Talk:Japanese art/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Let's get this to FA status

The main thing that needs to be done is referencing the top of the article, then making sure all the other sections are well referenced as well. Anyone up to it? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I really have time within the next few days, but I'm definitely up for helping out with this when I get a chance. LordAmeth 14:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I may not have time for a couple days either. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

'Contemporary art' vs. 'modern art' section

Wouldn't the section called "Modern art in Japan" be better called "Contemporary art in Japan", since its subject is the current art scene in Japan? The section before, on the "Postwar period", obviously would include much "modern" Japanese art, in the sense of "modernist" art. Anyone agree with me on this? MdArtLover (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly -- of course you're correct. Nevertheless, as you know, when we encounter the phrase "pre-modern Japan" in a history text, we understand that scholars have long used this term to describe the pre-Meiji period of the Tokugawa shogunate. In the art world, we understand that art historians and critics have commonly used this term to describe a wide range of post-Cubist painters; and, at the same time, we also know that the flexible term "modern" is quite often applied as a synonym for abstract art created in the post-WWII period. In the 21st century, I am persuaded that the modest labeling change you suggest is relevant, on-point, necessary, reasonable. In any other context, I would endorse your proposal whole-heartedly.
However, I think it's better for our decision-making about the term "modern" to be informed by the conservative point-of-view of the Japanese Independent Administrative Institution which oversees the several National Museums of Art -- including its four "modern art" collections, e.g.,
Let me be clear: I do want to be wrong about this; but I think Wikipedia should construe "modern" as it relates to Japanese art in the same way as MOMAK, MOMAT, NMAO, and NMWA do ...? If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Block-evading Sockpuppeter User:Azukimonaka's insistence

Insincere quotation

These indigenous characteristics can be seen in early Buddhist art in Japan and some early Japanese Buddhist sculpture is now believed to have originated in Korea, particularly from Baekje, or Korean artisans who immigrated to Yamato Japan.

The source is affixed to this article. buddhapia.com However, the source is being written like this. (This source was written by Hyundai in South Korea. Therefore, this source has a strong bias in Korea. (For instance, This site replaces the Sea of Japan with East Sea.

In this paper I have attempted to illuminate the process by which Buddhist sculpture was transmitted from Korea to Japan. I have argued that various groups, including offi cial envoys, monks and students, as well as Korean settlers, were responsible for bringing Korean icons to Japan. In addition to actual icons, sculptors possessing the knowledge of how to make Buddhist images must have come in large numbers. However, the simple arrival of icons and sculptors would not have inevitably led to the flourishing of Buddhism and Buddhist art that was seen in Asuka Japan. Obviously there had to be a powerful group who felt that it was in their interest to adopt Buddhism.

Therefore, I delete this part. Please rewrite the Korean art if you hope for the re-publishing. This source is being written.

One must stress the obvious point that since Korean Buddhist art is directly based on developments in China, ultimately a study of Korean influence on Japan must be rooted in an understanding of the Chinese impact on Korea. 　

--Eichikiyama (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't stick to the source, and only excerpt a small portion from the source to make your WP:POINT. The site is titled Korean Influence on Early Japanese Buddhist Sculpture.

The flourishing of Buddhist art, especially sculpture, in Japan during the sixth and seventh centuries was a direct result of the transmission of Buddhism from Korea. Naturally, most of the early Japanese statues have been lost through the centuries, although a surprisingly large number are still in existence. This contrasts strikingly with the situation in China and Korea, where a very large percentage of the icons, particularly those made of wood and bronze, have been destroyed in persecutions of Buddhism, as well as through natural causes. Consequently, while Japan was not a center for the creation of new artistic styles in the early period....... In this paper I would like to emphasize the process by which Buddhism and Buddhist art were transmitted from Korea to Japan...This sixth century map shows the two basic routes by which Buddhism spread from Korea to Japan: 1) from Paekche across the strait to Kyushu, then up the Inland Sea to the Nara basin; and 2) from Silla across the East Sea to the island of Honshu. All scholars recognize that the Koryu-ji Maitreya is based on a Korean prototype...Virtually all the important early Korean icons have been lost, but that should not obscure the fact that the styles of Buddhist sculpture were transmitted from Korea to Japan. It is inconceivable that small, quite simple icons made in Korea led to the pro duction of the magnificent images of Asuka sculpture; rather, there must have been numerous impressive icons in Koguryo, Paekche and Silla which formed the basis for the sculpture of the Asuka period.

