storyaurora/pdf/16josai_univ.pdfact per se ， but rather as a beneficial form of resistance to...
TRANSCRIPT
決“Pirates'View" of Art Hi泊st匂or印y ♂ f子E叫絡郁aS伯h沼伊巴m出i
一lil.theglobalizing contempor紅 yworld， it is vital for minor languages to have access 'Jp major languages. A lack of access would be fatal to th叩 survival.“Translation"is ;their survival kit. This also means that minor non-Westem languages are subjected to )Westem editorship， censorship， and even rejection and cancellation. Such acts exemplifシ:the politics of translation. Let us briefly examine Its dynamism and mechanism in the cross-cultural exchange between "the dominant West and the marginalized rest" with brief reference to Bengal and Japan， encompassing the fields of commercial transactions， stock exchange markets， world literature， and pre-modem， modem， and contemporary art history. How can non-Westem cultural produ出 obtain"civil rights，" so to speak， in the Westemized global market? What are the by-products such a “promotion" produces as a result of necessary and inevitable compromises?l Let us examine the meaning of 1'piracy" in this process of cultural translation“Piracy" here is perceived not as a criminal act per se， but rather as a beneficial form of resistance to political hegemony. Who is entitled to define the“criminality" in question? And to wha~ extent does the “pirates' view" invalidate the geopolitical domination of major languages and h己gemoniccultures?2
Batta-mon: Between Piracy and Authenticity Batta-mon is a colloquial expression local to the Kansai region ofWest巴mJapan.百lIsterm desiguates commodity goods circulated and supplied through irregular or illegal channels. Though the etymology is not clear， batta-mon， or batta-things， are to be distinguished from bacchi-mon or pαcchi-mon， which includes fakes， forgeries， counterfeits， illegal imitations，巴tc.(this pair ofterms may be ofKorean origin， and may have circulated in Japan first among Korean residents). By coincid巴nceヨbattaalso means grasshopper or locust. The紅 tistOkamoto Mitsuhiro took advantage ofthis chance homonym by creating stuffed artificial grasshoppers and covering them in leather printed with world-famous
DECEMBER 2014 REVIEW OF JAPANESE CUl W P..E AND SOCIETY 65
Inaga Shigemi
brand marks. His grasshoppers printed with the 10gos of Chane1， Gucci， Fendi， among other brands， were exhibited at the Kobe Fashion Mus巴umin 2010. Although this event went， for the most p紅 t，unnoticed， one of the companies whose brand mark was used took notice and demanded the remova1 of all the pieces with the brand maker's 10go from the exhibition space， claiming that they infringed on the company's trademark rights.3
Okamoto， the batta-mon artist， was accused of copyright vio1ation and threatened with a 1awsuit for damages to intellectua1 property. As stated above， batta-mon are by d巴finitIonirregu1arly circu1ated， dubiollS merchandise. But Okamoto's batta-mon were “authenticated，" ironically enough， by the very 1ega1 accusation made against them. Let me add that the artist never made it clear whether th巴printed1eather used in his pieces was “authentic" or illegally cOlU1terfeited. This， however， does not make any difference， as the pieces were not intended for sa1巳.1n any case， the authenticity ofthis artist's batta-mon-that is， objects distributed through illega1 channe1s-was recognized 1egally.羽市atresu1ted tumed out to be a sophisticated tactic for obtaining a mark of“authenticity": social recognition as a fake.4 However， the recognition was paradoxica1 because this very form of authentication deprived the grasshopper-fonn of the batta-mon the right to be openly disp1ayed to the public. And one might wonder what exactly was being "vio1ated" in this case?
Okamoto's battaサnonwere subsequently removed from the Kobe Fashion Museum. The c1aim against them was fi1ed by the Director of 1nt巴llectua1Property at the aggrieved company's Japanese affiliate. Upon receiving the claim， the municipa1ity of Kobe and its Foundation for Cu1tura1 Promotion immediate1y ordered the remova1 ofth巴workson May 6， 2010. Okamoto and the chief curator ofth巴mus閃 mwer巴notinformed of the remova1 in advance. The claimants a1so prohibited any fu知republic exhibition of the batta-mon. This demand was injurious to the artist because he cou1d no longer exhibit his pieces. Yet， through this tactical defeat Okamoto triumph巴dintermsofgen巴ralstrategy; he succeeded in provoking an excessively selιrighteous reaction from one of the world's top-ranking fashion firms. And in excess of its original intention， the exhibition also exposed the hypersensitive stance of the 1ntellectual Property Director in his defense ofhis company's brand mark. 1ndeed， the Director went 50 far as to claim that the exhibition went“against public order and morals." One might think that attacking a local Japanese atiist would lead to detrimental opinions ofthe haughty position ofthe exclusive brand. However， in this cas巴， the protection of potential financial profits took precedence over the concem for maintaining a positive public image of the company's global brand. The company's threat of censorship approached the absurd.
One might conclude that this corporation or its legal repr巴sentativemissed the rare chance to promote a new product. 1ndeed， many consmners were eager to obtain one of these cute grasshoppers branded with their favorite logo. It is easy to imagine how the brand-mark holder might have profited by buying IIp the patent for Okamoto 's batf，α-mon so as to legitimate its “authenticity." Howeveじifauthenticated， the batta-mon would
66 REVIEW OF JAPANESE CUlTURE AND SOCIETY OECEM配食 2引 4
lnaga Shigemi
た.6longer be authentic batta-mon， as they wou1d 10se t白h巴dis坑tin邸 cは凶陶t討出iぬOωfb切巴d叩叩i註凶n昭19仰
工ttha幻tdo 巴岱s“、noωtcα1町rcαu礼1a抗teas a r巴gu叫1a紅rcommercia1 i抗tem.円 I百ft也h己creator， Okamoto， were きohavebee山由巳dby the m叩 a砲gem巴叩n剖tofo即 ofth潟m巴s鵠邑 c∞omp戸邑悶s，wha則a侃twou叫1礼1dhav 事酔app巴即d?Hiおsart出i泊a恥cla乱lcα1巴atれ:u間 wou1d be protected by copy均htandco耐 thereforeno
泌'ugerbe properly identified as tme batta-mon-thanks to this protection! Authentication 泳lOu1dmake it an
ぬthenticityof an : hy由巳 batta伊 mon( ふ Th巴1ega1sy ゐfthebra凶脚rk.Who is authorized to atぬcha 10go to what kind of出 m?Whohast民
主19htto restrict the app1icabiliちTofthe mark to speci:fic commodity goods? Who is and is
滋otauthorized to circu1at巴particu1argoods with specific 10gos? The case of the batta-mon 通Ildicatesthat severa11ayers of different restrictions and authorizations are superimposed 合同cohdensedin the c∞OJ町 e釘叩rr出l
3争Jerveぽrs凶s討itザyoftぬh巴brarrdmar汰kits巴1fhavirrgb巴comethec∞ommod必it守y.Consumers no 10nger む:hoosea specific harrdbag for its aesthetic desigrr or functiorra1 e伍Cl叩 cy，b凶 simp1y
'lfor the sake of the brarrd mark prirrted uporr it， which they warrt to“possess." Another ，:examp1e devised by the artist Tarro Taiga sheds light on this preposterous situatiorr. 制eed1essωsay，“preposterous円 mearrsthat the corrverrtiorra1 defirrition of“trademark円
，as a certificate ofthe quality of goods is rro 10rrger relevarrt here.)
Tarro's Monogram Line Series (Monoguramu rain shirizu， 2010) consists of fabricated handbags with explicit brand 10gos. Yet these handbags are not made of
leather; they are imitation handbags sculpted of camphor wood covered with a co1ored-pencil drawing.6 Equipped with a hidden video cameraョTanoput one of his wooden ぞimitation"sculptures on his shoulder (as if wearing a bag) and walked around a fiagship store in Paris to see what would happen; nobody s巴巴medto notice
that he was ca町yinga wooden fake. But it wou1d be inexact to call it a fake， because the wooden sculpture is deprived of any practica1 fimction. Tano's scu1pture cannot b巴soldas a knockoff of the original， because the wooden replica cannot substiれltefor a leather bag.言Whatmatters is unly the visual illusion it creates. But it can be purchased by art
museums as an authentic and original piece， a wooden sculpture with a penci1合awmgon its surface-un1ess the brand-mark ho1der wer巴toprotest against the purchase and take 1ega1 action. After consulting the brand maker， the Miyagi Museum ofArt shrewdly covered the 10go marks on Tano's piec凶 toavoid the risk of being sued. The case a1so questions the 1imit of current notions ofthe counterfeit， revealing the ambiguity of criteria underlying such 1ega1 decisions. Both Okamoto's batta同 monand.Tano's Monogram Line Series b1ur the margin ofthe fake and th巴authentic.With the prospect of the proliferation of such objects， one may wonder what is at stake in the overlap of the contemporary art market and the highly commercia1ized brand-image industry. Can these parodies of brand田 namemerchandise dismant1e the worship of brand-name 1abels that has swept
OECEMBER 2014 REVIEW OF JAPANESE CULTURE ANO SOCIEH 67
Inaga Shigemi
consumer behavior throughout the world? Partially， at least? And is th巴“theoreticalreach円
ofthese artistic pastiches limited to a waming against brand-mark worship?
Export Lacquer: Faked Japanese Authenticity Let us bri巴i負iyreview the history of how c印ametωomeぬanlacquer wa紅re.Thanks to Rosemary Sco社， Angela Schottenhammer， and
other scholars/ it is now well known that during the early modem period， Chinese manufacturers in Jingdezhen“imitated" Japanese lmari ware， and Japanese potters in Arita exported“fake" Jingdezhen ware.8 The notion of authentic versus fake was less important than competing by means of faithful and tactful copies of an original of historical importance“Stealing the secret technique" ofyour rival (ancient or modem) was not a shameful or criminal act of theft per se because one could not fabricate a copy of high quality just by stealing it or smuggling it away. Rather a "copy" (utsllshi， which also means“transmission勺wasa respectful undertaking， an achiev巴mentof tmderstanding craftsmanship signaling the highest honor. Moreover， the reality of these commercial transactions cannot be reconstructed simply by relying on statistics r巴cordedin official documents. The more complex reality resided in illegal trade， where not only batta-mon but also bacchi-mon flourished
Let us consider the case of Japanese export lacqu巴r.At the beginning of the seventeenth century， the standard forms of export lacquer from Japan changed dramatically. Previously， Portuguese merchants had commissioned Japanese lacqllerers to make utensils for Christian ritllal llse， objects such as r巴tablesor folding lectems omamented with nacre-inlay and lacquered with motifs sllch as camellias (tsubaki)， lesped巴za(hagi)， and maple (kaede). Trunks decorated with wave designs (seigaiha) and topped with hemispherical domed lids were also extremely popular. However， tastes changed with the takeover of commerce by the Dutch， and items for religious practice disappeared as Christianity was forbidden in Japan. The trunks with nacre-inlay were superseded by rectangular boxes.9
The most famous remaining examples of export lacquer after this change are the so四 calledVan Diemen box and the Mazarin chest， both in th巴collectionofthe Victoria and Albert Museum.10 As these works demonstrate， nacre inlay lost its popularity and was largely replaced by picturesque landscapes or exotic genre scenes of court culture realized in maki-e， literally“sprinkled picture，" a technique of building up designs in powder or filings of gold or other materials on or within the layers of a lacquer surface. We should observe that authentic lacquered wooden fumiture was easily modified in form and function according to this shift in European consumers and their tastes. Despite their fascination with lacquerware， it is obvious that neither th巴Portuguesenor the Dutch were satisfied withjust any item made oflacquer. Both groups ofWestem consumers sought
specific forms according to their own needs and ordered different守pesof decoration according to their particular taste. As Japanese export lacquer goods s仕ictlyfor foreign
68 REV!EW OF JAPANESE CulTURE AND SDC!ETY DECεMBER 2014
Inaga Shigemi
fl11anufacturers and artisans 合同lyarranged at甘active，picぬresque，and exotic scenes r~ithout aiming for overall coherence. These were images intended simply to pleas巴[the eye， and not intended for exegesis and ekphrasis by certified experts. They ;~vere authentic-looking fabrications to be appreciated only by those who could not i'llllderstand the absurd features of the scenery. In other words， a “faked authenticity" or S"an “authentication of the fake" was achieved for the purpose of profitable corrmlercial fransaction. The distinction between the fake and the authentic stood on fictitious briteria. To retum again to our earlier question， one may wonder why this is not 釘ueas well with the global brand company that rejects identification with a local Tatta-monY Perhaps in the future such companies will fabricat巴 goodsof “fake authenticity，" or“authenticated fakes，" as the Japanese lacquer craftsmen did for foreign mark巴tsin the seventeenth century
Aray-skin shield with lacquer omament (ca.1580) is preserved in the collection ofFerdinand II in Tirol， at the Schloss Ambras on the outskirts ofInnsbmckヲAustria.13
This shield is said to be a Japanese product. However， my personal expertise does not sustain this opinion. The image offiowers and squirrels on the reverse is not realized in
DECEMBER 2014 REV¥EW OF JAPANESE CULTURE AND SOCIETY 69
Inaga Shigemi
the gold-lacquer mak.トetechnique of Japan but rather in the manner of the lacquer painting of South Asia and Southeast Asia. Thus， ray skin prepared in Japan or elsewhere was probably expOlied to Southeast Asia andなansformedther巴 intoa shield and then sent on to Europe， where it was mistakenly view巴das a Japanese product. Such decorative embellishments were frequently added in the course of cornnlercial transactions and recirculations. Chinese porcelain was decorated with gold and silver so as to add value for both the lndian and lslamic markets and evenhmlly cher・ish巴dfor this added value in its final destination in Northem Emope. The fact that these items traveled all the way to Europe was the key factor， and occasional additions both in decoration and commission fees were necessary surpluses. The additions did not d己privethe items oftheir aura of authenticity; on the contrary， the fact that they were augmented by other treasures and omamentation during their voyage added to their original value. The manufachrrers and initial merchants did not complain about such “abuses."
