print shows people walking up a trail to a city,
> >so
> >obviously the reference is to some cultural material.
>
> There are plenty of cultural references, like "hyakunin isshu" (100 poems by 100
> poets) but in this case, I think the note-taker mistook the title from the "100
> views of Edo" series. The querent said the title was written in English on a
> handwritten note. A perfectly understandable error, if I understand the
> provenance of these materials, originating with a "Miss Smith" who was studying
> Asian Art in postwar Japan.
Well, I know that in Vietnamese culture special significance are assigned to
numbers. "35" is the number for "Con G(j)e" (Goat) which has all sorts of sexual
significance. But you know, I have heard the title "100 views of Fuji" many times
from other places. I remember this because I never was able to find actually
representations for this alleged series - it was always "36 views..." so it's
something that has been in the back of my mind for several years.
> >> >There's some confusion about this, though, as his "36 views
> >> >of Fuji" is often cited. These prints tend to be bigger, around 7.25 x 10
> >> >inches.
> >>
> >> Still off by 50%.
> >
> >He, he he. I was looking on the web after reading Bruce's post, and the first
> >example of Hokusai's "Fugi" depictions was 18.3 x 25.4 cm. So I jumped to
> >conclusions.I have to concede that point to you, the trend seems to be in the
> >range
> >you're suggesting.
>
> You obviously didn't read my other note. Starting in the Tokugawa era, ukiyo-e
> printing was strictly censored and regulated, due to the Shogun's intolerance of
> a new genre of political satire in early ukiyo-e. As part of these regulations,
> the size of printing paper was strictly regulated. Those stamps you see on
> ukiyo-e prints aren't just the seal of the artist, there are secondary stamps
> from the printing studios, where the edition was approved and certified to
> adhere to all regulations.
> This was an era where the Government issued many oppressive laws, they even
> decreed what colors of clothing you could wear at specific times of year. The
> lives of the Edo merchants were strictly controlled by the samurai class, as a
> measure of revenge for the merchant class ursurping the economic power of the
> military.
Sure, I read your note. But what am I to do when I see that there are prints
catalogued that are many different sizes. Maybe Edo Blackmarket smut, eh? I've also
read about the bureaucratic intrusions form other sources. But it's pretty obvious
you can't use the size criteria to identify forgeries or later 'reproduced'editions.
Why would a forger forge prints of different sizes if she/he was intent on
representing them as 'original,' or even a legitimate publisher who openly does a
reprint.
> >> It was quite rare for prints to be struck from original woodblocks after an
> >>ukiyo-e artist died, as the blocks were very soft and tended to wear out after
> >> only one edition. Some artists even cut holes in the woodblock and replaced
> >> sections that wore out before the edition was finished. Copy blocks from an
> >>orignal print are not hard to make. That's how the prints were made in the first
> >> place, transferred from a drawing to a block.
> >
> >I think you're wrong about this, Charles. It seems it was a common practice to
> >reprint from the original blocks, which were typically a hard, durable wood like
> >Cherry. Here, try this one out:
> >
> >http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/art/notacq93.html
>
> I'm familiar with that edition. It was condemned amongst contemporary ukiyo-e
> artists in Japan as an exploitation of Hokusai's work, and it was denounced for
> its poor quality. Many of the blocks had to be recreated, as they were damaged
> or lost.
> I assure you it is quite uncommon to reprint from older blocks. But under
> economic pressure for more prints from the most popular ukiyo-e artist, people
> will do anything for a buck. I assure you that it is almost unheard of to
> reprint from old blocks, this case being a rare exception.
> As to the durability of the block, it just isn't so. I've inspected woodblocks
> with inserts that replaced worn sections of the block with newly carved
> sections. It was quite common for an edition to be stalled in production when a
> plate would be damaged during production, and the damaged parts were redone. The
> finer the work, the more likely the plate would sustain damage.
So what kind of numbers are we talking about? I haven't really ran across anything
on the web about this, other than one site making the observation that it was
whatever the market will bear. It looks to me like we're talking about runs in the
thousands, at any rate. The European plates held up very well, all things
considered. Many series of woodblocks were re-sold to other publishers - I've
studied one set of illustrations by Schaufelein that were reprinted four different
times by four different publishers, the last in Prague. I couldn't study the
watermarks (since the curator wouldn't let me put a light to the prints) but careful
examination of plate wear indicated to me that I was looking at either the third or
fourth edition). These were carved on the end-grain, which is the best direction to
resist the press pressure. Did the Japanese use end-grain plates also? My
recollection is that they don't, but I've never really looked into it too deeply.
> >But look, we're not dealing with artists making prints here, anyway. These are
> >the
> >productions of an industry engaged in mass production. Popular titles were
> >published in editions of thousands - whatever the market will bear. Artist's
> >didn't make prints, or even carve the blocks - it was all team work directed at
> >the
> >mass consumption of popular imagry.
>
> One of the reasons why paper sizes were standardized was because old prints that
> were out of fashion (which happened quite quickly) were recycled into new paper,
> old prints were collected in the tens of thousands, it was a lot easier to
> collect uniform bundled units of old paper. The blocks were typically reused
> too, the old artwork being planed down, and a fresh, blank surface was created.
That makes sense to me. But why the government size restrictions? Taxation?
Erik Mattila
Charles Eicher
>
>Charles Eicher wrote:
>
>How would I know that you are fluent in Japanese?
Because I said so many times?
>And why would that make any
>difference anyway?
Because anyone who reads Japanese would see the kanji for "ukiyo-e" and
immediately see the kanji for uki (floating, from the verb ukaberu, to float) yo
(world) e (picture). It reads "floating world picture."
>You said "ukiyo, not manga" and I was disputing that by saying
>'ukiyo' is a general term, which includes 'mangwa' -so it's like saying, when we
>see
>a frog, that it's not a frog because it's an animal.
No, its like seeing a frog and calling it a horse. You've misidentified the
subgenre.
>So you are exactly incorrect, I haven't got it backwards at all.
Nope, you've misidentified these prints as manga, and they aren't. If you take
any Hokusai print from these series of views to an expert and call them manga,
they'll immediately know that you know virtually nothing of this subject.
>You are also sort
>of incorrect that I'm disputing you. I'm merely defending myself. If you'll
>review
>you will see that you are in fact disputing me, in terms of initiative. I don't
>mind
>this - it makes for a good argument.
I'm sick of idiots that like to argue, despite their almost complete lack of
knowledge of the subject. You were wrong about the standard dimensions of
prints, and you're wrong about everything else too. Give up. You're just arguing
because you like the sound of your own voice.
>>These terms and classifications come from Japanese. I don't know where you got
>> ahold of "mangwa," there isn't even a "gwa" phoneme in the Japanese language.
>
>Unlike you, I know next to nothing about the Japanese language. But I saw the
>term
>spelled that way on some Japanese web sites, and it sounded good to me. Here,
>check
>it out.
>
[snip]
> - citing the "Collected Works of Frederick Victor Dickins" who
>apparently was the first to do a scholarly study on Hokusai).
>.."The Mangwa of Hokusai. Katsushika Hokusai: A Biography from the Jimmei-Jisho.
>The
>Prefaces to the Mangwa. The Contents of the MangwaĹf Trans. and Proceed. of the
>Japan
>Society, London vol. 6, pt. 3"...
A persistent error, apparently. This shows the obvious problem of studying from
non-native materials. They used to transliterate "nippon" as "ziapang" but that
doesn't make it an accurate transliteration.
>What puzzles me,
>in view of your stated expertise, that you wouldn't have been aware that many do
>spell the term "mangwa."
Never seen it, not even once. I read Japanese materials almost exclusively. Why
would I read secondary sources from people who don't even understand Japanese?
