_(cropped).JPG)
The concept ofmingei (民芸), variously translated into English as "folk craft", "folk art" or "popular art", was developed from the mid-1920s in Japan by a philosopher and aesthete,Yanagi Sōetsu (1889–1961), together with a group of craftsmen, including the pottersHamada Shōji (1894–1978) andKawai Kanjirō (1890–1966). As such, it was a conscious attempt to distinguish ordinary crafts and functional utensils (pottery, lacquerware, textiles, and so on) from "higher" forms of art – at the time much admired by people during a period when Japan was going through rapidwesternisation,industrialisation, andurbanization. In some ways, therefore,mingei may be seen as a reaction to Japan's rapid modernisation processes.[1][2]
As a young man, Yanagi developed a liking forJoseon (1392–1910) ceramics, and in 1916, made his first trip toKorea. There he started to collect items, especially pottery, made by local Korean craftsmen. Realising that Yi Dynasty wares had been made by "nameless craftsmen", Yanagi felt that there had to be a similar sort of "art form" in Japan. On returning home, therefore, he became interested in his own country's rich cultural heritage and started collecting "vanishing" craft items. The objects in his collection includedwoodwork,lacquer ware,pottery andtextiles – fromOkinawa andHokkaidō (Ainu), as well as frommainland Japan.
In certain important respects, therefore, what became the Japanese Folk Craft Movement owed much to Yanagi's early interest in Korea, where he established aChōsen Folk Art Museum in one of the old palace buildings in Seoul in 1924. In the following year – after considerable discussion with two potter friends, Hamada Shōji and Kawai Kanjirō – the phrase that they coined to describe the craftsman's work wasmingei (民藝). This was a hybrid term, formed fromminshū (民衆), meaning "common people", andkōgei (工藝), or "craft". Yanagi himself translated it into English as "folk craft" (not "folk art"), since he wished to stop people from conceiving ofmingei as an individually-inspired "high" art (bijutsu [美術]).[3]
Realising that the general public needed to be educated in his understanding of the beauty of Japanese crafts, Yanagi set about propagating his views in a series of articles, books and lectures, and his first complete workKōgei no Michi (工藝の道,The Way of Crafts) was published in 1928. In 1931, he started a magazineKōgei (工藝,Crafts) in which he, and a close circle of friends who thought like him, were able to air their views. Although Yanagi had formally declared the establishment of the Folk Craft Movement (日本民芸運動) in 1926, it really only began with publication of this magazine, and the number of Yanagi's followers increased considerably as a result of their reading its contents. In 1952,Kōgei was absorbed by a second magazineMingei (民藝, first published in 1939). In 1936, with financial assistance from a few wealthy Japanese businessmen, Yanagi was able to set up the Japan Folk Crafts Museum (Nihon Mingeikan, [日本民芸館]) and three years later, in 1939, launched a second magazine,Mingei (民藝). This remains the official organ of the Japan Folk Craft Association (Nihon Mingei Kyōkai [日本民芸協会]), founded in 1931.[4]
There are, therefore, three manifestations of the Folk Craft Movement: (1) the Folk Craft Museum, which exhibits objects that are seen to be truly "mingei" and which Yanagi intended should establish a "standard of beauty";[5] (2) the Folk Craft Association, which promotes Yanagi's ideals throughout Japan and publishes two monthly magazines; and (3) the folk craft shop, Takumi (工), which acts as a major folk craft retail sales outlet in Tokyo.[6]
The philosophical pillar ofmingei is "ordinary people's crafts" (民衆的な工芸,minshūteki na kōgei). Yanagi's theoretical and aesthetic proposition was that beauty was to be found in ordinary and utilitarian everyday objects made by nameless and unknown craftsmen – as opposed to higher forms of art created by named artists. In his first book outlining his concept ofmingei, originally published in 1928, he argued that utilitarian objects made by the common people were "beyond beauty and ugliness",[7] and outlined a number of criteria that he considered essential to "true"mingei folk crafts.
Yanagi's main focus was onbeauty. The beauty of folk crafts, he argued, lay in: (1) the use of natural materials and "natural" hand-made production; (2) traditional methods and design; (3) simplicity and (4) functionality in form and design; (5) plurality, meaning that folk crafts could be copied and reproduced in quantity, leading to (6) inexpensiveness. Beauty was also found in (7) the fact that folk crafts should be made by anonymous – or "unknown" – craftsmen,[8] and not by well-known named artists. Finally, (8) there was the "beauty of health", whereby a healthy attitude during the manufacture of folk crafts led to healthy crafts.[9] In other words, beauty and folk crafts were the product of Japanese tradition – a tradition which he emphasised by saying thatmingei should be representative of the regions in which they were produced and make use of natural materials found there.
