Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

I've been trying to find out more about this Imari bowl. From doing a little internet research, I found that this "five ship" design was pretty common through the Meiji and Taisho periods. I also saw a version of this design in a book on Daishoji Imari (unfortunately the book was in Japanese...)

I was wondering if this bowl is Arita or Daishoji/Kunani ware. How does one tell them apart? I'm curious about Daishoji Imari in general. Do collectors consider Daishoji porcelain to be "authentic" Imari or reproductions? Do they value it less or is it seen as being on equal footing artistically and historically?

Any replies will be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Rick

I neglected to mention in the above post that the bowl is 12" in diameter, and has two spur marks on the base. Thanks, Rick

Before answering your question, I just want to make it clear, the word, Arita, which you used in your question.
I noticed that most collectors do not understand what and where, Arita, is. Arita-machi is a very small town which was established in 1889 before it was called “Sarayama”. This "Sarayama" area is just one lane on the hillside, you can walk around easily.
Imari porcelain which was a term used to describe Japanese porcelain produced in the wide region of Hizen since early 17th century. Imari porcelain made during the Edo period was not limited to this Sarayama area.
So your question should be,” Is my bowl Hizen Imari or Daishoji Imari?”
My answer is, “Your Imari is Daishoji not Hizen”.
It is very clear to my eyes.
I do not consider Daishoji Imari to be a reproduction. A reproduction is a copy. But, it is a repeat of the same styles and patterns which were created by the Hizen artists earlier. So, in that sense, it lacks originality and a secondary product comparing to the original Hizen Imari. Also it is much recent work and not so rare.
I hope this will answer your question a little.
Best Regards,
Emiko

Emiko, I was so hoping that I would get a response from you. Your posts are always so informative. Thanks, Rick

Good Afternoon -
Is Daishoji a style or an origin for this bowl? If a style, why is it called Daishoji? If an origin, why is there no shard evidence of production for these polychromes in Kutani (Daishoji)? What characteristics are evidence of a Kutani kiln or decorator? None of these alleged Daishoji pieces, including this one are marked Kutani, Daishoji, or Kaga, and I have never seen an accompanying tomobako marked with these terms. Also rare is a Fuku marking on these. Are beveled foot rims (kodai) a confirming characteristic? What convincing evidence is there for confirming these nice pieces were indeed made or decorated in Daishoji? Were underglaze sometsuke blanks Hizen produced and decorated in Daishoji, or was entire production done in Kutani. Appreciate you opinion. Thank you,
John

Emiko is the expert here, but if she doesn't pick up the thread again I can add a little information.

Daishoji is the name of a temple in the Kaga Prefecture a few miles south of Kutani. During the Meiji period a kiln was established there which revived (reproduced?) many classic Imari and ko-Kutani patterns.

Experts in Japanese porcelain can tell Kutani (Daishoji) Imari from Hizen Province Imari, but Emiko didn't elaborate on WHY she was so sure this was a Daishoji product. (But I'm sure she's right of course!) It seems to me that in general the glazes are very bright compared to ko-Imari originals and the painting a little more mechanical, but I can't say more than that with any certainty.

My limited knowledge comes from a small paperback book (in Japanese) called DAISHOJI IMARI by Toru Takada. (It's probably available on Amazon or Ebay.) I couldn't get much from the text, but the pictures are excellent and will give you a good sense of the look of Daishoji Imari and the most popular designs (which include the Five Ships motif.)

Rick

Thank you Rick - The expanded question I have is that I, along with Georges Bouvier in Paris have been discussing the subject of Daishoji Imari. Georges and I are arguably the foremost experts, albeit limited, on Kutani as Westerners.

Georges and I are of the opinion that Daishoji Imari remains a mystery and partly a myth. We believe that certainly given the kilns and decorators in Daishoji and the Kutani region, that high quality copies/reproductions of Imari polychromes were made there mostly due to their commercial popularity. But what we don’t know is what would distinguish them from pieces made elsewhere, for example Arita. According to what I have read and a few persons I have spoken with, is that the paucity of shard evidence in Daishoji and the Kutani area in general argues against any large scale production of these pieces there. According to the Kutaniyaki Museum site (in English), the clay use for these alleged Daishoji ceramics was a mixture of clay from Hizen (Arita) and Kutani, but there is no mention of the percentages nor why mixed clay was used. This begs the question of whether clay from Hizen was transported to Kutani, or whether clay from Kutani was sent to Hizen to have underglaze sometsuke blanks made which later would receive overglaze decoration in Daishoji (or elsewhere). It seems illogical. Some seem to be of the opinion that some, most, or all true Daishoji made pieces have a beveled kodai. If some, then unregulated access to the mixed clay (if true) is problematic, but if most or all, then it would support a kiln (or just a few) that dominated production. I’d be interested in any opinion on the significance of a beveled kodai on purported Daishoji pieces. I am not aware of any historical records indicating that clay was sent to/from Hizen to Kutani for blank production, but I do not have the time not resources to look into that. Furthermore, I have yet to see a marking on an alleged Daishoji piece that indicates Kutani, Daishoji or Kaga as the origin, but have seen some Fuku marked. Likewise, I have yet to see a piece with an accompanying tomobako indicating a Kutani/Daishoji/Kaga origin. None I have seen have been artist/decorator marked, as was common in Kutani at the time these pieces were produced. I find this lack of evidence quite compelling. Spurious Chinese reign markings, and the occasional Ju (Kotobuki) mark appears with the majority of pieces appearing unmarked. Some have spur marks, but this lacks consistency in the pieces I have seen. The bottom line conclusion that Georges and I have arrived at is the there is not enough evidence to support wide scale production of high quality Imari designs in Kutani and specifically Daishoji. Additionally, there does not seem to be agreed on characteristics for what is termed Daishoji Imari, regardless of origin.
Whew!

So this leads Georges and I to surmise that the term Daishoji Imari was created to take advantage of the commercial popularity of these pieces and was a marketing ploy, although some pieces may indeed been made in the Kutani region.

Therefore Daishoji Imari became a style, so to speak, encompassing a wide range of Imari and Imari inspired designs. Certainly, many of the blackship designs are being sold as Daishoji Imari, as are most of the petalled Chrysanthemum themed Imari designed plates and bowls with brocaded aspects and florals. An unanswered question is whether the Daishoji clan funded or commissioned these pieces thus earning the term Daishoji Imari, regardless of where they were produced. The small book on Daishoji is interesting in that it contains a large number of photographs that do not appear to be linked to Kutani or resembling Kutani styles and reverses are not shown, and both Georges and I are language challenged by the text. One limitation for us is this plus there are no known article or texts on this subject in English that we are aware.
Whew!

So if Daishoji Imari is not of Kutani origin, or was extremely limited in production there (?), or simply cannot be proven to be the origin by any evidentiary standard, how did the term get created? This is rhetorical, of course, but I am interested in whether anyone has a learned opinion on this. For me, Kutani holds three mysteries. First is the origin of ko-Kutani for which the majority opinion todays is that it has its origins in Hizen. Second mystery is exactly why and under what circumstances did Kutani production cease? And the third mystery, minor compared to the first two, what exactly is Daishoji Imari? With apologies for such a lengthy posting.

With kind regards,
John

Any chance for someone to opine on my last comments?
John

Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries |