User talk:Urashimataro/Hayashi Eitetsu

Some random thoughts

• What is "post-Buddhism Shinto architecture"?
• What is the scope of the article? As far as I can see, it describes mainly the highlights of Japanese architecture (religious buildings and for the more recent past, projects of famous architects). It says relatively little about ordinary residential housing in the past and present. Reading the "Early Heisei period" section one could get the impression, that all of Japanese houses today are super modern good looking buildings, while the reality is different. I realize that it will be more difficult to find references for such ordinary architecture, and if you tell me that the article should be about the highlights or uniquely Japanese styles, that's fine with me as well. In any case, there should be a statement at the start of the article saying, why there is so much of religious architecture in this article.
• Not sure how you want to "arbitrarily divide it in two", but I think, I'd prefer the usual method with a short overview article and more detailed specialized article (as done for instance in History of Japan, Jōmon period, Yayoi period,...).
• As for the index:
  • "Arrival of Buddhism" seems a bit out of place, since the other sections (at that level) denote periods (Edo period,...). Also, Buddhism certainly did not arrive until the Muromachi period. This section ("3") seems topic-based (Buddhist/Shinto architecture) and does not go well with the rest of the article which is chronological. IMHO, either do it chronologically throughout or order the article by topics (which I believe was what I suggested some time ago (where?)). Maybe this problem could be resolved by renaming "Arrival of Buddhism" -> "Classical and feudal Japan" (feudal Japan would include the Momoyama period though which presently is separate) or something like it.
  • I know, you like the topic, but not sure whether "Shinbutsu bunri and haibutsu kishaku" needs a separate section as it is not so much about architecture, rather about the destruction of architecture.
  • Possibly: "Taishō and Shōwa periods"->"Taishō and early Shōwa period", since there is also "Late Showa period".

Those are only suggestions, so please feel free to disagree. Unfortunately I don't have much time at the moment to work on this interesting article, but I will keep an eye on it and will voice my opinion if desired. Keep up the good work! bamse (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Answers

Thanks for taking the time to write your opinions down.

What is "post-Buddhism Shinto architecture"?

• That was the big problem I was referring to in my message. There are religious architectural styles born before the advent of Buddhism, but most were born under its direct influence. I want to dedicate a section to shrine architecture, but do not know exactly how to do it, where to put the material and so forth. the title is clumsy, bu for now I can't think of much better.
  • Wouldn't that be "pre-Buddhism Shinto architecture"?

What is the scope of the article? As far as I can see, it describes mainly the highlights of Japanese architecture (religious buildings and for the more recent past, projects of famous architects). It says relatively little about ordinary residential housing in the past and present. Reading the "Early Heisei period" section one could get the impression, that all of Japanese houses today are super modern good looking buildings, while the reality is different. I realize that it will be more difficult to find references for such ordinary architecture, and if you tell me that the article should be about the highlights or uniquely Japanese styles, that's fine with me as well.

• My agreement with kenchikuben is that I will take care of religious architecture, he of the rest. What you say does make sense, but it's an area I am not in charge of. Still, I have Nishi and Hozumi's book,which deals with the subject, and may well write something.

In any case, there should be a statement at the start of the article saying, why there is so much of religious architecture in this article.

• I am planning to do what Nishi and Hozumi do: at the start of the section about religious architecture I want to explain that, in Japan, as anywhere else, religious architecture attracted the best resources and best artisans, and for this reason it has an extremely important role in Japan's art history. The Parthenon was a temple. Also, and Nishi and Hozumi mention this too, traditional religious and lay architecture in Japan have many basic elements in common.
  • Sounds like a very good plan.

Also, Buddhism certainly did not arrive until the Muromachi period.

• You surely know that Buddhism arrived during the Nara period, witness the many temples built then.
  • I think even before the Nara period. I was referring to the section "Arrival of Buddhism" which has a subsection "Kamakura and Muromachi period".

"Arrival of Buddhism" seems a bit out of place, since the other sections (at that level) denote periods (Edo period,...). This section ("3") seems topic-based (Buddhist/Shinto architecture) and does not go well with the rest of the article which is chronological. IMHO, either do it chronologically throughout or order the article by topics (which I believe was what I suggested some time ago (where?)). Maybe this problem could be resolved by renaming "Arrival of Buddhism" -> "Classical and feudal Japan" (feudal Japan would include the Momoyama period though which presently is separate) or something like it.

• This is exactly where I needed your help. Thanks for the useful hints. I will think about it. There's time: I will work on this for months.

which I believe was what I suggested some time ago (where?))