Yanagi's bookThe Unknown Craftsman has become an influential work since its first release in English in 1972. In it, he examines the Japanese way of viewing and appreciating art and beauty in everyday crafts. At the same time, however– and by his own admission[10] – his theory was not simply a craft movement based on aesthetics, but "a spiritual movement" in which craftsmen should work according to ethical and religious ideals, if beauty was to be achieved. In this respect, it may be argued that he chose to express his vision of "spirituality" through the medium of folk crafts and was, as a result, concerned withhow folk crafts were made, rather than with these crafts as objects in themselves. Provided that they were made according to a certain set of rules laid down by himself, they would naturally accord with his concept of "beauty".[11]
Yanagi's main emphasis was on beauty which, in his opinion, was unchanging, created by an immutable spirit.Sung period ceramics, or medievalGothic architecture were products of the same spirit; "true" man was unchanging, unaffected by cultural or historical background. The present and the past were linked by beauty.[12]
In order to appreciate such beauty, argued Yanagi, one should not allow previous knowledge, prejudice, or subjectivity to cloud one's judgement. This could be achieved by means of what has been variously translated as "intuition", "the seeing eye", and "direct perception" (chokkan, [直観]), whereby a craft object should be seen for what it is, without any prior knowledge or intellectual analysis coming between object and onlooker. It thereby directly communicated the inherent beauty of that same object.[13]
Ifchokkan was an "absolute foot rule",[14] it also defied logical explanation and was, therefore, very much part of his "spiritual" approach to aesthetics and the appreciation of folk craft beauty. Butchokkan was also a method of aesthetic appreciation that could be applied, and recognised, byanyone provided he or she perceived things "directly". In other words, if chokkan was "subjective" or "arbitrary", than it was not "direct" perception at all.[15]
The other half of Yanagi's theory of beauty was concerned with the spiritual attitude of the craftsman (as opposed to that of the person appreciating a craft object). For crafts to be beautiful, he said, the craftsman should leave nature to do the creating; salvation came from outside oneself, from what Yanagi called "self surrender" (tarikidō, [他力道]).[16]Tariki was not denial of the self so much as freedom from the self. Just as an Amidha Buddhist believed he could be saved by reciting thenenbutsu prayer and denying his or her self, so the craftsman could attain a "pure land of beauty" by surrendering his self to nature. No craftsman had within himself the power to create beauty; the beauty that came from "self surrender" was incomparably greater than that of any work of art produced by "individual genius".[17]
Many of Japan's traditional ways were destroyed following the country's defeat in theSecond World War. The outbreak of theKorean War in 1950 led to the Japanese Government instituting a system designed to protect what it considered to be theNational Treasures of Japan and individual artist-craftsmen – popularly known as "national treasures" (ningen kokuhō, [人間国宝]) – who were deemed to be holders of important cultural skills (jūyō mukei bunkazai, [重要無形文化財]). The spread of Yanagi's ideas was helped by these developments so that, by about 1960, the concept ofmingei had become known not just to a small group of people living in Tokyo, Kyoto and Osaka, but — as a result of publicity by the media — to almost everyone in Japan.
