ART AND ART INDUSTRIES IN JAPAN.*
Tins work on the Art of Japan is partially a reprint of a series of articles which originally appeared in the Art Journal, and suffers somewhat, no doubt, from the serial form of the original writings Itis leas a connected argument or description, than a sakes of illustrative chapters, dwelling on pretty well the same topics, and occasionally repeating the same arguments in other forms. This. style of writing, suitable enough for .a periodical appearing at monthly intervals, is somewhat of a mistake in a continuous treatise, when the iteration is easily and indeed unavoidably detected. Nor do we think that Sir Rutherford Alcock's admiration for several writers and lecturers on Japanese Art, has taken the wisest form of expressing itself, when he makes long quotations from their works or speeches. We should hardly be over-stating the matter, if we said that at least a third of this book was taken up with quotations from various writers, and not, as a rule, quotations of facts, but of opinions. Mr. Ruskin, Mr. Leighton, Mr. Jarves, and others are quoted again and again, with the intimation that the author agrees with their opinions ; nor can we quite understand that apart from these writers, he has any distinc- tive theory of Japanese art of his own. However, there is a considerable amount of information to be gained from the work • Art and Art Industries ia Japan. By Sir Rutherford Aleoek. London: Virtue. and Co.
as to the manner in which Japanese decoration is carried on, and the illustrative sketches are full of humour. What is needed in any work upon Japanese art, is the reason for its peculiar idiosyncraeies, both meritorious and the reverse, and most of all, the reason for its absolute lack of progressiveness ; these are topics which Sir Rutherford Alcock skirts round and round throughout the book, but of which he gives no adequate account :—" More especially it will be my object to trace the principles evolved in the exercise of the Art faculty, which seem to underlie all excellence in their work ; and to determine how far these are new, or different in essential points from those which have been accepted in Europe."
Then our author proceeds to prove at some length what we imagine no one in the least acquainted with Japanese art doubts, "that their fundamental ideas of symmetry are derived from a close study of Nature, and her processes in providing for variety," he shows how averse they are to any exact repetition of similar forms, and how dexterous in avoiding such repetition. We have then a chapter which seems to promise us an explanation of what the Japanese ideas of symmetry are, but on examination we find it to be simply a repetition of various European notions of sym- metry, as given by Dr. Addington Symonds and others. Our author tells us, for instance, that symmetry is variety restrained by unity, and the one idea which the chapter leaves us with is that the Japanese imitate nature's symmetry, rather than that of geometrical equality, and that they attain this by the balance of parts, severally dissimilar, but like and equal if taken in the mass ; similar to the symmetry of a tree, where exami- nation shows innumerable differences of leaf and branch, but a total uniformity and regularity pervading the mass. Into this point our author enters at some length, giving instances of the way in which this orderly disorder appears in nature in the arrangements of leaves on branches, &c. ; but this part of the book is hardly more than a weakened repetition of Mr. Ruskin's chapters on ramification and leaf structure in Modern Painters, and only has for its object to show that repetition and alternation are principles of plant growth, and "sources of much of the pleasure we derive from the vegetable and floral world."
The next chapter, on the "Originality of Japanese Art," is mainly devoted to the consideration of the various possible in- fluences which may have shaped this nation's work, the result of which inquiry is summed up in the following sentence :—" The conclusion to which I am led, therefore, on a review of all the evidences, of undoubted communication not only with China, but less directly with India and Central Asia, and through these countries, again, an acquaintance with the art motives of Greek and Byzantine work, is rather favourable than otherwise to the claim of originality for Japanese decorative art. Not that they had no knowledge whatever of the artistic productions of other nations lying too far afield for any direct intercourse, but from the conviction that any knowledge they obtained was too frag- mentary to be more than partially influential, even in a suggestive way, and too scanty to afford the materials required for the fundamental principles and development of their art." In other words, their art may have been slightly modified by foreign influence, but was not originated or governed by it.
But as will be seen, this query as to whether Japanese Art be original or not, even when answered in the affirmative, does not give us much clue to the peculiar qualities of this originality, and our author leaves this question unanswered, simply saying that he believes the solution is contained in the preceding chap- ters, those, namely, of which we have given a slight account. But the principles of design above given, such as the law of alternation, 8r.c., are not peculiar in the least to Japanese art, but common to that of all' nations with any art history, and so the solution of the differentia of originality is left as obscure as ever. Indeed it is the great defect of Sir Rutherford Alcock's book, that he gives us so many solutions which are not really solutions. Let us not be misunderstood, when our author leaves theory (generally, other people's theory), and draws upon his knowledge of Japanese life and art for facts, he is readable and interest- fag; and the remarks, for instance, upon some of the peculiarities of perspective in Japanese drawings, with their accompanying illustrations, are highly interesting, but considered as a work which professes to explain the merits of a peculiar art, the book is defective both in close reasoning and art knowledge.
The most entertaining part of the work is the pictorial portion, and that is certainly most amusing. The various illustrations of mothers-in-law and their objectionable practices, are in themselves almost sufficient to make it worth while to get the book, and some of the bird illustrations are also exceptionally
good. There is one, on p. 137, of a group of storks, which might have furnished the idea to Mr. Marks of his recent picture of "Convocation." In conclusion, we quote some remarks upon the limits of Japanese art, from the pen of Mr. Jarves, whose work, A Glance at the Art of Japan, is continually quoted from throughout the present volume. Mr. Jarves is speaking with re- ference to the art of other nations, when he speaks of Japanese art as follows :—" Narrower in range, but less spiritual in motive and less ambitious in its aims, the Art of Japan is less fettered by technical rule, and is more subtle, varied, free, and truthfully artistic in decorative expression. It abounds in unaffected effects and delicious surprises, with other coquetries and charms of aesthetic speech. Its good things never grow stale or dim through monotony." With this quotation we must take leave of Sir Rutherford Alcock's work, merely remarking that it would have been more serviceable, in our opinion, had it been frankly descrip- tive, and less theoretical.
Previous page