Ultimately， some decorative lacquer underwent an unexpected metamorphosis to survive on the surface of Rococo fumiture. The legendary eighteenth-century cabinet-maker Bemard van Risenburgh II invented a secret technique of stripping a thin layer of Japanese lacquer from its supporting wood body and， like a skin transplant， attaching it to the curved surface of Rococo furniture. Outdated lacquer decoration produced for Dutch export was "recycled" as it were， and found a new habitat on the front and side panels of Rococo commodes where it could serve once again in elite Westem residences and royal palaces. Such lacquers had become very expensive for Europeans due to the suspension of official trade in Japanese lacquer by th巴DutchEast India Company in 1693.14
To retl1In to our initial metaphor of the batta-mon， one could say that Van Risenburgh 's operation can be likened to transposing brand“marked G'ucci or Louis Vuitton leather onto the wooden body of a grasshopper without the permission of the copyright holders (had there been any). Was Van Risenburgh's modific乱tiona violation of copyright， constituting an infringement of tradel11ark? If a time machine were available， would the Japanese lacquer craftsl11en sue the French ebeniste for damages? Would they present themselves before an intemational tribunal as an instance ofintellec旬alproperty abuse? lf the norms of repatriation espoused in recent political and artworld discourse were applicable to such casesョperhapsthe Japanese as well as the artisans of the Muσhal Court and their authorized descendants would also
D
demand reparation for dal11ages. As the art historian Kavita Singh astutely points out， the owners and architects of European Rococo palaces like the Shonbrunn Palace in Vienna have caused irreparable dal11age to lndian cultural and intellectual properties. ln decorating their palaces with imported lndian itel11s， they completely overlooked their original usage and context and had no misgivings about disl11embering precious painting panels and reutilizing them on palace walls.15
70 REVIEW OF JAPANESE CUlTURE AND SDCIETY DECEMBER 2014
ー，
Inaga Shige血i
'I'he Metamorphosis of Commodity Goods Between Local and Global Markets 'fhe clecont己xtua1izationof items from their native lands and their naturalization in foreign lands are two sides ofth邑samecoin. '1'0 examine the mechanism of transmigration， let us consider the case of the contemporary Chinese artist Ni Haifeng， who resides in Hollancl， where he has gainecl fame for his potatoイormceramic wares. His cobalt-blue glaze
plgm巴ntis reminiscent of the Chinese porcelain that Del丘wareartisans persist巴ntlytrieclto imitate. And his choice of the blue flower pa抗emretraces the Dutch-Chinese trade of the Golden Age of the Netherlands. At the same time， his ceramics imitate the form of potatoes. Why the potato? One must remember that the potaめcameall the way to Europe
、 fromth巴AndesMountains in South America. In J apan， in particular， the potato is callecl jagatara imo， hinting at Jakarta， because the Dutch East Indies seems to have been the 80ぽ ceofits importation to Japan.16 Ni evokes the itinerant path followed by the potato; he intentionally overlaps his own migration with the旬berヲstour of the world. ln cloing so， he simultaneously transmits another message: just as the potato took root in Dutch soil and has become an everyclay comestible， so too cloes the Chinese artist wish to be accepted by the society to which he has immigrated.
