|
Subject:Re: Black Ship Imari bowl: Arita or Daishoji?
Posted By: John Wocher Thu, Oct 09, 2014
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
|