Municipal Picture Gallery / Museum Kiscell
Churchspace, 1037 Budapest, Kiscelli u. 108.
March 13 1997–April 13 1997
Curators: Zsolt Petrányi, Koppány Varga
Coordinators: Hori Motoaki, Taguchi Katsuya
Catalogue edited by Péter Fitz, Zsolt Petrányi
Translated by Koppány Varga, Ervin Dunay
Design by Laura Márkus
ISBN 963 7096 57 4
HACHIYA Kazuhiko
KIMURA Taro
KUSANO Kiyo
MATSUI Shiro
NAKAYAMA Daisuke
NARA Yoshitomo
NUKATA Nobuhiko
TAKANOBU Kobayashi
USHIJIMA Tatsuji
YONEKAWA Harumi
YOSHITAKA Echizenya
Zsolt Petrányi:
Contemporary Japanese Art, or Having a Different Vision of Existence
The realization of the point that the accustomed method of composing pictures was not the only one (a realization induced, among others, by Japanese woodcuts) brought about a turning point in European art. From that moment the West was gradually discovering the characteristic features and theoretical sources of Japanese aesthetics. On encountering contemporary Japanese art, therefore, many people are still expecting new forms of both the aesthetic ideals and the visual language to emerge from these vastly different foundations. Following the 1980s, the traditional approach has been complemented with the introduction of state-of-the-art computer technology in this visual language, which is almost to be expected from Japanese artists living in close proximity with technological advances.However, contemporary Japanese art is incomparably more complex, than a European observer would assume it to be at first glance. Japanese art critics treat the so-called "international artworks" separate from those works which are, in their choice of theme or presentation, explicitly related to the given Japanese surroundings, although in most of the cases these, too, are produced using methods that cannot be called traditional. From the vantage point of international culture, however, the scope of meaning of these latter works is no less extensive, and their interpretation no more difficult, than it is the case with the first group, as they are the ones that capture the specific features of the country's different cultural background. They are to be interpreted according to Western categories, rather than to the principles of traditional Japanese aesthetics, and the explanation of the point that they are more inspiring than the "international artworks" lies perhaps in the fact that they do not strive for unconditional conformity.
For the best way to illuminate the cause of this, one would probably have to study the method of artistic creation. What I mean here by this notion is the possibility of comprehension, which is manifested in a work of art in the definition of surrounding, or to put it in a broader context, of culture. On account of the difference of tradition, the difference in the approach might necessarily lead to differences in phrasing this, despite the fact that the Japanese artist, who also starts out from "globalness", wants to present the one and the same world in which we all live. Thus the following question arises: How changeable is the approach to art, or the mode of creating an artwork, in the Eastern and the Western culture? The reason why this matter seems to be worthy of investigation is that by analyzing the problem, we shall be able to look behind the actual artworks: it will inform us about things that can shed light on their essence.
Studying the accomplishments of contemporary Japanese artists, we are often under the impression that they lack something; we often feel that for some reason they are "inferior" to Western artworks. European critics tend to pass over these inconspicuous works of art, saying that they are no good, as they do not reach the European "standard". As we shall see later, the fundamental dilemma of Japanese art is manifested in this failure to exert an influence: the paradox of the diverging methods of creating works of art.
In this regard, there is a wide variety of attitudes amongst Japanese artists; yet, by somewhat simplifying the matter, we can distinguish between two basic types.
The first type of artists, similarly to so many people who dream about achieving rapid success in this field, study prominent representatives of the international art scene in order to imitate their art and to cultivate their approach.
In Japanese culture this attitude goes back a long way. Western art and culture was first propagated in Japan by Christian missionaries in the 16th century. Nevertheless, the cultural and economic breakthrough, which launched Japan on a course of development following European patterns, was only made possible following the Meiji Restoration of 1867. That was the time when the Western schools and movements (Naturalism, Historicism, Impressionism) first made an impact on Japanese art. As to the problems of methodology, these already stirred up debates then, with the critics maintaining that the works of art employing the new techniques lacked in content. In other words, the artists, who often studied in Europe--mostly in Munich or in Paris--learned methods without appreciating their role in the development of Western culture. In their own country, these works were significant, as they communicated a form of behaviour, or an artistic attitude, in which the artists were able to express their identification with the ideal of Western development.