>>You obviously didn't read my other note. Starting in the Tokugawa era, ukiyo-e
>>printing was strictly censored and regulated, due to the Shogun's intolerance of
>>a new genre of political satire in early ukiyo-e. As part of these regulations,
>> the size of printing paper was strictly regulated. Those stamps you see on
>> ukiyo-e prints aren't just the seal of the artist, there are secondary stamps
>> from the printing studios, where the edition was approved and certified to
>> adhere to all regulations.
>> This was an era where the Government issued many oppressive laws, they even
>> decreed what colors of clothing you could wear at specific times of year. The
>>lives of the Edo merchants were strictly controlled by the samurai class, as a
>> measure of revenge for the merchant class ursurping the economic power of the
>> military.
>
>Sure, I read your note. But what am I to do when I see that there are prints
>catalogued that are many different sizes. Maybe Edo Blackmarket smut, eh?
Many prints have been trimmed down from their original sizes, to get rid of
frayed edges and other damage.
>I've also
>read about the bureaucratic intrusions form other sources. But it's pretty
>obvious
>you can't use the size criteria to identify forgeries or later
>'reproduced'editions.
You most certainly can. If Hokusai only produced the "views of Fuji" series in
one size, and these prints aren't that size, they are reproductions. Its the
most common way that curators use to deterine forgeries, to examine the support.
For example, some Matisse forgeries were recently identified because they were
painted on linen that had a different thread count than canvas available in
Matisse's day.
>The European plates held up very well, all things
>considered. Many series of woodblocks were re-sold to other publishers - I've
>studied one set of illustrations by Schaufelein that were reprinted four
>different
>times by four different publishers, the last in Prague.
I assume you're talking about Western woodblocks, not Japanese. The blocks I've
examined (including modern blank blocks at art stores) seemed to be running the
length of the board, not endgrain. But I'd have to check. The old plates I've
seen tend to be warped along the longest dimension, which should follow the long
grain. Seems to me that you can get more good long-grain blocks out of a log
than endgrain. Probably some plates were done on endgrain, but only for finely
detailed works.
>But why the government size restrictions? Taxation?
These sheets of paper were used for everything, including book printing, which
used these standard sheets folded in half and bound in an "accordion fold." It
was mostly intended to standardize the size of books. Some of those archaic book
sizes are still used in Japan, but they've mostly moved to metric sizes.
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <38A7D323...@tomatoweb.com>, "Erik says...
> >
> >Charles Eicher wrote:
> >
> >How would I know that you are fluent in Japanese?
>
> Because I said so many times?
Sorry, I haven't read this until now. Not to dispute that you've said it many times.
> >And why would that make any
> >difference anyway?
>
> Because anyone who reads Japanese would see the kanji for "ukiyo-e" and
> immediately see the kanji for uki (floating, from the verb ukaberu, to float) yo
> (world) e (picture). It reads "floating world picture."
You haven't grasped what I am saying. I asked this because I wasn't commenting on
Japanese etymology in the first place, but rather challenging your dismissal which
you framed along the lines that it isn't manga since it was ukoyi-e, which you have
acknowledge to be in error anyway when you wrote "His manga are ukiyo-e, but not all
his ukiyo-e are manga." In the previous, when you disputed my identification of
Bruce's prints as "manga:' "Nope, ukiyo-e, not manga." The rest is really academic.
> >You said "ukiyo, not manga" and I was disputing that by saying
> >'ukiyo' is a general term, which includes 'mangwa' -so it's like saying, when we
> >see
> >a frog, that it's not a frog because it's an animal.
>
> No, its like seeing a frog and calling it a horse. You've misidentified the
> subgenre.
No, your logic is seriously flawed. Remember where we are and what we are talking
about. The issue is about categories or subcategories here, not about whether I
misidentified the works in question. You have to keep these things straightened
out. What you are doing is taking a great leap into another issue. So what I am
saying is exactly true. You cannot say that manga is not ukiyo-e logically.
As for misidentification, it is actually you who has misidentified the work in
question by concluding that Bruce was talking about the "36 Views of Fuji." To
backtrack, Bruce wrote"
"I have inherited some wood prints by Hokusai - at least I think they are
wood prints The prints are in three packets of about 50 prints each. Each packet is
bound in a stiff black cover tied together with strings. The prints are on
pages 9.5" x 6.5" and they are all 7.25" x 5" with a small black border - I
assume reductions from the originals. The pages are rather yellowed. There
is a note "100 views of Fuji -1877" and indeed Mt Fuji is in all of the
pictures. Some of the pictures are double, i.e., they are 7.25" x 10" on
two facing pages."
So this is about as precise a definition of Hokusai's "100 Views of Fuji" as
possible, sans any comments about color. Yes, I did find the "100 Views of Fuji
(Fugaku hyakkei)," finally, and it's quite interesting. I missed it before because I
was searching for 'prints' rather than 'books.'
Author: Katsushika, Hokusai, 1760-1849 Title: Fugaku hyakkei / [Zen Hokusai].
Publisher: [S.l. : s.n., Tenpo 5-6 i.e. 1834-1835]
Description: 3 v. : chiefly ill. ; 23 cm. Notes: Title from label on cover.
On double leaves, traditional oriental format.
Language: Japanese
Subjects: Wood-engraving, Japanese--Edo period, 1600-1868: Fuji, Mount
(Japan)--Pictorial works.; Colour woodcut, 1835
This is the original edition. The second, which is closer to the 1877 (1875) date
that Bruce cites, is:
Author: Katsushika, Hokusai, 1760-1849 Title: Fugaku hyakkei / [henshusha Katsushika
Hokusai].
Publisher: [Nagoya] : Kataya [Eirakuya] Toshiro, Meiji 8 [1875]
Description: 3 v. : chiefly ill. ; 23 cm.
Notes: Title from lavel on cover.
Reprint. Original preface in v. 1-2 dated Tenpo 5-6 [1834-1835].
On double leaves, oriental style, in case.
These are both in the UC collection (see Melvyl).
These comments bear on the work:
http://www.matchbox.co.jp/hokusai/life/fugakul-e.html
"MANJI Period
1834 -1849
In 1834 Hokusai, age 75, uses the name Gakyo Rojin Manji (meaning Old Man Manji Mad
at Paintings) for the first time in the preface for FUGAKU HYAKKEI. He suddenly
withdrew from nishiki-e works which brought him high acclaim during the Iitsu Period
and focused on brush paintings in his final years. Hokusai turned away from genre
themes which were considered most important for ukiyo-e artists and began to base his
works on Japanese and Chinese legends, religious subjects, and flora and fauna. He
also published yomi-hon and ehon as well as edehon manuals disclosing his techniques.
Hokusai continued to produce master pieces and showed no signs of decline in his
final years of life."
So, Charles, it looks like it is YOU who has misidentified the works in question.
(i.e. part of or related to the 36 Views series.)
> >So you are exactly incorrect, I haven't got it backwards at all.
>
> Nope, you've misidentified these prints as manga, and they aren't. If you take
> any Hokusai print from these series of views to an expert and call them manga,
> they'll immediately know that you know virtually nothing of this subject.
Heheehe. I wonder which one of us would be more embarrassed. Actually, I would
argue that "Fugaku hyakkei" is indeed 'manga.' Perhaps not "The Manga" but certainly
'manga.' It's hard to ignore the obvious, that the format of the Manga Series and
the 3 volumes of Fugaku hyakkei are the same. Isn't this what the term refers to?
But to be fair, I originally thought that Bruce was describing "The Manga," so I did
misidentify the collection to a certain extent. But you misidentified it completely.
> >You are also sort
> >of incorrect that I'm disputing you. I'm merely defending myself. If you'll
> >review
> >you will see that you are in fact disputing me, in terms of initiative. I don't
> >mind
> >this - it makes for a good argument.
>
> I'm sick of idiots that like to argue, despite their almost complete lack of
> knowledge of the subject. You were wrong about the standard dimensions of
> prints, and you're wrong about everything else too. Give up. You're just arguing
> because you like the sound of your own voice.