You should've fixed the content regarding the Korean influence to Japanese sculpture came not only from Baekje, but also from Goguryo, and Silla, rather blanked out the whole citation and content. That practice seems like you don't want the mention of Korean influence on Japan to be included.--Caspian blue 18:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This comment is quick glance of the source. As I'm looking into the source, the source presents "Baekje influence or transmission" to Japan exclusively. You must be sincere about the source. --Caspian blue 18:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted only These indigenous characteristics can be seen in early Buddhist art in Japan and some early Japanese Buddhist sculpture is now believed to have originated in Korea, particularly from Baekje, or Korean artisans who immigrated to Yamato Japan..

I have not deleted "Particularly, the semi-seated Maitreya form was adapted into a highly developed Korean style which was transmitted to Japan as evidenced by the Koryu-ji Miroku Bosatsu and the Chugu-ji Siddhartha statues. Although many historians portray Korea as a mere transmitter of Buddhism, the Three Kingdoms, and particularly Baekje, were instrumental as active agents in the introduction and formation of a Buddhist tradition in Japan in 538 or 552.".

Evidence:[1]

What you are saying is far off the mark.

I question you again.

The source is being written.

In this paper I have attempted to illuminate the process by which Buddhist sculpture was transmitted from Korea to Japan. I have argued that various groups, including offi cial envoys, monks and students, as well as Korean settlers, were responsible for bringing Korean icons to Japan. In addition to actual icons, sculptors possessing the knowledge of how to make Buddhist images must have come in large numbers. However, the simple arrival of icons and sculptors would not have inevitably led to the flourishing of Buddhism and Buddhist art that was seen in Asuka Japan. Obviously there had to be a powerful group who felt that it was in their interest to adopt Buddhism.

You must explain the reason to delete the latter half part.

And, how do you treat this part?

One must stress the obvious point that since Korean Buddhist art is directly based on developments in China, ultimately a study of Korean influence on Japan must be rooted in an understanding of the Chinese impact on Korea. 　

--Eichikiyama (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Buddapia is the cite name if you look carefully into the cite and reference section. Besides, as I said, the content is written by an American professor at UCLA, and was originally posted to Korean cultural center of LA, USA. You must explain your reason why you deliberately deleted the former half part of the sentences when you quoted above. Since you already posted them above, is it necessary for me to post the same contents? That is a redundancy. I already said that you can add Chinese influence to Korean Buddhist art, but which is more relevant to Korean art. Besides, you falsely accused that the content is insincere. According to the source, it is a clear fact that the early Japanese sculpture is based on prototypes of Korean Buddhist sculpture, and you tried to blank out the whole content and citation. That is disruptive. I asked a third opinion from an expert on art history of Japan and admin, LordAmeth, so please be patient.--Caspian blue 19:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid the argument is a bit hard to follow. Are we simply arguing over whether or not to mention that early Japanese Buddhist art was heavily influenced by Korean art? Or do we agree on that point, and the argument is more nuanced, as to exactly how we phrase it in the article?
I am not at home right now and do not have access to my books, but I shall attempt to remember this evening to come back here with some quotes from other sources, so that we don't have to argue about exactly what it does or does not say in this one source. LordAmeth (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Your suggestion sounds good; we don't need to use only one source on the dispute. The main point on the dispute is different interpretations on the above source by the two editor. Eichikaya claims that These indigenous characteristics can be seen in early Buddhist art in Japan and some early Japanese Buddhist sculpture is now believed to have originated in Korea, particularly from Baekje, or Korean artisans who immigrated to Yamato Japan. is not based on the source, so should be taken out. I rebut that labeling is false, and the content could be revised a bit if he wants to include Chinese influence on Korean art which was transmitted to the earl period of Japan.--Caspian blue 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, the notion that early Buddhist art and architecture was heavily influenced by Korean models is strongly supported in every source I have.
Baker, Joan Stanley. Japanese Art. London: Thames & Hudson, 1984. pp30-31: "During the Asuka period, every major building project used imported Korean specialists, many of whom subsequently settled. (Although immigrant Chinese craftsmen are mentioned, some families for several generations, artistic contact, like religious contact, between Japan and China, was largely by way of Korea." ... "In the arts, the period reflects cultural links with the Korean peninsula rather than with China, in particular with the kingdoms of Koguryō to the north and Paekche to the southwest."
p36: "The influence of Buddhist diplomats, monks, artisans and painters from both Korean kingdoms had been felt since the mid-sixth-century."
Paine, Robert Treat and Alexander Soper. The Art and Architecture of Japan (third edition). New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981. p30: "The Buddhist art of China was the main source in both style and iconography, but the transmitters of this tradition reached Japan solely through Korea."
An article by Donald McCallum entitled "Earliest Buddhist Statues in Japan" might also prove helpful; I would be happy to send it to you in PDF if you would like. I hope that what I have provided proves helpful. I'd be helpful to provide further quotes; if there's something else I can do let me know. I am sure there is a straightforward way to move forward and resolve this issue - starting with leaving off with the specific problems the previous source may present and addressing the issue at hand itself (what do we wish to say in the Wiki article about Chinese/Korean influence on Japanese art in this period?). Thanks both of you for your hard work, patience, and continued good faith towards one another. LordAmeth (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the research and help. If you could provide the PDF file, that would be great!--Caspian blue 19:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change the subject