Despite the more liberal atmosphere which has characterized the period following the Second World War, this attitude can still be observed among Japanese artists. Even today we sometimes find that artists are concerned with the way in which their work is received according to the international interpretation, as they are trying to devise a visual mode of thinking that should be followed for its definition to be manifested in their works. Then they notice or discover a conceptual or technical method in contemporary art, which they can apply to their own visual world or vocabulary of motifs. The type of artworks thus produced are invariably very impressive, full of imagination, bold in their choice of materials, and freely combine Eastern and Western motifs. However, they always reveal some uncertainty regarding the content: some hollowness in the meaning of forms. Consequently, when studied side by side, the works of any such artist present serious difficulties to interpretation, as-- regardless of their homogeneous appearance--they do not follow from one another as far as their content is concerned. To avoid any misunderstanding, I want to make it clear that I do not wish to pass judgement over these artworks, as I am aware of the role they play in the culture of East Asia. Japanese people, and especially people living in Tokyo, experience the world in its constantly changing nature and therefore these works, too, only appear to them as fleeting visual sensations.
By contrast, there exists another type of artworks, which are much more focused on content, and which give prime importance to meaning: artworks requiring a great deal more attention and energy to create. Quite often, these works are rather inconspicuous creations, marked by a kind of introvertedness, which is the result of their analytical approach to their materials or subject matter, and therefore they require a more engrossed attention on the part of the viewers. They remind us of the view, often expressed in traditional Japanese art objects, whereby something that is spectacular cannot, on the same token, be valuable. The method of creation in the case of these works is a more complex process.
Basically, artists start out from the essential nature of the world, as this is what they wish to understand and interpret through creation. The expression "world" can be interpreted in a broad sense here, as it can equally refer to the problems of a given political or social situation, the interpretation of human existence or occasionally even the artists' own artistic traditions. It is important that we postulate this, so as to emphasize that this concept starts out from the interpretation of existence, rather than that of art or culture, and therefore its primary concern is the communication of meaning, rather than the technical or methodical approach.
It is only after this that the artist sets out to find the material and the technique to be used for the artworks, constantly keeping in sight the meaning and the purpose of his message. His mode of expression is either very indirect, or quite unrecognizable: unrecognizable in the sense that the viewers can identify it only on preliminary information. Outside observers sometimes might feel that there is a contradiction here, as the message is expressed by the complex formula. The purpose of creating the work is to present the message, yet it is often expressed not just in visual signs, but also in the realization of a process. Quite often the artworks produced in this way seem inconceivably superficial, although their essence is in the creative method revealing itself only gradually. In this case the process of realization becomes the model, the world view, which viewers can decode as a message only by coming to understand the process. According to this interpretation the good works are, of course, the ones that leave an opening at the border between the invisible and the expressed, so as to suggest the phases of their own creation.
Naturally, there are other possibilities, in addition to the one mentioned above, to effect profound thinking; yet this fact changes nothing about the essence of the approach. Many artists start out from the various interpretations of their materials, something that has generally characterized Japanese art. In addition to the elaboration on the fundamental properties of various materials, the potentials of magical or mythical interpretation are also given great significance. In the religious traditions of Japan, i.e. in Shintoism and Buddhism, specific importance is attached to the so-called basic elements, with the myths attached to natural objects forming additional layers of meaning on top, and the correct reading of the artworks requires a familiarity with that also. What the Western viewers see in all this is a strong and refined aestheticism, which they interpret from the viewpoint of their own culture, through the aspects of their own universe of symbols. The reason why we do not have any problems in recognizing the values of these works is that the complexity of content might be secondary in relation to their effect.