The correct form is "I'm sick of idiots WHO like to argue,..." Charles. We idiots
are persons, you know. But I haven't been wrong about everything by a long shot.
But I've conceded some points to you - give me that credit. Now, shall I refer you
to the URL table of about 35 "standard sizes' of ukiyo-e prints that I found today on
the internet, or would that be just a 'fools errand?"
Personally, I like argument. It stimulates all sorts of unanticipated investigation
and knowledge. I feel particularly proud of myself for successfully identifying the
books that Bruce has, in spite of the misinformation you have presented that resulted
from your conclusions that were drawn on faulty grounds. That's why I have a bit of
trouble accepting your claim to expertise - had I followed your ideas about this
matter I would have been completely misled, to state it bluntly. But don't get me
wrong, I believe that you are a very knowledgable person about these matters, you
just have failed to show me any 'expertise.' Besides, I don't think that I am an
idiot.
> >>These terms and classifications come from Japanese. I don't know where you got
> >> ahold of "mangwa," there isn't even a "gwa" phoneme in the Japanese language.
> >
> >Unlike you, I know next to nothing about the Japanese language. But I saw the
> >term
> >spelled that way on some Japanese web sites, and it sounded good to me. Here,
> >check
> >it out.
> >
> [snip]
> > - citing the "Collected Works of Frederick Victor Dickins" who
> >apparently was the first to do a scholarly study on Hokusai).
> >.."The Mangwa of Hokusai. Katsushika Hokusai: A Biography from the Jimmei-Jisho.
> >The
> >Prefaces to the Mangwa. The Contents of the MangwaĹf Trans. and Proceed. of the
> >Japan
> >Society, London vol. 6, pt. 3"...
>
> A persistent error, apparently. This shows the obvious problem of studying from
> non-native materials. They used to transliterate "nippon" as "ziapang" but that
> doesn't make it an accurate transliteration.
>
> >What puzzles me,
> >in view of your stated expertise, that you wouldn't have been aware that many do
> >spell the term "mangwa."
>
> Never seen it, not even once. I read Japanese materials almost exclusively. Why
> would I read secondary sources from people who don't even understand Japanese?
Well, a few of the usages I provided, which apparently you didn't consider, were from
Japan. I'm under the impression that Japanese is both spoken and understood in
Japan. Am I incorrect? But this is a bit frustrating for me. I mean, you're just
saying that you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your claim. But the
reason you should read "secondary sources from people who don't even understand
Japanese (the Japanese themselves included, I guess) is that you simply asked me
where I got "ahold of 'mangwa'" and I answered your question. So now what are you
saying by rejecting the examples I provided in response to your question
categorically? Are you telling me "No, that's not where you got ahold of "mangwa."
Perhaps you thought I just mistakenly wrote 'mangwa' because I am, after all, "wrong
about everything and I should give up!" Just speculating here, since you thought
processes here are a bit challenging for me.
But what this size thing is all about, in the first place, is that Bruce felt that
his prints couldn't be valuable because he thought they were reproduced in a 1/2 size
format. His words:
"I would not think that reductions from the originals would be
worth much, and I can't imagine Hokusai making wood cuts of an original size
of only 7.25 x 5."
Your contribution more or less validates Bruce's false assumption, even though I
don't know if you agree with what he is observing here. I took another track, by
saying that just because they are 5 x 7 doesn't mean that they are not original.
This is the common size for the Manga images, as well as the "100 Views" book. At
any rate, I am exactly correct about this size issue.
I actually wasn't able to find a statement about the page size of the Fugaku hyakkei
impression on the web, other than the standard library measure of the height of the
jacket, which is 23 cm. But I did download some photos of the book, showing the
jacket boards and the pages, scaled them in photoshop in cm. and measured, and the
impressions came to 5.25 x 7, just as Bruce stated in his description (which is also
the size of the Manga pages, of course).
> You most certainly can. If Hokusai only produced the "views of Fuji" series in
> one size, and these prints aren't that size, they are reproductions. Its the
> most common way that curators use to deterine forgeries, to examine the support.
> For example, some Matisse forgeries were recently identified because they were
> painted on linen that had a different thread count than canvas available in
> Matisse's day.
Well, the proof is in the pudding, Charles. If you can't acknowledge it, I don't
know what to tell you. Bruce assumed that since the size of the impresssion is 5 x
7, it must be a fascimile, reduced version. You seemed to have supported this view.
Clearly, both you and Bruce were wrong. You can't make this determination based on
the 5 x 7 measure, since the original edition of this series was published at this
size. You are patently incorrect in saying that Hokusai 'only produced the "views of
Fuji" series in one size, and I have proven that, even as I claim no particular
'expertise' in this area. At the very least we know that the "36 Views of Fuji"
(which obviously are not the prints which Bruce owns) and the "100 Views of Fuji"
(that he does own) are "views of Fuji" that are not the same size.
> >The European plates held up very well, all things
> >considered. Many series of woodblocks were re-sold to other publishers - I've
> >studied one set of illustrations by Schaufelein that were reprinted four
> >different
> >times by four different publishers, the last in Prague.
>
> I assume you're talking about Western woodblocks, not Japanese. The blocks I've
> examined (including modern blank blocks at art stores) seemed to be running the
> length of the board, not endgrain. But I'd have to check. The old plates I've
> seen tend to be warped along the longest dimension, which should follow the long
> grain. Seems to me that you can get more good long-grain blocks out of a log
> than endgrain. Probably some plates were done on endgrain, but only for finely
> detailed works.
> Yes, that's why I wrote "European plates." But I think the German endgrain plates
> were composite structures, as opposed of just sawing a round out of a log, more or
> less like a butcher block. Boxwood was used often, which is not particularly hard
> on the sides and molds. But any wood's strongest virtue is its compressive
> strength, much higher on the endgrain. Redwood, for example, has the highest
> compressive strength of all woods, which makes sense when you consider to tonnage
> on the butt of a 300' foot, wet log. Yet it has very low tensile strength.
> Endgrain boxwood was probably used to deal with the pressure of the
> knucklebusters. My guess is that the method the Japanese used, the hand burin, is
> not as abusive to the wood.
Erik Mattila
Charles Eicher
>
>
>You haven't grasped what I am saying. I asked this because I wasn't commenting
>on
>Japanese etymology in the first place, but rather challenging your dismissal
>which
>you framed along the lines that it isn't manga since it was ukoyi-e, which you
>have
>acknowledge to be in error anyway when you wrote "His manga are ukiyo-e, but not
>all
>his ukiyo-e are manga."
You are being a complete butthead about this. I never said "HIS manga," I said
that GENERICALLY manga are ukiyo-e but not all ukiyo-e are manga. You have no
expertise in this subject, however you are quite skilled in being a complete
asshole and twisting people's words into something they never said.
>In the previous, when you disputed my identification of
>Bruce's prints as "manga:' "Nope, ukiyo-e, not manga." The rest is really
>academic.
I stand by my assertion. The scenic print series of Edo and Fuji by Hokusai are
not classified as manga, not by anyone in the US or Japan, just by you. I guess
that makes you the expert.
>> No, its like seeing a frog and calling it a horse. You've misidentified the
>> subgenre.
>
>No, your logic is seriously flawed. Remember where we are and what we are
>talking
>about. The issue is about categories or subcategories here, not about whether I
>misidentified the works in question.
Precisely. Ukiyo-e is the category, manga is a subcategory.
>You have to keep these things straightened
>out. What you are doing is taking a great leap into another issue. So what I
>am
>saying is exactly true. You cannot say that manga is not ukiyo-e logically.
You're twisting words again. Manga is a subclassification of ukiyo-e. Maybe if
you could empty your head of that argumentative voice, you'd be able to READ
what I wrote.