This resulted in enormousconsumer demand for hand-made folk crafts, which many people thought included such things as tooth-picks and log cabins, as well as more mainstream crafts. This demand came to be labelled the "mingei boom" and continued until the mid-70s, since when it has gradually declined until becoming almost irrelevant to contemporary Japanese in the 2000s. Nevertheless, craftsmen who had been struggling to make ends meet before and just after thePacific War, suddenly found themselves comparatively well-off; potters in particular benefited financially from the "boom". With all the publicity surrounding folk crafts, new kilns were set up everywhere. So far as the purists were concerned, however, the day of the "instant potter" had come to accompany the other "instants" of everyday life in Japan – coffee, noodles andgeisha. The average craftsman, they said, was interested inmingei for the money that was to be made from it, rather than for its beauty. It was little more than an urban elitist fad.[18]
Themingei boom led to a number of paradoxes affecting Yanagi's original theory of folk crafts. (1) Yanagi had argued that beauty would "be born" (rather than "created") only in a "communal" society, where people cooperated with one another. Such cooperation bound not only one man to another, but man to nature. Folk crafts were in this respect "communal arts".[19] However, consumer demand formingei objects led to increased mechanisation of production processes which, in themselves, relied far less on cooperative work and labour exchanges than they had in the past. (2) Mechanisation also led to less reliance on, and use of, natural materials – something that Yanagi had insisted upon as essential to his concept of beauty – something which also deprived modernmingei of its specifically "local" qualities. (3) Both media exposure and consumer demand encouraged the emergence of the artist-craftsman (geijutsuka, [芸術家]) intent on making money, and to the gradual disappearance of the less profit-motivated "unknown craftsman". Consequently, (4)mingei as "folkcraft" gradually came to be seen asmingei as "folkart". (For further analysis, see[20])
.JPG)
 | This articlemay beconfusing or unclear to readers. Please helpclarify the article. There might be a discussion about this onthe talk page.(June 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
In the light of Yanagi's emphasis that beauty is derived from 'nature' and 'cooperation', it is not surprising to find in his works a criticism of modern industrialized society. In this respect, he echoed similar theories put forward in other industrialising countries – notably those ofWilliam Morris and followers of theArts and Crafts movement in the United Kingdom. Both men argued there was a close connection between the incentive for profit and the quality of work produced under a capitalist system of wage labour relations. But, whereas Morris's immediate enemy was thedivision of labour afforded by mechanisation and industrialisation, Yanagi was most opposed toindividualism. Change the nature of society, said Morris; change the nature of individualism, said Yanagi, if people wished to have beauty in their lives.[21]
Although often denied by Japanese followers ofmingei, as well as explicitly by Yanagi himself,[22] his theory of folk crafts would appear to rely, therefore, on Western writings. Certainly, the similarities between his and Morris's work are too many to be ignored.[23] As to when and how he came across Morris's ideas, however, is not so clear.Brian Moeran has argued that two of Yanagi's closest friends,Bernard Leach (1887-1989) andKenkichi Tomimoto (富本憲吉) (1886-1963), both potters, introduced him to Morris's ideas,[24] but Yanagi was already deeply steeped in Western science, philosophy, literature and art, and numerous articles in Japanese had already been published on Ruskin and Morris before Yanagi outlined hismingei ideas.[25] Nevertheless, similarities in thought should not be interpreted as being identical. One major difference is that Yanagi introduced Buddhist thinking into his philosophy (especially that ofDaisetsu Suzuki andKitarō Nishida)[26] – something completely lacking in the British Arts and Crafts movement. Ultimately, the main difference between Morris and Yanagi might best be summarised as a demand by one (Morris) to change the nature of society, and by the other (Yanagi) to change the nature of individualism.
Yuko Kikuchi (菊池優子) has further argued that power relations andultra-nationalism lie at the core of the formation ofmingei theory. When Yanagi put forward his "criterion of beauty in Japan" (日本における美の標準,nihon ni okeru bi no hyōjun) in 1927, he was doing so during a period of risingmilitarism in Japan. The veryJapaneseness ofmingei, therefore, and Yanagi's failure to recognise the influence of William Morris on his thinking, may be seen to echo the cultural nationalism of Japanese intellectuals at that time.[27] In addition, he applied his "criterion of beauty" to the crafts of theOkinawans and theAinu in the Japanese peripheries, and to those of thecolonies includingKorea,Taiwan andManchuria.Mingei theory, therefore, far from being anOriental theory, is a "hybridization" and "appropriation" ofOccidental ideas such as those ofWilliam Morris (1834–1896).[28] Whereas in Leach's view, he had helped Japanese artists to rediscover their original, Oriental culture, Japanese themselves appliedOrientalism to their own art and projected the same Orientalism onto the art of other Far Eastern countries like Korea. Kikuchi terms thisoccidentalist phenomenon "Oriental Orientalism",[29] while Moeran has referred to it as "inverse orientalism, as well as to "counter-orientalism" tendencies found in Japanese society more generally.[30]
In this context, Yanagi'sKorea and its Art, in particular, has been severely criticised by Korean intellectuals as a "colonialist view of history". Yanagi defined "beauty of sadness" (悲哀の美,hiai no bi) as the "innate, original beauty created by the Korean race" (民族の固有の美,minzoku no koyū no bi) and expressed his belief that a long history of foreign invasions of Korea was reflected in Korean art, and especially in the "sad and lonely" lines of its pottery. Such a theory has been criticised by Korean scholars as an "aesthetic ofcolonialism".[31]
%2c_ca._1950_Brooklyn_Museum.jpg)
_Brooklyn_Museum.jpg)
_Brooklyn_Museum.jpg)
_Brooklyn_Museum.jpg)
