Ivory and the Aesthetics of Modernity in Meiji Japan

M. Chaiklin

• Publisher: Palgrave Pivot
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN:
  9781137363329
• eBook ISBN:
  9781137363336
• Topic: Art
• Subtopic: Art General

The opening of the ports of Japan in 1859 brought a flood of Japanese craft products to the world marketplace. For ivory it was a golden age. This book examines the role that ivory and ivory carvers played in the expression of nationalism and the development of sculpture in the later nineteenth and early twentieth century.

1

Art, Ivory and the Meiji Period – An Introduction

Abstract: Modernity is defined as a backdrop for examining ivory as both as an art and a craft. The elements of modernity – individualism, democracy, capitalism and nationalism – are discussed in the context of the new Meiji state. Industrialization and trade were essential components of Japan’s march of progress, but art objects in general and ivory in particular are shown to be an important part of this nationalistic support of foreign trade. Tracing the history of ivory use in the nineteenth century world and Japan, the stage is set with the art historical and taxonomic issues of the study of ivory.

Chaiklin, Martha. Ivory and the Aesthetics of Modernity in Meiji Japan. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. DOI: 10.1057/9781137363336.0005.

Ivory is a material of such extreme beauty in itself that any art practised upon it at once becomes distinguished as well as valuable.¹

Today, many people associate ivory with graphic photographs of slaughtered elephants. This is probably for the best, because there is no question that elephants are endangered. In nineteenth-century Japan, however, ivory represented modernity. It was a link to the aesthetics, economic power and military might of the world represented by Charlotte Salway, the British author of the above quotation. And in Japan, questions of modernity loomed large in the second half of the nineteenth century. The Meiji oligarchy, the government that had formed after the collapse of the Tokugawa shogunate (1603–1867), made an unusually conscious decision to head directly into modernity to avoid the quasi-colonization they observed in China.

Irokawa Daikichi (b. 1925), an eminent and influential historian of the Meiji period (1868–1912), used the qualifications of individualism, democracy, capitalism and nationalism to define modernity.² However, the people who lived through these uncertain times did not have such clear definitions of their state. They saw change as “progress”. The contemporary standard for progress and civilization was industrial output in the broad sense of productive labour. This definition was linked to the occurrence of the industrial revolution, which in turn helped bring about greater global trading networks, both for raw materials and for markets to vend the artefacts of industrialized mass production. Shibusawa Eiichi (1840–1931), one of the most active and successful entrepreneurs of the Meiji period, demonstrated this mindset when he wrote, “The real force of progress lay in actual business, and the business elements were really most influential for the advancement of the country.”³ Progress and capitalism were seen as one, and by extension, success in these fields was patriotic – a new attribute that the government sought to foment to support the formation of the Japanese nation-state.

Trade was therefore a defining factor of nineteenth-century modernity. The principles of free trade and the supposedly superior stewardship of natural resources were part of the justification for Western imperialism. Because Japanese interaction with unbridled Western expansion into Asia was relatively late, they had the advantage of being able to learn from China and other countries who had suffered the outcomes of colonizing contact. The Tokugawa shogunate did not fully profit from the lessons on the dangers of Western imperialism of the Opium War of 1842 and other global historical events because it was shackled by two internal weaknesses. First, the extent of Tokugawa hegemony is a matter for debate but it was clearly not an autocracy. As a quasi-feudal state, the shogunate had only limited control over the other daimials (provinces under the control of a daimyo). Secondly, the shoguns during most of these events, Iesada (1824–1858) and Iemochi (1846–1866), were incapable of reining in opposing elements within their own bureaucratic structure.

The new Meiji government that replaced the shogunate was therefore left with the unequal treaties their predecessors had negotiated and a model of mercantile imperialism. Navigation of these issues would be vital for the formation of the new nation. This response is usually condensed into two slogans, fukoku kyōhei (prosperous country, strong army) and shokusan kōgyō (increase production, promote industry). Ōkuma Shigenobu (1838–1922), an advocate of rapid modernization, officially put the latter policy into place in 1870 when he took over as the head of the newly created Ministry of Industry (Kōbusho).⁴ Not all members of the government supported such drastic steps but regardless of outlook and animosities, all the ministries in the evolving Meiji bureaucracy understood the economic necessity of reversing the balance of trade. This campaign is widely acknowledged as having been successful but that success was not obtained as easily or even as obviously as might seem at first glance. In a doctoral thesis submitted in 1903, Yukimasa Hattori described Japan at the beginning of the new century as “a new factor” that the world had to contend with. According to Hattori, this occurred:

Not by slow evolution, but by one convulsive effort, the space dividing feudalism from constitutional government, and handicraft and serfdom from the commercial and industrial liberty of modern life has been bridged over.⁵

Industrialized factory output was one part of this industry, but art production was equally important, if for different reasons. Industry was not just a measure of technological progress or economic security; it tied to military might. Art production had economic benefits, but more importantly, it supported and promoted nascent Japanese nationalism. Before Japan was able to join the ranks of imperialist powers, the government substituted a sort of cultural imperialism through art. It is in part for this reason that Japan participated so vigorously in international fairs and expositions. We can see parallels to these actions in contemporary Japan. Limited by its constitution, Japan is not a military leader, and has dropped in the ranking of world economies, but is a leader in soft power.

Conversely, hand production also became tied with modernity. In the West the philosophy of John Ruskin resulted in increased appreciation of the imperfections of hand manufacture over mass-produced uniformity. Just as the ideas of Ruskin and his ilk were spreading in Europe, Japanese products arrived in Europe in volume for the first time. Japonisme,⁶ the fascination with things Japanese, was a fortunate by-product of expanded contact with the West. This appeal was in part based on the perception that Japan had been closed to the West for centuries, and so anything from there was rare and exotic. Natural forms common in Japanese art also resonated with tastemakers and artists. Japonisme was noticeably stimulated through the exhibitions at the Paris Exposition Universelle of 1867. Therefore the gravitation toward artwork as one element of a general policy of economic support was a natural one because craftworks provided a dike against the unfavourable balance of trade. Masuda Takashi (1848–1938), head of Mitsui Trading Company and a prominent collector of Japanese art, summarizes these trends:

The tendency of the export trade of Japan is to sell the produce of large factories to the markets of the countries comparatively low in civilization, and to supply the markets of the civilized countries with her special works of art ... Every endeavour should be made to encourage the production and exportation of these works of art, in order to promote business interests between Japan and the other civilized countries of the world.⁷

The trade formula Masuda outlined offered corollary nationalistic benefits. A generation before Hattori or Masuda, who were essentially looking back, another Japanese economist, Yejiro Ono, noted this connection, writing, “Whether good or bad, both in design and workmanship, Japanese art carries with it the taste and the aspiration of the race.”⁸ In simple terms, if foreigners admired Japanese art, they would admire Japan and therefore renegotiate the unequal treaties. Although in the end it was Mars and not Apollo that accomplished this goal, art production was a significant part of the political and economic landscape of Meiji Japan.

The pressures the opening of ports caused for many handicraft industries, especially textile producers, are well documented. For ivory carving, however, it was the boom years. Certainly this was true in Europe and America too, where more efficient hunting and new mass production methods had made ivory the plastic of the nineteenth century, used for everything from cutlery handles to buttons. But in Japan it was not industrialization, but the reverse, an emphasis on handicraft coupled with increased access to raw materials that linked ivory to modernity.

Ivory before Perry

Elephant ivory is an extremely useful material. It is both hard and flexible so it can be adapted to a wide variety of practical purposes. Although elephants feature large in Buddhist tales and iconography, it was probably the combination of this functionality and the aesthetic and tactile beauty intimated by Charlotte Salway that created a demand for a material that could be obtained only through perilous maritime trade. Nevertheless, ivory has ancient roots in Japan. Mentions of ivory can be found in some of the earliest written works in Japan, and ivory articles like gō game pieces and scepters are found in the Shōsōin. This treasure house on the grounds of Tōdaiji Temple in Nara contained the personal effects of Emperor Shōmu, who died in 756. Some of these objects were imported but others, scholars believe, were carved in Japan. Therefore, while ivory was brought to Japan in ancient times, it was clearly a rare and unusual material, the use of which was restricted to the uppermost elites and the temples they patronized.

Ivory consumption is barely notable in Japan until the mid- to late-seventeenth century. This was a time of commercial growth and prosperity that brought an accompanying surge in leisur...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1  Art, Ivory and the Meiji Period An Introduction
• 2  The Curiosity Shop The Forces of Capitalism
• 3  Transformations of the Craftsman
• 4  Individualism, Orthodoxy and the Evolution of Ivory Carving as Sculpture
• 5  Ivory after Meiji A Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index