I can read the writing in the picture and confirm it says fuji hyakkei in
cursive. But the open book doesn't show a view of fuji.
It still hasn't been determined that this is the book this fellow owns. I worked
under the assumption that these were contemporary reprints, each print was on
single sheets of paper rather than the folded sheets typical of the era.
The querent could settle the issue easily by letting us know if the book is
printed on sheets in the "accordion fold" style, that is, each sheet is printed
on only one side, each sheet folded with the blank side hidden on the inside of
the fold, and the two loose ends bound in the book. The outer edge of each sheet
would be a folded sheet (unless someone cut the sheets apart, which would be a
mutilation of the book).
>So, Charles, it looks like it is YOU who has misidentified the works in
>question.
>(i.e. part of or related to the 36 Views series.)
This has yet to be determined. I made a probable determination based on the
scant available information, and recommended that the books be appraised by a
professional who is familiar with the antiquarian book market. None of this
would be an issue if I could inspect the items personally.
>Heheehe. I wonder which one of us would be more embarrassed. Actually, I would
>argue that "Fugaku hyakkei" is indeed 'manga.' Perhaps not "The Manga" but
>certainly
>'manga.'
And you'd be wrong. Manga is not a generic term for books, it is the name of a
specific series of works by Hokusai.
>It's hard to ignore the obvious, that the format of the Manga Series and
>the 3 volumes of Fugaku hyakkei are the same. Isn't this what the term refers
>to?
No. The term is "ehon" (literally "picture books"). Hokusai's manga is a
specific series:
http://www.matchbox.co.jp/hokusai/life/hokusai-taito-e.html
At this time, Hokusai was executing a series of books as instructional material
for other ukiyo-e artists, such as the ryakuga hayaoshi-e also listed on this
page. The manga were primarily intended as studies of human figures as design
models for other artists.
>But to be fair, I originally thought that Bruce was describing "The Manga," so I
>did
>misidentify the collection to a certain extent. But you misidentified it
>completely.
This has yet to be determined. It is possible it is an authentic Hokusai series,
and could possibly be quite valuable. I consider that unlikely, but we may yet
find out that it is an authentic edition.
>The correct form is "I'm sick of idiots WHO like to argue,..." Charles. We
>idiots
>are persons, you know. But I haven't been wrong about everything by a long
>shot.
>But I've conceded some points to you - give me that credit. Now, shall I refer
>you
>to the URL table of about 35 "standard sizes' of ukiyo-e prints that I found
>today on
>the internet, or would that be just a 'fools errand?"
Go ahead and cite the page, I'll inspect it. I probably refers to ukiyo-e
paintings, which came in a wider variety of sizes. But you'll prove nothing.
Each print's original edition was a standardized size, and if the prints do not
match this size of known originals, it is not an original print.
>Personally, I like argument.
Of course you do. I have no use for arguments, and when I hear back from the
original querent and determine exactly the nature of these prints, I'll leave
this newsgroup again, with a vivid reminder why I left it for many months. Your
arguments are not conducive to any kind of discussion. You're the worst kind of
asshole, the kind that drives away people from a newsgroup, the very people who
might be able to contribute knowledge that people are seeking. In the future,
I'll respond to such questions via email, and it will be your loss, and the
newsgroup's loss not mine. I was only trying to help this guy out, and you turn
it into a battle. No wonder this newsgroup has degenerated into a personal
flame-factory for you and a few others. You should feel ashamed of yourself.
>It stimulates all sorts of unanticipated investigation
>and knowledge. I feel particularly proud of myself
Such a swelled head.
>for successfully identifying the
>books that Bruce has, in spite of the misinformation you have presented that
>resulted
>from your conclusions that were drawn on faulty grounds.
This has yet to be determined. If I drew any faulty conclusions, it was due to
the scant information supplied by the querent. We still don't know for certain
when these books were published, or what they really are. The only thing we've
determined with any definitiveness is that you don't know the difference between
ukiyo-e, manga, and ehon.
> That's why I have a bit of
>trouble accepting your claim to expertise - had I followed your ideas about this
>matter I would have been completely misled, to state it bluntly.
I'm not an expert in Hokusai, in fact, I specifically said I turn a blind eye to
Hokusai because I've seen so much of it, it bores me, and I don't generally
collect specific data on subjects that bore me.
You've followed your own ideas, and you've firmly convinced yourself of some
foolish ideas, like all ehon are manga. I have more reason to doubt your
conclusions than my own.
> But don't get me
>wrong, I believe that you are a very knowledgable person about these matters,
>you
>just have failed to show me any 'expertise.'
My expertise is in prints, not books. I never heard of 100 views of fuji, it is
not one of Hokusai's most famous works. His most famous works are in print and
painting formats, with the exeption of the manga you are obsessed with. Have you
read any OTHER materials on ukiyo-e than Michener's book?
>Well, a few of the usages I provided, which apparently you didn't consider, were
>from
>Japan. I'm under the impression that Japanese is both spoken and understood in
>Japan. Am I incorrect?
I haven't seen "mangwa" used in any authentic source written by a Japanese
person. They couldn't possibly, as there isn't any way to write it in Japanese,
the closest they can come is the phoneme "gua." The pages you offered were
written by English-speaking collectors in Japan.
>But what this size thing is all about, in the first place, is that Bruce felt
>that
>his prints couldn't be valuable because he thought they were reproduced in a 1/2
>size
>format. His words:
>
>"I would not think that reductions from the originals would be
>worth much, and I can't imagine Hokusai making wood cuts of an original size
>of only 7.25 x 5."
>
>Your contribution more or less validates Bruce's false assumption, even though I
>don't know if you agree with what he is observing here. I took another track,
>by
>saying that just because they are 5 x 7 doesn't mean that they are not original.
>This is the common size for the Manga images, as well as the "100 Views" book.
>At
>any rate, I am exactly correct about this size issue.
I can only go on the information he provided. From the information I read, I got
the distinct impression that this was a 20th century western-style folio book,
with "tipped in" prints, that is, individual prints that were printed separately
and adhered to a backing page. We have yet to determine what this is exactly. My
expertise comes from direct viewing and handling of ukiyo-e prints, and from
being able to read (to varying degrees) Japanese cursive script and seals.
>Well, the proof is in the pudding, Charles. If you can't acknowledge it, I
>don't
>know what to tell you. Bruce assumed that since the size of the impresssion is
>5 x
>7, it must be a fascimile, reduced version. You seemed to have supported this
>view.
>Clearly, both you and Bruce were wrong. You can't make this determination based
>on
>the 5 x 7 measure, since the original edition of this series was published at
>this
>size.
This is possible, but we have yet to hear the precise details of the format of
this book. When I hear that the pages are yellowed but otherwise in immaculate
condition, that indicates to me that this is more likely a contemporary 20th
century reproduction. But if I had heard that these were yellowing, with frayed
edges and full of wormholes and a decaying cover, this is more typical of the
condition of even well-preserved ukiyo-e dating to that period.
I stand by my only firm assertion: these books should be appraised by a
professional antiquarian bookseller. Only by firsthand inspection will determine
exactly what these books are, and what they are worth.
>You are patently incorrect in saying that Hokusai 'only produced the "views of
>Fuji" series in one size, and I have proven that, even as I claim no particular
>'expertise' in this area.
I was strictly referring to the 36 views, which are all the same size. I never
heard of the 100 views book before. I'm no idiot either, I searched extensively,
and I have much better search resources than you, as I can search Japanese
texts. But the book did not turn up in my searches. I'm not getting paid to
research this, if I was, I'd inspect the book personally, translate its
contents, and check it against the local university library which has extensive
materials on this subject. If you've gone to any great lengths to research this,
it was only to research this, it was only to feed your own ego. I undertook a
brief study, merely to help the guy out and suggest possible ways to
authenticate the works. I might have done more if I wasn't being hounded by you
in such an combative manner. Hokusai is not an artist I particularly enjoy, yet
I clearly provided sufficient information for you (or the original querent) to
continue the search on your own. You're Welcome.
