Talk:Japanese art

Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo in Kamakura art

Kamakura period is one of the time when the art of Japan had declined most. In such Kamakura period, only Kei School was excellent. The Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo is certainly a National Treasure of Japan of the first class. However, the Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo is not especially excellent in an artistic viewpoint. The evaluation is only high because it is historical personage's only portrait. In the viewpoint of influence on future generations, that is especially clear. And, the name of this article is "Japanese art", and not "History of Japan". I feel that the same tendency is in many of articles related to the culture of Japan. --663highland (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are saying about the decline of art, and the relative quality of this work. Nevertheless, there is already an image of Kei school works on the page. This is my key point. There is no need to have the Kei school represented multiple times in an article covering such a broad topics.

I also believe that to give the impression that there was no painting, or no painting of importance, in the Kamakura period is misleading. The Kamakura period saw the beginning, if not the high point, of 似顔絵 (nigao-e) portraiture, of which this is by far the most famous example. This is an article on the arts of Japan, not (solely) on the Buddhist sculpture of Japan. That is my stand. LordAmeth (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I am explaining the reason for the height of the value of "Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo" on the above. That is, the national treasure of high value is not necessarily an art of high value. The age when "Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo" was produced is width from the latter half of the 12th century (Heian Period) to the 14th century (Muromachi Period), and is not certain. In the latest research, it is presumed that "Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo" is production in the 14th century (Muromachi Period). On the other hand, "the Thirty-six Master Poets picture scroll (Satake book)" is produced in the first half of the 13th century. This is surely a work of Kamakura Period. The name of these arts is nise-e (not nigao-e). I think that the technology in nise-e is primitive because of the viewpoint of realism. Mujaku and Seshin that Unkei produced is more realistic than nise-e. A realistic art is one of the features of Kamakura Period.) I think that Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga that is the origin of Manga (counter electrode of realism) is more important if it limits it to the field of the painting. --663highland (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

When "nise-e/似絵" is translated literally, it is "portrait". --663highland (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, oops. I messed up. You're right, of course, that the term is not nigao-e, but nise-e. Still, nise-e does not just mean portrait; it refers to a particular type of portrait seen in the Kamakura period.

I'm not so attached to that one painting; I just think we shouldn't have the Kei school represented more than once. I leave it up to your informed judgment whatever you think is good to replace it. LordAmeth (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The greater part of Japanese do not know even the name of nise-e. I will understand your standpoint. And, I will esteem your opinion. In conclusion, I think that only one piece (Unkei's Nio) is appropriate to the photograph put on "Kamakura art". Please look at the caption of "Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo". It is shown that the value is unrelated to the essence of the art.--663highland (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And Unkei's Niō is already on the page. LordAmeth (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that. Only the one piece. In a word, it is my proposal to remove "Portrait of Minamoto no Yoritomo" from "Kamakura art". I think that only "History of Japan" is suitable for the location of this picture. If it is necessary by absolutely two pieces, I recommend Chōjū-jinbutsu-giga. --663highland (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Let's remove it then. LordAmeth (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I wish to express my gratitude for your generous behavior.--663highland (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

thx for paying attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.103.145 (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)