I deleted the part of the bold-faced type.

These indigenous characteristics can be seen in early Buddhist art in Japan and some early Japanese Buddhist sculpture is now believed to have originated in Korea, particularly from Baekje, or Korean artisans who immigrated to Yamato Japan. Particularly, the semi-seated Maitreya form was adapted into a highly developed Korean style which was transmitted to Japan as evidenced by the Koryu-ji Miroku Bosatsu and the Chugu-ji Siddhartha statues. Although many historians portray Korea as a mere transmitter of Buddhism, the Three Kingdoms, and particularly Baekje, were instrumental as active agents in the introduction and formation of a Buddhist tradition in Japan in 538 or 552.

The description of "Particularly… in Japan in 538 or 552." is faithful to the source. Therefore, I did not correct it at all.

However, "These indigenous characteristics…immigrated to Yamato Japan." is a description of the source and the contrary. The source is being written like this.

In this paper I have attempted to illuminate the process by which Buddhist sculpture was transmitted from Korea to Japan. I have argued that various groups, including offi cial envoys, monks and students, as well as Korean settlers, were responsible for bringing Korean icons to Japan. In addition to actual icons, sculptors possessing the knowledge of how to make Buddhist images must have come in large numbers. However, the simple arrival of icons and sculptors would not have inevitably led to the flourishing of Buddhism and Buddhist art that was seen in Asuka Japan. Obviously there had to be a powerful group who felt that it was in their interest to adopt Buddhism.

And, this source affixes the disclaimer.

One must stress the obvious point that since Korean Buddhist art is directly based on developments in China, ultimately a study of Korean influence on Japan must be rooted in an understanding of the Chinese impact on Korea. 　

I think the source to have been falsified so that this description may undervalue "Influence of a Chinese art on a Japanese art". Therefore, I deleted only this part.

However, Caspian blue insisted, "This description was sincere in the source", and wrote this description again.

Caspian blue and I became edit battles. Caspian blue was not able to be persuaded in my unskilled English.

In this problem, "Korean influence on Japanese Culture" is not a cause. It does because of the difference between the editorial policy of Caspian blue and the editorial policy of EichiKiyama.