Erik A. Mattila
Charles Eicher wrote:
> In article <38A91662...@tomatoweb.com>, "Erik says...
> >
> >
> >You haven't grasped what I am saying. I asked this because I wasn't commenting
> >on
> >Japanese etymology in the first place, but rather challenging your dismissal
> >which
> >you framed along the lines that it isn't manga since it was ukoyi-e, which you
> >have
> >acknowledge to be in error anyway when you wrote "His manga are ukiyo-e, but not
> >all
> >his ukiyo-e are manga."
>
> You are being a complete butthead about this. I never said "HIS manga," I said
> that GENERICALLY manga are ukiyo-e but not all ukiyo-e are manga. You have no
> expertise in this subject, however you are quite skilled in being a complete
> asshole and twisting people's words into something they never said.
Your exact words, copied and pasted from your post of 13 February:
--"Hokusai's manga" is a specific term for a specific series of prints and
paintings. His manga are ukiyo-e, but not all his ukiyo-e are manga.--
So now that this is cleared up, does it mean that I'm actually not an 'asshole' and
'butthead?'
> >In the previous, when you disputed my identification of
> >Bruce's prints as "manga:' "Nope, ukiyo-e, not manga." The rest is really
> >academic.
>
> I stand by my assertion. The scenic print series of Edo and Fuji by Hokusai are
> not classified as manga, not by anyone in the US or Japan, just by you. I guess
> that makes you the expert.
Ah contrare... again, for about the fourth time, I'm saying that you can't
logically claim that something is not manga because it is ukiyo-e. You have agreed
with this, more or less. I think this one issue could be put to rest, but you're
dragging in a derivitive issue and confusing it with this one -- that is, that I am
classifying the scenics as manga. I've not done this, but there's a strange
distortion going on here. If it were true that Bruces collection was the scenics,
and I was saying they are manga, your assessment would be accurate. But such is not
the case. Based on the description that Bruce provided, the prints could not be
scenics, since they are not the correct size. I said they were manga based on the
size - and my position all along is that they are not scenics. At any rate, it
seems to me like you are the one who is doing the distorting, as in you claim that I
am classifying the scenics as manga. This simply isn't true, Charles.
> >> No, its like seeing a frog and calling it a horse. You've misidentified the
> >> subgenre.
> >
> >No, your logic is seriously flawed. Remember where we are and what we are
> >talking
> >about. The issue is about categories or subcategories here, not about whether I
> >misidentified the works in question.
>
> Precisely. Ukiyo-e is the category, manga is a subcategory.
So then you agree that your 'correction' of my model is flawed? I mean "No, its
like seeing a frog and calling it a horse."
> >You have to keep these things straightened
> >out. What you are doing is taking a great leap into another issue. So what I
> >am saying is exactly true. You cannot say that manga is not ukiyo-e logically.
>
> You're twisting words again. Manga is a subclassification of ukiyo-e. Maybe if
> you could empty your head of that argumentative voice, you'd be able to READ
> what I wrote.
How is that 'twisting words?' Heavens, I'm trying to untwist them. I habitually
try to sort thing out and ask "what are we talking about here," especially when the
issues become very complex and interwoven. You know, then subissues can reach
consensus and the discussion or debate can move on. This is a technique used,
fundamentally, in conflict resolution. So we've agreed that manga is a subcategory
of ukiyo-e, and now I'm trying to distill out that other issue - your claim that I
have misidentified the item in question as manga. That's the opposite of
distortion, obviously. In fact, it's not even argumentative. After sorting and
clarification, we have a little pile of agreements and a little pile of
disagreements, and we can proceed to debate the second pile.
See http://www.bahnhof.se/~secutor/wwwboard/messages/542.html for a better
representation of the images.
Yes, I agree with you that the identification isn't written in stone, and that only
Bruce can confirm it (I hope he does).
> The querent could settle the issue easily by letting us know if the book is
> printed on sheets in the "accordion fold" style, that is, each sheet is printed
> on only one side, each sheet folded with the blank side hidden on the inside of
> the fold, and the two loose ends bound in the book. The outer edge of each sheet
> would be a folded sheet (unless someone cut the sheets apart, which would be a
> mutilation of the book).
>
> >So, Charles, it looks like it is YOU who has misidentified the works in
> >question.
> >(i.e. part of or related to the 36 Views series.)
>
> This has yet to be determined. I made a probable determination based on the
> scant available information, and recommended that the books be appraised by a
> professional who is familiar with the antiquarian book market. None of this
> would be an issue if I could inspect the items personally.
True. But again, I think that I was interested in the issue about size - just
because it was 5 x 7 doesn't mean it's a fake.
> >Heheehe. I wonder which one of us would be more embarrassed. Actually, I would
> >argue that "Fugaku hyakkei" is indeed 'manga.' Perhaps not "The Manga" but
> >certainly
> >'manga.'
>
> And you'd be wrong. Manga is not a generic term for books, it is the name of a
> specific series of works by Hokusai.
Seriously; Charles, I am interested in this issue, and I could probably benefit by
your knowledge about this. I'm confused about this because the term 'manga' exists
in the dictionary, meaning 'comic books' and contemporary 'manga' artists claim
lineage to to the books of the Edo period, but probably called 'kibyoushi,'
generically. But they also claim lineage to Hokusai, who coined the term 'manga' in
the first place. The word itself is Chinese which may explain the 'manga' 'mangwa'
puzzle. According to http://www.ky.xaxon.ne.jp/~matt/history1.html, Hokusai used
two Chinese characters - "the first meaning "in spite of oneself" or "lax" and the
second meaning "picture"--to describe the comical doodles he drew in addition to his
exquisite people-scapes." So it is likely that I am wrong to say 'manga' is a
generic, except from a contemporary POV such as the Japanese comic book industry.
On the other hand, it's possible that Hokusai thought of FUGAKU HYAKKEI as manga,
but I wouldn't argue that.
> >It's hard to ignore the obvious, that the format of the Manga Series and
> >the 3 volumes of Fugaku hyakkei are the same. Isn't this what the term refers
> >to?
>
> No. The term is "ehon" (literally "picture books"). Hokusai's manga is a
> specific series:
>
> http://www.matchbox.co.jp/hokusai/life/hokusai-taito-e.html
>
> At this time, Hokusai was executing a series of books as instructional material
> for other ukiyo-e artists, such as the ryakuga hayaoshi-e also listed on this
> page. The manga were primarily intended as studies of human figures as design
> models for other artists.
Conceded.
> >But to be fair, I originally thought that Bruce was describing "The Manga," so I
> >did
> >misidentify the collection to a certain extent. But you misidentified it
> >completely.
>
> This has yet to be determined. It is possible it is an authentic Hokusai series,
> and could possibly be quite valuable. I consider that unlikely, but we may yet
> find out that it is an authentic edition.
The one picture I found of the first edition (Tenpo, 1834-35) shows a fabric (raw
silk) designed much like the Tuttle/Michner edition (1958?) of the Manga
(examples). I haven't found a photo of the second edition cover (Nagoya...1875)
which may be different, so that's up in the air if Bruce has this one (he reads
"1877" which could be an error, or yet another edition). I'm wondering about the
value though - I recall reading prices for the first edition around 800 bucks or so,
but I wouldn't want to guess. There are so many variables.
> >The correct form is "I'm sick of idiots WHO like to argue,..." Charles. We
> >idiots
> >are persons, you know. But I haven't been wrong about everything by a long
> >shot.
> >But I've conceded some points to you - give me that credit. Now, shall I refer
> >you
> >to the URL table of about 35 "standard sizes' of ukiyo-e prints that I found
> >today on
> >the internet, or would that be just a 'fools errand?"
