著者

大谷 省吾

雑誌

東京国立近代美術館研究紀要 = Bulletin of the National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo (ISSN:09147489)

巻号頁・発行日

no.13, pp.18-36,120, 2009-03

著者

大谷 省吾

出版者

明治美術学会 ; 1992-

雑誌

近代画説 : 明治美術学会誌 (ISSN:13437445)

巻号頁・発行日

no.23, pp.44-70, 2014

著者

大谷 省吾

雑誌

現代の眼 = Newsletter of the National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo

巻号頁・発行日

no.617, pp.12, 2016-04

著者

大谷省吾 都築千重子編集 小川紀久子 山本仁志翻訳

出版者

東京国立近代美術館

巻号頁・発行日

2010

著者

大谷 省吾

雑誌

東京国立近代美術館研究紀要 = Bulletin of the National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo (ISSN:09147489)

巻号頁・発行日

no.24, pp.26-50, 2020-03

著者

大谷 省吾 西澤 晴美 五十殿 利治

出版者

独立行政法人国立美術館東京国立近代美術館

雑誌

基盤研究(C)

巻号頁・発行日

2018-04-01

---

本研究は、近年海外からの注目も高まりつつある戦後日本の前衛芸術運動についての研究基盤の整備に寄与しようとするものである。とりわけ文献資料が少なくその実相が十分に明らかになっていない終戦直後の占領期の状況に光を当てるために、1951年に東京で結成された前衛芸術グループ「実験工房」の中心人物のひとりであった山口勝弘(1928-2018)の1945年から1955年までの約10年間にわたる日記を詳しく調査し、記述された内容を他の関係作家の日記・書簡等の資料や公刊資料によって裏づけをとりながら、比較検証していくものである。初年度にあたる2018年度は、山口の日記18冊およびノート8冊(ノートは一部、1960年代のものを含む)をスキャンしてデータ化し、さらにそれらに記された手書きの文章をパソコンで翻刻していく作業へと進んだ。一方で、各研究分担者がそれぞれ担当する時期の日記を読み込み、検討すべき課題について整理をはじめた。日記全体の概要およびその美術史的意義について五十殿利治は論考「「山口勝弘日記」(仮称)の調査研究について」をまとめ、筑波大学芸術系の研究誌『藝叢』(34号、2019年3月)に発表した。また大谷省吾は東京国立近代美術館においてコレクションによる小企画「瀧口修造と彼が見つめた作家たち」を開催し、同展の中で山口らの作品と、瀧口修造の周辺にいた他の作家たちとの「物質」の扱い方を比較考察した。西澤晴美は神奈川県立近代美術館に所蔵されている斎藤義重アーカイヴの手帳・ノート類、書簡類の資料整理を進め、山口勝弘をはじめとする実験工房メンバーとの交流について考察を進めた。斎藤の資料リストは同館ウェブサイトで一部公開しているほか、同館アーカイヴ事業に関する研究会(2019年1月18日開催、非公開)でも紹介を行った。