Therefore, I will persuade him again later. --Eichikiyama (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Another unnecessary redundancy. You're the one who does not get the point at all. "Transmission", "Origin" and "adaption" are different stories from one another but you're confusing all. It is a clear fact Korean art is strongly influenced by China just like Japan is heavily influenced by Korea. However, the source does not explore a relation between the early Japanese Buddhist sculpture and Chinese one, but Korean sculptures. Besides, the conclusion of the source argues that on the promise of Korean sculpture, the development of the art could be attributed to Japanese adaptation as well. However, our disputed sentence only focuses on its "origin", so please do not evade the subejct again.--Caspian blue 22:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
My insistence is "Please quote the source accurately." Your insistence is "Japan is heavily influenced by Korea". Therefore, our discussion doesn't advance well. I am not denying the influence of a Korean peninsula on a Japanese art. The description of "Particularly… in Japan in 538 or 552." is faithful to the source. Therefore, I did not correct it at all.
The source that you had quoted was written as follows.
"In this paper I have attempted to illuminate the process by which Buddhist sculpture was transmitted from Korea to Japan. I have argued that various groups, including offi cial envoys, monks and students, as well as Korean settlers, were responsible for bringing Korean icons to Japan. In addition to actual icons, sculptors possessing the knowledge of how to make Buddhist images must have come in large numbers. However, the simple arrival of icons and sculptors would not have inevitably led to the flourishing of Buddhism and Buddhist art that was seen in Asuka Japan. Obviously there had to be a powerful group who felt that it was in their interest to adopt Buddhism. "
And, you quoted it like this.
"These indigenous characteristics can be seen in early Buddhist art in Japan and some early Japanese Buddhist sculpture is now believed to have originated in Korea, particularly from Baekje, or Korean artisans who immigrated to Yamato Japan".
However, this content is not faithful to the source. Therefore, please delete this part.
Or, please reflect the disclaimer "One must stress the obvious point that since Korean Buddhist art is directly based on developments in China, ultimately a study of Korean influence on Japan must be rooted in an understanding of the Chinese impact on Korea." by the author who wrote this source.
I apologize for becoming a tedious conversation by poor English. However, please let me persuade again if you rejected my proposal. --Eichikiyama (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
-_-;; Another circulating discussion with you one after one. I don't see what is wrong with the citation and content. Your interpretation is fatally incorrect. The early Japanese Buddhist sculpture is indeed "believed" to have originated in Korea according to the source. That is the basic promise of the source. Besides, most of arguments suggested in the source present examples of "Baekje artisans" to Yamato Japan. The author concludes the development of the early Japanese sculpture is not only due to Baekje of Korea, but also other parts of Korea including Goguryeo, and Japanese daimyo's efforts to adapt the transmission from Korean art which was also influenced by China. However, the disputed content is not about "adaptation" but "origins", so please do not misinterpret the source and content. I don't see why you should delete the properly cited source and content. Period.--Caspian blue 00:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The early Japanese Buddhist sculpture is indeed "believed" to have originated in Korea is not being written in your source buddhapia.comat all……　--Eichikiyama (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
If the exact sentence is found in the source, that would be "plagiarism without revising the source. Read the source carefully again, especially scholars' opinion.--Caspian blue 01:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
You are writing "These indigenous characteristics can be seen in early Buddhist art in Japan and some early Japanese Buddhist sculpture is now believed to have originated in Korea, particularly from Baekje, or Korean artisans who immigrated to Yamato Japan" though the source is being written "I have argued that various groups, including offi cial envoys, monks and students, as well as Korean settlers, were responsible for bringing Korean icons to Japan. In addition to actual icons, sculptors possessing the knowledge of how to make Buddhist images must have come in large numbers. However, the simple arrival of icons and sculptors would not have inevitably led to the flourishing of Buddhism and Buddhist art that was seen in Asuka Japan."
This part is not a plagiarism. This part is a falsification. Therefore, I am asking you for the deletion of this part.
Let's have the cooling-off period a little. We should continue a calm conversation.--Eichikiyama (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Excessively using "bold texts" and repeated same duplication of sources are not a good way to convey your "calm status" (although I imitated your communication skill). Again, there is no falsification on sources, so please do not mispresent my stance. That is very offensive. I'm speaking the origin of "some of early Japanese Buddhist sculpture", while you're speaking off-topic like "development of Japanese sculpture in the early period". If you can't accept the discussion and source, visit WP:3O and ask a help from people there whose native language is English.--Caspian blue 02:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ MOMAK union catalog
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japanese_art/Archive_2&oldid=1066692172"