>
> Go ahead and cite the page, I'll inspect it. I probably refers to ukiyo-e
> paintings, which came in a wider variety of sizes. But you'll prove nothing.
> Each print's original edition was a standardized size, and if the prints do not
> match this size of known originals, it is not an original print.
I'm going to side-step this one. I didn't book mark the page (I crashed when I was
saving the page) and it's too much work to find it again. As you say, it would
prove nothing. After all, I'm just saying that Bruce's 5 x 7 measurement IS the
original size, which is also the size of the Manga.
> >Personally, I like argument.
>
> Of course you do. I have no use for arguments, and when I hear back from the
> original querent and determine exactly the nature of these prints, I'll leave
> this newsgroup again, with a vivid reminder why I left it for many months. Your
> arguments are not conducive to any kind of discussion. You're the worst kind of
> asshole, the kind that drives away people from a newsgroup, the very people who
> might be able to contribute knowledge that people are seeking. In the future,
> I'll respond to such questions via email, and it will be your loss, and the
> newsgroup's loss not mine. I was only trying to help this guy out, and you turn
> it into a battle. No wonder this newsgroup has degenerated into a personal
> flame-factory for you and a few others. You should feel ashamed of yourself.
I doubt that I am the worse kind of asshole, Charles. I think there are worse. But
I want to remind you that I was responding to the challenge that you laid out, not
visa versa. You can review the thread to corroborate that. So there are people in
the world who like to kick people and then deny them the right to holler. So be
it. When you withdraw from the newsgroup, ultimately the consequence is that you
simply won't be here. There are billions of people who are not here, and you will
be among them. If that pleases you, go for it. I don't have any particular sense
of loss about the billions that are not here -- in fact, I seldom think about it.
I'm not saying that I have not enjoyed your contributions to this newsgroup, but
rather that I really didn't notice your 'absence for many months." You simply
'weren't there' and the world moved on. Again, if you find this sort of meaningless
protest edifying, you owe it to yourself to engage in it.
I should feel ashamed of myself for defending my position in an positive, energetic
manner, for arguing specific points of an issue, and pursuing a question
diligently? My only 'crime' is disagreeing with you, and pointing out why. Why is
this 'shameful.' Please clue me in? It's interesting that you characterize my
contribution as a 'flame-factory' in consideration of the source of every single
vindictive that would degenerate a discussion or debate to the level of 'flame' is
in your camp. I have not called you an 'idiot,' an 'asshole,' a 'butthead,' nor
have I attempted to trivialize your ability to make a meaningful contribution to the
topic. I've merely said that you were wrong - which shouldn't be thought of as
'flaming' you, unless your agenda is merely to protect your ego.
But I wouldn't admonish you for this and tell you that you ought to be ashamed. If
you don't want to consider effective communication apart from the errosion caused by
vindictives, that is your business. Just don't whine about it so much, it isn't
'good form,' and it weakens your argumentative position. You have to come to grips
with the fact that you have engaged in this argument fully and zestfully, regardless
of how you wish to characterize.
> >It stimulates all sorts of unanticipated investigation
> >and knowledge. I feel particularly proud of myself
>
> Such a swelled head.
Add this to your list of vindictives. Here's the way I see it, Charles. I think we
both discussed the idea that there are references to "The 100 Views of Fuji" but
neither of us really knew if this was an actual work, or if it was just some sort of
poetic, colloquial expression that exists in the literature. So I actually
discovered that there is in fact a book called "The 100 Views of Fuji."
Subsequently we both have benefited by the debate, or argument, since we both know
that this work exists. Why should I be pleased at having found this out, and why
must you characterize my being pleased as some manifestation of egocentricity or
conceit? You could have just as easily said "Really, that's good to know." Instead
you chose the vindictive path, but why?
I felt very pleased with myself from a project I undertook in graduate school, to
document two German woodcuts in the UC collection. It turned out that they had been
misidentified by the curator of the collection, and I successfully corrected that
through research. But the curator was very pleased about it, and my paper is filed
with and part of the collection. I don't think I was being vain about it - it was a
job well-done.
> >for successfully identifying the
> >books that Bruce has, in spite of the misinformation you have presented that
> >resulted
> >from your conclusions that were drawn on faulty grounds.
>
> This has yet to be determined. If I drew any faulty conclusions, it was due to
> the scant information supplied by the querent. We still don't know for certain
> when these books were published, or what they really are. The only thing we've
> determined with any definitiveness is that you don't know the difference between
> ukiyo-e, manga, and ehon.
My magic eight-ball points to 'yes,' but your right, a question remains that only
Bruce can settle. But even if he looks at the representations cited on the web
pages, and determines he has a copy of Fugaku hyakkei , the question of
authenticity, edition etc. still remains, probably to be determined by a qualified
appraiser. Based on the scant information supplied by Bruce, it is more likely to
be Fugaku hyakkei than a reduced version of any other ukiyo-e.
As to your second statement, ho-hum. Let's not ride a dead horse. Your statement
is counterproductive.
> > That's why I have a bit of
> >trouble accepting your claim to expertise - had I followed your ideas about this
> >matter I would have been completely misled, to state it bluntly.
>
> I'm not an expert in Hokusai, in fact, I specifically said I turn a blind eye to
> Hokusai because I've seen so much of it, it bores me, and I don't generally
> collect specific data on subjects that bore me.
> You've followed your own ideas, and you've firmly convinced yourself of some
> foolish ideas, like all ehon are manga. I have more reason to doubt your
> conclusions than my own.
I've already backed down on that point, above. Please note that I am not claiming
any expertise. But the idea is not 'foolish' at all, although it is probably
incorrect. A 'foolish' idea would be one that has not possibility of being true, or
something like that. Since modern manga artists claim that 'manga' is a historical
form, it is not foolish to think that manga could have been a generic term a hundred
and fifty years ago. But to state the case more accurately, I don't understand the
difference between manga and kibyoushi (which I just learned today). I never said
that manga is the same as a novel, a book of poetry, or a cookbook (or whatever
'ehon' can be). May I add 'foolish' to your list of vindictives?
> > But don't get me
> >wrong, I believe that you are a very knowledgable person about these matters,
> >you
> >just have failed to show me any 'expertise.'
>
> My expertise is in prints, not books. I never heard of 100 views of fuji, it is
> not one of Hokusai's most famous works. His most famous works are in print and
> painting formats, with the exeption of the manga you are obsessed with. Have you
> read any OTHER materials on ukiyo-e than Michener's book?
Nope, I'm a babe-in-the-woods. In fact, I learned the term 'ukiyo-e' from you. My
dad gave me a copy of Michner's book in 1958 for my birthday, and I still have it.
I studied Hokusai's drawing from this book, and I owe much to this artist in terms
of whatever skills in drawings that I have. But in the last few days, I've read
quite a bit. That's why I value argument as a positive force. I know many things
now that I didn't know before, and I owe it all to argument. I'm the wiser person
for it.
Usually 'experts' are cognizant of the less famous work of a particular artist or
period. I'm just chiding you - I think you know a lot about this subject and I
respect the sweat and blood you've expended in attaining your knowledge.
> >Well, a few of the usages I provided, which apparently you didn't consider, were
> >from
> >Japan. I'm under the impression that Japanese is both spoken and understood in
> >Japan. Am I incorrect?
>
> I haven't seen "mangwa" used in any authentic source written by a Japanese
> person. They couldn't possibly, as there isn't any way to write it in Japanese,
> the closest they can come is the phoneme "gua." The pages you offered were
> written by English-speaking collectors in Japan.
As above, I think it is quite possibly a Chinese word. Personally, I don't care one
way or another. I was just telling you how it was that I came across the spelling.
But on a side note, art historians often do this - I mean feel compelled to use
'original' terms, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit if 'mangwa' in the literature
is the result of someone referencing the Chinese characters Hokusai allegedly
appropriated. I don't doubt you one bit about Japanese phonemes, which would
explain why the Chinese 'mangwa' became 'manga' in Japan.