• Here. peer review
  • Thanks.

I know, you like the topic, but not sure whether "Shinbutsu bunri and haibutsu kishaku" needs a separate section as it is not so much about architecture, rather about the destruction of architecture.

• I find your opinion surprising, given that during that period an estimated 25% of Buddhist structures was destroyed, profoundly damaging forever Japanese architecture and its understanding. Surely an event of this importance deserves a section which describes what the damage exactly was, what was lost. This is important also in terms of destroyed context: for example, why are there so many Buddhist pagodas at shrines? Because almost all temples and shrines which existed during the Meiji period are literally a mutilated version of their former selves. This surely needs to be explained.

In other words, IMHO but also in that of many specialists, you cannot properly understand Japanese figurative arts without understanding shinbutsu shūgō and shinbutsu bunri. Before 1868 there were very few independent shrines and very few temples: there were jingūji and miyadera, which were both. What we have now, in the case of shrines and in that of temples, is incomplete halves. As a result, in architectural terms, 95% of shrines are temples, but to understand how this came to be I think you need to know history. I am sorry to disagree with you, but I believe this is an essential part of the article.

• • I agree that architectural works were destroyed, however in my understanding (which might very well be wrong) "architecture" is about the process leading to these works (buildings). So, if this article was "Japanese architectural works" I would agree that the destruction should deserve mention; since the article is called "Japanese architecture", I don't think the destruction of buildings is that important because architectural ideas/plans/... might well have persisted. If new architectural styles emerged as a result of the destruction, of course the destruction is worth mentioning, but even then, I'd reduce the reason and destruction to a sentence or two and focus more on the new styles. (At the moment as far as I can see, the section is only about the destruction and does not say anything about the results for architecture (jingūji etc). 06:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

-Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

New phase

I think that you've added an impressive amount of information to the article. It's an interesting read and gives a much fuller picture of the topic. I think we should continue and assume that it stays as one article because it would be better to come to one place for the information. I guess the main challenge we have is integrating your contributions with the structure of the "time periods", is it a step too far to say that all of the pre-Meiji sections would be split by building type rather than era? Or should we keep it as it is and integrate the "evolution of style" info into the eras like your Shinbutsu bunri sub-section of the Meiji era? Kenchikuben (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Kenchikuben and Eleekh, please read this entire page before you start with this to get an idea of what has happened so far. What I have done so far is no more than pasting in material I wrote for other articles, but I am finding it difficult to shoehorn it in. This is my biggest problem, the one I need input about. The article Chinese architecture doesn't deal with the history of Chinese architecture but, even if that could be done in the case of China (I have my doubts, but I don't know), it can't in the case of Japan. The history of Japanese religious architecture is one defined by cultural imports from the continent, which occurred in different eras, and chronology is unavoidable. This is where we must start. Let me know what you think.

Another question is: Do we need a section about Shinbutsu bunri and haibutsu kishaku? I think it's essential not only because so much was physically lost, but because even more was distorted beyond recognition intellectually, creating a new reality. Bamse however strongly disagrees.

Last point: could you explain what you mean here? is it a step too far to say that all of the pre-Meiji sections would be split by building type rather than era? Or should we keep it as it is and integrate the "evolution of style" info into the eras like your Shinbutsu bunri sub-section of the Meiji era?

Thanks in advance for your help - Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As both of you have suggested, why don't we use Nishi and Hozumi's example and set out the pre-Meiji architecture by topic, namely: Religious (the largest section with an introduction of why it is so important as well as general features, and then the detailed, through-the-ages information); Residential; Military and Entertainment. The Meiji to Heisei architecture is more like the architectural "progression" seen in other countries and deserves to be treated slightly differently, we could keep this ordered by period for simplicity.

I can add a general introduction to the Meiji Era to explain why the Meiji and Tokugawa eras required different urban solutions. I'm also happy to rearrange the existing pre-Meiji information into the residential, military and entertainment sections - and add to these where required. Frank (Urashima Tarō), do you want to use the sandbox on your page as the place where we produce the article? Kenchikuben (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's do that. I will finish the Religious Architecture part and then, if you wish, I can help you finish the rest. My time will be limited for a week or so, but I plan to finish my part fairly quickly after that. Most of the research has already been done. How about the Shimbutsu bunri? Do you vote yes or no?

Final point: if this isn't a problem, why don't we use my page? A new one would also be OK. Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

NOTE

Thinking about it, kenchikuben, perhaps it's better if we work in different files. Let me know where is yours, so I can see what you are up to. Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)