著者

津田 徹英

雑誌

美術研究 = The bijutsu kenkiu : the journal of art studies

巻号頁・発行日

no.404, pp.82-97, 2011-08-30

---

This article reviews Kojima Michihiro's recent book about rakuchů rakugai zu. Kojima's book focuses on the earliest examples of this genre, four pairs of screens that were created in the sixteenth century. The article summarizes Kojima's main points, the organization of his book, and its methodology. It concludes that while the book's central argument, namely that the earliest rakuchů rakugai screens ("Kyoto screens") could only have been created for the political elite in late medieval Japan, is sound, the book's overall methodology and argument presented in the longest chapter in particular merit thorough interrogation. This chapter, covering over half of the book's length, deals with the earliest pair of screens, which are kept in the National Museum of Japanese History. The reviewer first takes issue with Kojima's methodology, which essentially follows that of other historians who have written about Kyoto screens. According to this approach, rakuchů rakugai zu are "visual documents" that should be "read," and should thus be understood as literal, unmediated depictions of the old capital at a certain point in time. While Kyoto screens depict an actual place and reflect to a certain degree the historical conditions that contributed to their creation, Kojima's approach offers little nuance or evidence of the impact of debates that developed in regard to this methodology. Thus "reading" the screens as documentary accounts of Kyoto in the 1500s, Kojima stacks hypothesis upon hypothesis, which lead him to conclude that, for example, the earliest extant example of the genre was created in 1525 in simultaneous commemoration of both the political ascent of Hosokawa Tanekuni (who died in the same year, we subsequently learn) and theshogun Ashikaga Yoshiharu's installment at a new palace. Following the same approach for the other three sixteenthcentury Kyoto screens, Kojima presents similar, if far briefer, interpretations based on identifications of figures and places one encounters in these other works. Kojima's attempts to discover "portraits" (shôzô) of historical figures in the early rakuchú rakugai zu are not totally without foundation, and reflect shifts in the study of Kyoto screens in recent years. We would expect the occupants of a building labeled "Konoe" on the screens, for example, to be members of this noble house. The reviewer notes that it is where Kojima's approach strays from the plausible, however, that weakens his arguments, and ultimately undermines his entire project. The reviewer also critiques Kojima's visual analysis, which, through only the most impressionistic of comparisons combined with circumstantial evidence based on the author's hypotheses, proffers that Kano Motonobu painted the earliest extant screens. Decades of formal analysis by art historians, including the reviewer, have arrived at different conclusions, none of which are seriously considered in Kojima's study. The review concludes that while Egakareta sengoku no Kyoto presents an uneven and often problematic analysis of Kyoto screens, it is welcomed as a study that focuses on the earliest examples of the genre, and that conveys to readers a wealth of information about historical developments and the material culture of the late medieval capital.Bibliography: Kojima Michihiro, Egakareta Sengoku no Kyoto, Tokyo:Yoshikawa Kôbunkan, 2009.