> >But what this size thing is all about, in the first place, is that Bruce felt
> >that
> >his prints couldn't be valuable because he thought they were reproduced in a 1/2
> >size
> >format. His words:
> >
> >"I would not think that reductions from the originals would be
> >worth much, and I can't imagine Hokusai making wood cuts of an original size
> >of only 7.25 x 5."
> >
> >Your contribution more or less validates Bruce's false assumption, even though I
> >don't know if you agree with what he is observing here. I took another track,
> >by
> >saying that just because they are 5 x 7 doesn't mean that they are not original.
> >This is the common size for the Manga images, as well as the "100 Views" book.
> >At
> >any rate, I am exactly correct about this size issue.
>
> I can only go on the information he provided. From the information I read, I got
> the distinct impression that this was a 20th century western-style folio book,
> with "tipped in" prints, that is, individual prints that were printed separately
> and adhered to a backing page. We have yet to determine what this is exactly. My
> expertise comes from direct viewing and handling of ukiyo-e prints, and from
> being able to read (to varying degrees) Japanese cursive script and seals.
Well, my whole point is that you weren't going on the information provided -- I mean
to assume that these were larger originals which had been reduced in reproduction.
The information provided, as scant as it was, was that they were smaller than any of
the ukiyo-e. Bruce also said that the pages were double and folded, like we find in
the Manga, although he didn't say 'accordion fold.' And he described the stiff
covers bound by strings, which seems to discount the idea that these are codex-style
books, as you suggest. Perhaps your jumping down to his descriptions of the other
prints in his collection, which do seem to be 'tipped in' prints.
> >Well, the proof is in the pudding, Charles. If you can't acknowledge it, I
> >don't
> >know what to tell you. Bruce assumed that since the size of the impresssion is
> >5 x
> >7, it must be a fascimile, reduced version. You seemed to have supported this
> >view.
> >Clearly, both you and Bruce were wrong. You can't make this determination based
> >on
> >the 5 x 7 measure, since the original edition of this series was published at
> >this
> >size.
>
> This is possible, but we have yet to hear the precise details of the format of
> this book. When I hear that the pages are yellowed but otherwise in immaculate
> condition, that indicates to me that this is more likely a contemporary 20th
> century reproduction. But if I had heard that these were yellowing, with frayed
> edges and full of wormholes and a decaying cover, this is more typical of the
> condition of even well-preserved ukiyo-e dating to that period.
> I stand by my only firm assertion: these books should be appraised by a
> professional antiquarian bookseller. Only by firsthand inspection will determine
> exactly what these books are, and what they are worth.
Well, somewhere there is likely to be a comprehensive list of editions, since this
is a well-established 'collectible.' Melvyl shows a couple of twentieth century
reproductions in the UC Collection, but both are codex format. The UC Library
system has no compunction against acquiring fascimile copies, btw, so it seems
strange that if there were such things, it would not be in their collection.
Shields Library at UC Davis, for example, has a very important collection of Asian
books, many of which are fascimile reproductions that can be circulated instead of
protected in 'special collections.'
> >You are patently incorrect in saying that Hokusai 'only produced the "views of
> >Fuji" series in one size, and I have proven that, even as I claim no particular
> >'expertise' in this area.
>
> I was strictly referring to the 36 views, which are all the same size. I never
> heard of the 100 views book before. I'm no idiot either, I searched extensively,
> and I have much better search resources than you, as I can search Japanese
> texts. But the book did not turn up in my searches. I'm not getting paid to
> research this, if I was, I'd inspect the book personally, translate its
> contents, and check it against the local university library which has extensive
> materials on this subject. If you've gone to any great lengths to research this,
> it was only to research this, it was only to feed your own ego. I undertook a
> brief study, merely to help the guy out and suggest possible ways to
> authenticate the works. I might have done more if I wasn't being hounded by you
> in such an combative manner. Hokusai is not an artist I particularly enjoy, yet
> I clearly provided sufficient information for you (or the original querent) to
> continue the search on your own. You're Welcome.
That's ok, Charles. I've provided Bruce with sufficient information to pursue the
appraisal of his collection, so you needn't fret about what you failed to do while I
was 'hounding you.'
Personally, I'm amazed by the information you can find on the internet. But I agree
that it's no substitute for an academic library, insofar as solid research is
concerned. There is a great problem with access to internet information, as the
search strategies are woefully inadaquate. I'm constantly if the 'information
revolution' will ever replace libraries.
As to ego gratification, yes, there is always that. I feed my ego regularly, and I
can't understand how it is that this is viewed as something negative. Even Freud
himself advised for the health of the ego. My question is, when ever confronted
with such a trivializing statement as 'feeding your ego,' what are the
alternatives? I mean there are people, suffering from chronic diminished egos, who
will actually decline doing a good job of something that they set out to do to avoid
drawing attention to themselves. My second question is, what is the relationship
between ego formation and development and academic pursuits? I mean, if I have an
academic interest, an appetite for knowledge (like Faustus) then what role does my
ego play in this? Where does one draw the lines?
Regards,
Erik
Charles Eicher
>
>Charles Eicher wrote:
>
>Your exact words, copied and pasted from your post of 13 February:
>
>--"Hokusai's manga" is a specific term for a specific series of prints and
>paintings. His manga are ukiyo-e, but not all his ukiyo-e are manga.--
The words "his manga" clearly refers to "Hokusai's manga", not the querent's
books, which aren't even manga. You're deliberately being obtuse. Any idiot
(except you) knows exactly what I'm talking about.
>So now that this is cleared up, does it mean that I'm actually not an 'asshole'
>and
>'butthead?'
It means you're both, and a malicious person who twists words to suit whatever
you want them to mean..
There really isn't any point in discussing this with you further. You'd rather
twist someone's words into some pathetically mistaken "victory" just for your
own ego strokes, rather than make any serious attempt to understand the material
and help the poor guy identify his works.
*PLONK*
Marilyn
you (plural) have no control over the interpretation. For my part
I interpreted the dialogue as two voices. That is because I see a newsgroup
as a chorale of voices rather than a place where there is one
authority or even a few authorities.
Your dialogue teaches not the limits of two people or their arguements
but the limits of internet research, as in the end there is no
substitute for the actually physical handling of the artifact in question.
(If it is an artifact)
I would like to add my voice about the SIZE as this has often come
up in your dialogue.
I have studied Japanese book binding and this is what I learned about standard
traditional sizes going back to the middle ages:
reference
"Japanese Book-Binding: Instructions from a Master Craftsman"
Kojiro Ikegami, New York: John Weatherhill Inc., 1979, 1986
They note 9 traditional standard sizes.
Also that sizes varied according to the place where the paper was made.
Quote:
The two most common sizes are 'hanshi' and Mino, named after types of paper.
"Hanshi' literally "half paper" which when folded in half and doubled is
approximately 165mm x 235mm / 6-1/2" x 9-1/4"
The larger book produced from Mino paper, folded in half, finished size
200mm x 280mm / 7-7/8 x 11"
End of quote.
So research on the book in question could start with the paper
-where was it made? and then the construction of the book which
is quite standardized in the traditional mode. The position of the holes for the
binding for example.
Of course it is possible that the original book was taken apart and
the prints rebound but I'm pretty sure the re-binding would have followed
the tradition of Japanese book-binding.
(It's also a great mode for making your own artists' sketch book with varied
papers).
Marilyn
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <38A9E37C...@tomatoweb.com>, "Erik says...
> >
> >Charles Eicher wrote:
> >
> >Your exact words, copied and pasted from your post of 13 February:
> >
> >--"Hokusai's manga" is a specific term for a specific series of prints and
> >paintings. His manga are ukiyo-e, but not all his ukiyo-e are manga.--
>
> The words "his manga" clearly refers to "Hokusai's manga", not the querent's
> books, which aren't even manga. You're deliberately being obtuse. Any idiot
> (except you) knows exactly what I'm talking about.