Other works undertake the interpretation of the actual social and political situation of their locality, even at the price of losing the attention of the international media by doing so. In the eyes of their creators, the most important function of art is to provoke some kind of a reaction, to exert some influence or to deliver criticism on society and the social phenomena. The local critics have a high opinion of such works, as they invest the artists with the privilege of openness and free speech. Therefore, we should be grateful to the artists who direct attention to the undesirable phenomena, because no one else can substitute them in that capacity. For us, these works should be approached with great care, because quite often their true content remains concealed from us.
The primary goal in the selection of artists for the exhibition in the Kiscelli Museum was to present the conceptual and technical versatility outlined above. Instead of picking one group, we selected artists specially for this occasion; in other words, many of these artists had never met before. Yet, some connections, both of content and of technique, do exist between them, which justify their selection to be presented side by side. Such connections include the view they take of humans; technical virtuosity; the "pop-art" character; the search for tradition; and a form of subjective idealism.
In the case of most of the artists the view they take of humans plays an important part in their work, despite the fact that only a few artists depict figures. The various artists use different vehicles for the representation of this aspect: for Yonekawa Harumi it is women, for Nara Yoshito it is children; it is human labour in the case of Ushijama Tatsuji and the interpretation of human relations in the case of Daisuke Nakayama.
By mentioning technical virtuosity, I meant the acceptance of craftsmanship as a means in the creation of artworks, rather than its emphasis as an end. Daisuke Nakayama, Ushijima Tatsuji, Matsui Shiro and Kobayashi Takanobu work alone, mastering all the necessary techniques themselves, even though on seeing their works one has the feeling that they must have had some help in creating them. The artists' close contact with the material, developed almost to the degree of intimacy, could, of course, be attributed to traditional aesthetics, yet it is frequently observed in contemporary Japanese art.
The actuality and continuous presence of the pop-art influence in Japanese culture can be explained by the rise in the standard of living accompanying the rapid economic growth, which continuously sustained the consumer mentality. The present, defined by the architectural environment of the constantly changing and growing Japanese metropolises, and also manifested in the novelties of consumer goods, has a meaning which is completely different from the way it is understood in most of the large European cities, the architectural character of which is determined by the buildings constructed in the period from the Baroque to the turn of the century. This category plays an important part in the art of Yoshimoto Nara, Matsui Shiro, Daisuke Nakayama, Kazuhiko Hachiya and Ushijima Tatsuji, as well as in the earlier works of Kobayashi Takanobu.
The search for tradition does not mean its close following. The artists are searching for their own place in their own culture, in the interest of which they borrow the different elements and techniques of the traditional methods of composition. This is achieved by the re- interpretation of the traditional Japanese landscape in Yoshitaka Euhizenya's case, and by the presentation of certain objects as motifs in Takanobu Kobayashi's case. By contrast, Kimura Taro preserves his links to the Buddhist tradition in the concept of his artistic creation.
By subjective idealism I mean a spiritual and intuitive approach to the world and to the work of art. We encounter artworks radiating meditative atmosphere and playing with the effects of light and dark quite frequently in Japanese galleries. The works of Kusano Kiyo and Kimura Taro are rather more complex than this formal approach would suggest, yet their starting point is often determined by this element.
On account of their broadness, the above categories would justify the staging of separate exhibitions, yet in some way they would still narrow the possibilities in the comprehensive presentation of contemporary Japanese art. Therefore, this multifaceted approach yields an open set of artworks, making it clear that other artists, too, could have been invited to take part in this exhibition. Of the Japanese artists known to me, I have chosen those who promised to generate some interest in the context of the Hungarian art scene, yet at the same time I wished to illustrate the impossibility of presenting a comprehensive picture of contemporary Japanese art.
The variety of methods, approaches, genres and techniques presented here can express the versatility of contemporary Japanese art; beside hopefully helping us to capture the essence of what constitutes the essence of an entirely different approach to art.