著者

大谷 省吾

雑誌

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

巻号頁・発行日

no.410, pp.38-54, 2013-09-13

---

Landscape with an Eye (1938) by Ai-Mitsu (1907–1946) is an altogether puzzling painting. The single eye, peering out at the viewer from the midst of a strange, lumpen, fleshy form, exerts a strong impression on its viewer, and yet a sense of mystery remains, what is the lump of flesh, whose eye is it? This painting is often called “a major example of Japanese Surrealism,” but what in fact actually influenced the painter to create this work? And is this positioning of the work appropriate? While various scholars have expressed a diverse range of interpretations, there has yet to be an established theory about the painting. In 2010 the Independent Administrative Institution National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Tokyo, conducted an infrared photographic examination of the Landscape with an Eye. This article is an attempt at reinterpreting the painting on the basis of the new facts discerned from that examination. In detail, Part 1 considers the studies have been conducted on the work in the past and summarizes the previous issues raised, while Part 2 (to be published in Bijutsu Kenkyû 411) will discuss what new interpretations are possible based on the findings of the photographic survey.Part 1 Issues Were Raised by Previous Studies Landscape with an Eye was displayed in the 8th Dokuritsu Bijutsu Kyôkai exhibition held in 1938, where it was awarded the Dokuritsu Prize. At the time it was simply titled “Landscape [Fûkei].” Its current title was given to the work by a friend of the artist when a retrospective of Ai- Mitsu’s works was held in the post-war era. In 1966 the painting was acquired by the National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo, and around that time the judgment that the painting is a major example of Surrealist painting created in Japan was set. Detailed analysis of the work and studies of its influence relationship particularly advanced in the years since the 1988 retrospective. Previous studies of the work have largely heralded two theories about the nature of the unidentified form that occupies the majority of the composition, stating it is either a lion, or a tree stump. From 1936 onwards, Ai-Mitsu visited the Ueno Zoological Gardens and made various sketches of the animals in the zoo and particularly created a large number of works with lion motifs. In all of these works the depiction of the lion is not literal and explanatory, but rather a section of the beast that would emerge from amidst a dark setting, or the animal is shown lying on its back. Thus he had a distinctive way of painting lions, and there are many scholars who believe that Landscape with an Eye was painted as along the trajectory from these lion images. In other words, up until now the persuasive argument has been that while he first began depicting lions, as he advanced in his depiction, gradually their forms were transformed, finally arriving at the creation of puzzling forms like that seen in this painting. There is also the theory that the form is simply the base of a tree stump. Mori Shikô, a painter and friend of Ai-Mitsu’s, recalled that around the first half of the 1930s Ai-Mitsu got a tree stump from the local gardener and brought it into his studio, where he used it in composing his paintings. In addition to the tree stump, Ai-Mitsu’s studio also included a mix of various objects, from bird corpses to dried fish and small stones. Thus the theory exists that these objets became the starting point for some of his works. There are convincing elements to both the lion and the tree stump theories. It is hard to deny either, and indeed one of the fascinating elements of this works is the duality of its images, and the fact that its images stand in the gap between formation and dismantling. On the other hand, there is one thing that is clearly painted in the composition, the eye. Up until now many of the scholars who have discussed the work have focused on the idea that in 1938, in other words a time when Japan was at war, Ai-Mitsu felt a sense of oppression, and the owner of this eye has been interpreted as either Ai-Mitsu himself, or it has been interpreted as the watchful eye of authority oppressing free expression. Dehara Hitoshi has noted the print by the Renaissance sculptor Jean Goujon that was published in the catalogue of the Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism exhibition held at the Museum of Modern Art, New York in 1936. This print was then re-published in the Japanese magazine Mizue. Dehara goes on to state that given the use of a “collage method in which a human eye was placed in the midst of an unrelated boulder,” Landscape with an Eye was in fact influenced by Surrealism. The fact that this strange lump in the composition has multiple interpretations also links it to Salvador Dali’s double image technique, and further suggests a Dali influence in the slight bit of horizon line visible on the right edge of the composition. For these reasons Dehara concluded that Landscape with an Eye is a major example of Japanese Surrealism. There are also those who have indicated the influence of Max Ernst and Kurt Seligmann. In fact, points in common between the Landscape with an Eye and Ernst’s series of forest paintings can also be indicated in areas such as the manner in which the border between forest and sky was painted. Seligmann himself came to Japan in 1936 and held a solo exhibition, and the glass paintings displayed in that show may have given Ai-Mitsu hints on layered pigment application. Ai-Mitsu was in fact influenced by all three – Dali, Ernst and Seligmann. However, is Landscape with an Eye simply a copy of the new Western trend known as Surrealism? Takiguchi Shûzô, an art critic who knew Ai-Mitsu recalled, “The voices he heard from Surrealism were actually unique to Ai-Mitsu. Truly, I remember feeling that there was something sudden in the way he took in Ernst.” Takiguchi had the impression that Ai-Mitsu deviated quite a bit from original Surrealism. Isn’t it this deviated bit itself that is important. What was it? Wasn’t there some way of opening painting to new potential in this deviation? What we must first clarify is this point. Then, if this kind of potential can be found in Landscape with an Eye, I propose that we should not position this Landscape with an Eye as “Surrealist painting in Japan,” but rather we should assign it a different position, one suitable for this new potentiality. The 2010 infrared examination of the painting will open the path to such a new interpretation. Part 2 of this article will discuss these issues in detail.