But I didn't think you were talking about Bruce's collection, Charles. It was very
clear to me that you were referring to Hokusai's Manga, and not the querent's
books. This whole sub-discussion would be total nonsense if I had thought you were
talking about Bruce's collection in saying "His manga.." After all, I was merely
disagreeing with your statement "it is ukiyo-e, not manga" since manga are indeed,
ukiyo-e. So what's the problem. You later said the same thing yourself. Nowhere
in my writing did I say or imply that I thought you were refering to Bruce's
collection. No now I ask you, who is doing the 'twisting' of words here, and would
you hold yourself to the same standard as that you are holding me to?
> >So now that this is cleared up, does it mean that I'm actually not an 'asshole'
> >and
> >'butthead?'
>
> It means you're both, and a malicious person who twists words to suit whatever
> you want them to mean..
But you cannot give me one single and credible example of where I have twisted
words or meaning. If the above example is all you can come up with, you are on
very thin ice, if your credibility is of any importance to you.
> There really isn't any point in discussing this with you further. You'd rather
> twist someone's words into some pathetically mistaken "victory" just for your
> own ego strokes, rather than make any serious attempt to understand the material
> and help the poor guy identify his works.
>
> *PLONK*
But you are discussing it further. And of course the fact remains that I have
helped Bruce identify his work. And I wish to remind you that language such as
"victory" and "ego strokes" are yours, not mine. This means that these ideas have
come up in your mind, and they are your inventions. I think there's an
accountability issue at work here.
Regards,
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> As someone once pointed out here, no matter what you post,
> you (plural) have no control over the interpretation. For my part
> I interpreted the dialogue as two voices. That is because I see a newsgroup
> as a chorale of voices rather than a place where there is one
> authority or even a few authorities.
Huh? Well, one never has any control over interpretation. But some language
precision is possible that will delimit the possibilities of completely arbitrary
interpretation. Have you ever come across the term 'diegesis' in your reading
(like in Lyotard or Barthes)? Lyotard more or less defines it as "that part of the
narrative which the listener provides." In narratology, it is the thing that makes
meaning possible.
When your speaking within a circle of friends, for example, you have this very
remarkable cognizance of each individual's 'stories' and a pretty high-end
competence about how your utterance could effectively communicate the message that
you intend. After all, you are all friends because of a broad range of attitutdes,
shared values, experiences etc. But when writing on a newsgroup, anything goes.
You're speaking across a huge range of attitudes, values and experiences which are
effectively 'unknown' so there's all sorts of opportunity for interpretation that
leads away from the author's intent.
But 'authority' is very interesting on the internet. Or for that matter,
generally. (I'm talking about academic 'authority' here). I met an Israeli
Sociologist once who told me about his approach to his dissertation, which was to
flatly disagree with every 'authority' on his subject. He did have trouble with
his committee, but in the end the strength of his arguments prevailed. But
remember last year (or was it longer) when you posted the Canadian Art Link site
and I found that H. Eco page? While commenting on usenet, Eco recounted a story
about a person who was the 'authority' in a particular field who regularly posted
on a newsgroup, but no one there knew who he was. So he was treated like everyone
else - challenged, flamed, insulted, called an idiot and so forth. Very amusing,
but it raises an interesting issue. The only 'authority' a newsgroup post is
likely to carry is found in the merits of the post itself. I think this is really
cool, in a way. It means that people will have to learn to write with some
precision and frame a good argument if it is to be accepted and valued, as opposed
to the general academic practice of writing and legitimizing the narrative by
evoking the academic authority institution. What will be the long range effect? I
would guess that a possibliity is that we will become better writers and thinkers,
yes? BTW, Eco was also trouncing on the acronym habit in newsgroups, which he
thought would ultimately work against language competence (LOL).
> Your dialogue teaches not the limits of two people or their arguements
> but the limits of internet research, as in the end there is no
> substitute for the actually physical handling of the artifact in question.
> (If it is an artifact)
I don't know if I agree with the 'hands-on' idea, as a sweeping rule. I can think
of all sorts of examples where good research can be had without ever viewing an
object. My inclination is to claim that the internet is yet far short of the
acaademic library as far as a research tool goes.
But look at the case in hand (this thread). The original poster had a question
about a work of art. The answer can be expressed as three ideas: 1)
identification, 2) authentication, and 3) appraisal. "Research" applies to each
division by varying degrees. As far as 'identification' is concerned, I think that
this was shown to be attainable with the internet, based on a verbal description
rather than a visual representation or viewing the original. "Authentication" is
problematical insofar as the resources on the internet are concerned, or at least
what I was able to find. There's a methodology involved in this, in the general
academics of the History of Art. The first step, when dealing with prints, is to
research all the editions of a print (after 'identification'). This is essentially
library work, and doesn't require viewing the original. But once you have the
editions history, then it is mandatory to view the original in order to place it in
the proper edition context. So you're looking at paper type, watermarks (if any),
inks, and the evidence of wear in the impression and things like that. But you
also need some known representations of a particular edition to compare it with.
It can become quite expensive, in fact. I don't think the internet has evolved to
this resource level, but it certainly could. And lastly, 'appraisal' is something
that can be helped by the internet, since there are on-line lists of offerings
there already, so you can obtain a sense of worth of a work based on how much
another copy of the same is selling for.
So I agree with you about this one aspect - authentication inevitably requires
detailed inspection of the object itself.
Erik
>
>
> Marilyn
Marilyn
in Don DeLillo who calls a writer (in "Mao II" *a sentence maker, like a donut
maker, only slower*) I didn't read Umberto Eco either, maybe I didn't like
his sentences. But that link was good, do you still have the URL? Musee
Contemporain de Montreal?
Japanese Prints:
There's a very famous Japanese printmaker in Vancouver known by his first
name Noburo. He claims to follow Japanese print-making tradition to the
T. When giving a course, he will tell students that they will never achieve
good results unless they use the real traditional equipment from Japan,
most of it available only from him. He destroys his wood blocks after
a run of 75 prints. Noburo would be accepted as an authority around here.
He has a studio/workshop in Vancouver. I can't say if he does appraisals.
As for your post, I thought the sentences were very good but I'm was not looking
for "agreement" which seems to be a goal in newsgroups. Here is the zero-sum
game:
A asks a question
B responds
C contradicts B's points
B contradicts C's points and maybe adds a little name-calling
(repeat the above 2 lines a few times)
D jumps in and maybe adds to A's confusion
What I'm saying is that instead of B, C, D, cancelling out each other,
readers X, Y, Z could add up their information, providing it is clearly articulated.
Marilyn
Erik A. Mattila
around the bush.
Erik
Marilyn Welch
My attempt was to point out that newsgroup communication
is not the zero-sum game it seems to be.
One person asks for information, and receives response A,
then response B contradicts the first response.
Response B does not cancel response A, it adds to it.
One person posts an opinion or statement,
then 2 people agree, 3 persons disagree with it.
Is the value of the original statement qualified by the
quantity of agreements? I say no.
My point is that all the information here adds up to a
collection since there are no real authorities;
and that valid* posts are voices to be heard not to be
cancelled out by disagreement or applauded by consensus.
I like the variety of voices, and the different interpretations.
(*valid - I use the qualifier to eliminate spam &/or insanity.)
It's a question of whether it is important to be proved right
or wrong, or just to add another voice, especially since this
is an art newsgroup full of nebulous ideas. Admittedly your
topic of authentication of Hokusai's prints was more scientific.
If I seemed to be "beating around the bush" it may be
because I was making conversation and not entering into a
debate. I hope that I have now flushed the bird out of the
bush.
Marilyn