著者

大谷 省吾

雑誌

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

巻号頁・発行日

no.411, pp.27-38, 2014-02-21

---

Part II What observations can be made from the present study? An infrared photographic investigation of Landscape with an Eye was carried out in 2010 by Shirono Seiji of the National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Tokyo. Two types of techniques were used, near-infrared reflection photography (light radiates from the object’s surface and the reflected light is captured), and near-infrared transmission photography (light radiates from the back of the work and the transmitted light is captured). Infrared light permeates more than visible light, and since materials such as pencil lead and charcoal absorb infrared rays, those areas show up on an infrared photography as black. Thus underdrawings and other elements of lower layers of a painting beneath the surface layer can be discerned. A comparison of the underdrawing imagery that emerges in such photography and the completed painting allow us to surmise the production process involved. The reflective near infrared photographs reveal to a degree the shape of a lump prior to the painter’s application of pigment in the sky area. The finished painting has a sense of volumetric mass, but in the underlying pigment layers, in other words, in the initial stages of the painting process, free and generously curving lines made up the form, and thus we can imagine that he gradually decided on the overall shape. Another noteworthy point can be found in the horizon line on the right edge of the composition that can be considered an important element in titling this work a landscape. In the lower pigment levels it is not a horizontal line, but rather is an unclear depiction that seems to be connected to the round form. In other words, during the production of this painting, it can be thought that more so than a landscape, it was an indeterminate shape that can only be called an object. Examination of the near infrared transmission photography reveals that in the initial production states an extremely unusual shape is depicted that differs from that in the finished version (in the photograph, the section that appears as dark black is not what was first painted, but rather is the top pigment layer that unfortunately was painted in pigments that include charcoal, and thus must be deducted from our consideration). While it is hard to determine exactly what this shape is, at the very least, the lion theory introduced in Part I of this paper does not seem possible. The most noteworthy element in this photograph, the eye in the center of the composition that can be considered the crux of the finished work, is not visible in the photography. In other words, this means that the eye was not painted until a much later stage of the production and indeed was painted in the surface layer of the painting. In essence, in the first stages of composition, Ai-Mitsu did not necessarily intend to depict a mysterious image that looks like an eye radiating piercing light in the midst of chaos, and rather the eye image emerged as he groped through the painting process. Dali influenced many of the painters of the day in Japan who had been taken by surrealism, and thus we can see paintings that include symbolic messages in their horizon line compositions. In those cases, the theme was determined before the painting process began, and then the composition was considered based on that theme. Once the image had been conceived, underdrawings were created and painting proceeded in a calculated fashion. By comparison, the groping painting method seen in Landscape with an Eye is quite special. Another example of this same painting method by Ai-Mitsu can be found in his Flower Garden (1940). The single butterfly that flies amidst the confused foliage in this work leaves a vivid impression. It has been recently confirmed that the butterfly did not appear in a picture postcard produced at the time of the painting’s display. In other words, Ai-Mitsu first proceeded with the depiction of the confused grasses and flowers, and at the end depicted the butterfly. If that is the case, then in the same way, just before finishing the Landscape with an Eye, it can easily be imagined that Ai-Mitsu struggled with the confused lump in the state of the landscape without the eye. Another noteworthy element of the production process of Landscape with an Eye is the collection of curved lines that can be seen in the lower pigment layers that seem to have emerged from amidst the pure gestures that surpassed the painter’s intentions. These curved lines are reminiscent of the lines in Max Ernst’s The Kiss (1927), although in Ernst’s case it seems as if images of people and other forms emerge from the accidental, while in Ai-Mitsu’s case the imagery cannot be easily identified. It would seem that in order to avoid explanatory depiction, he would destroy anything that seemed like it might emerge as a concrete image. In other words, the layering of pigment in order to grasp the sense of mass of an object, and the freely curving lines that seem to emerge from the painter’s own body rhythms, came to be layered on this single canvas. Therefore, in the end we cannot determine if this lump is a lion, or a lump of flesh or a tree stump. Ai-Mitsu may have been aiming at that state between meaning and meaningless, the state of being just unable to identify a concrete image. It is said that the Landscape with an Eye took more than two months to paint, and during that time he seems unable to have decided whether this misshapen lump of unknown form should have a concrete meaning, whether lion or tree stump, and he seized its existence alone in his hands, leaving it in the state of indeterminate form. This extremely unsettling sensation can be found in the climax of Sartre’s Nausea (1838). It recalls the scene where Roquentin is seated on a park bench,and feels nauseous as he looks at the roots of a chestnut tree. Since Ai-Mitsu did not know of Sartre, this comparison is nothing more than an arbitrary association. And yet, in the immediate post-war era Sartre’s existentialism gathered support from many cultured members of Japanese society, and there was a group of painters who sought to depict images of people who are aware that they have been hurled into the irrational world and exist in rivalry to it. The most important of these painters were Tsuruoka Masao and Asô Saburo who had formed the Shinjingakai with Ai-Mitsu during the war. In light of such facts, Ai-Mitsu’s Landscape with an Eye can be then seen as foreshadowing their postwar works. For example, Tsuruoka emphasized depicting objects rather than immaterial subjects, while Asô asserted, “I believe that realism is something whereby the power of the gaze and dissection are the same.” These comments by Tsuruoka and Asô from the postwar era can be seen to greatly overlap the production policy carried out by Ai-Mitsu in Landscape with an Eye. If, for that reason, we position Landscape with an Eye as a “Japanese Surrealist painting,” then we are in the dangerous position where its connection with the earnest search for realism that faced the reality of postwar society can tend to be overlooked. In that sense, I question whether or not it is good to consider Landscape with an Eye as a “Japanese Surrealist painting,” and I cannot easily answer that question in the affirmative. All the more so, this work stands out as an extreme example amidst the groping for realism thatsought to see reality as it is during the difficult era of the latter half of the 1930s, and the assertion that Tsuruoka and Asô continued the awareness of this issue means that this work can be considered to live on in history.

著者

大谷 省吾

雑誌

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

巻号頁・発行日

no.410, pp.38-54, 2013-09-13

著者

大谷 省吾

雑誌

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

巻号頁・発行日

no.411, pp.27-38, 2014-02-21