'1'henaれ.rra1izedvege匂.bleserves as a metaphor for the artist's migration. Indeecl， the fake c巴ramicpotatoes， which the Chinese artist mass produces， are full of relevant counotations. First， the size and form ofthe potato is 加 ingin that it can be grasped and cherished in on巴'spalm. '1'he tactile sensation is cause for alarm in contexts mled by modem museological protocols originating in the West， which s回 ssvisual observation
at a distance at the cost of clirect contact with the materiality of the object. Second， the slightly i灯時ularspherical form also evokes that of a Chinese water回 dropper，one of the four treasures in Chinese literati cul札lre(namely， brush， ink噌 stick，ink box， and water司 dropp巴r).Andyet Ni's pieces are fake， as th巴yare non-nmctional water-droppers. According to the "definition proposed by lmmanuel Kant， pieces of fine art must be deprived of practical use， and their“disinterestedness" or lnteresselosigkeit， lies at the core of their artistic valueY While modestly prot巴stingthis Westem definition of fine art， Ni's potato-like objects suggest a possible altemative. '1'hird， the implicit allusion to Chinese tradition also hints at anot.1J.er us巴oftheobject. By grasping the ceramic ball as a hand exercise in the manner of Chinese“exercise balls" (jianti qiu)， an old person can stimulate the brain and avoid senile dem巴ntia.'1'hese tiny objects thus promote the moral principle of filial piel:y and substantiate the wish for longevity， a univ巴rsallyrelevant message for family harmony.18
Fourth， and this is crucial to our discussion， the potato-shaped ceramic ball perfo立国 remarkablywell in the“money game，" eaming considerable revenue in the system ofbusiness strategy and commercial promotion. On the one hand， people cherish the tmiqueness ofthe item in a conventional manner， in the form ofart appreciation. This is why the original should not be reproduced or be巴asilyreproducible. Copies should not be'carelessly propagated as this diminishes the value ofthe original， which Walter
DECEMBER 2014 REV¥EW QF JAPANESE CUL了UREAND SQC!ET'f 71
lnaga Shigemi
Be勾amincalled its “aura."19 On th巴otherhand， however， peopl巴covetthe treasures that their neighbors cherish. They want to possess something similar to what their neighbors' possess. One should therefore create a balance betw巴enscarcity value and mass production. The potato蝋 likeceramic 0対ectsatisfies both of these contradictory desires. Each potato-like 0句巴ctis both unique and similar in shape to other homologous items， for no two are identical.
Through the conjunction of these four factors， the potato嗣 shapedceramic ball efficiently arouses curiosity and enhances the desire to possess those that are in commercial circulation. To jurnpstart this dornino effect， Ni initially distributed specimens free of charge as token gifts. When every household possesses a Ni object， the artist wiU be tmanimously recognized as a member of society. His inぬgrationin Delft will b巴realized.At that moment， Ni will no longer be an individual， but become a trademark recognized by all citizens. In fact， in recent years the artist himselfhas evolved into a brand of sorts as an import agent， because he handles a great variety of“fake円 mass輔producedgarden furniture made of ceramic with cobalt-blu巴decoration，distributed under his own license. This megalomaniacal proliferation testifies to the transfOlmation ofthe individuallartist into an er抗itywith the status of a "legal p巴rsonality."20
Ni's transformation or metamorphosis is not exceptional， but typical of successful cases of adaptation and integration into Dutch society， and similar also to the way the potato entered Europe. The process also marks his personal passage from a vemacular market (within the Chinese cultural sphere) to a global market (represented by the metropolitan city of Amsterdam and Dutch soci巴ty).He is remembered for having E油ibitedヲ atthe beginning of his career， a wall with n巴onillumination that emanated illegible letters. The work was called TrザanHorse (2008)，巴vokingthe metaphor of border transgression by a durr立nygl仕thatsurreptitiously inserts itself into the target territory to perpetrate subversive activities. Illegible letters or texts that are impossible to decode serve as vehicles of cryptography. They resemble a Trojan horse inasmuch as their indecipherability constitutes a potentialthreat.21
This reminds us of another Chinese artist， Xu Bing， who became famous for calligraphy composed of fake Chinese characters of his own invention. His work is worthy of attention in terms of its translation strategy. Let us point outれNOaspects of Xu's maneuver here， his “double tongu巴d"duality and “auto“poietique" proliferation. FirstヲXudoes not hide the fact that his invention is a fake， insofar as it is not an authentic system of letters recognized by Chines巴culture.He exhibits the inauthenticity of his invention for th巴sakeofthe Chinese public. Indeed， anyone with a knowledge ofChinese language and culture can easily ascertain that his invention is a fake. At the same time， however， he is intentionally targeting Chinese-illiterate vi巴wers，who are not supposed to be able to "read" the letters ofhis invention. It is true that the Chines令 illiterateviewers do know by hearsay that his characters are not legible， but they cannot “read，" as it were， the illegibility ofthese characters. They are lacking in the ability to recognize the
72 REVIEW OF JAPANESE CULTURE MlD SOCIETY DECEMBER 2014
InagaShig叩 lI
(illegibility in question. Th巴yare certainly illiterate， but they do not know how illiterate ~ey are as they stand before Xl内 calligraphy.22
Xu is， in a sense， a self-con:finned criminal in that he exhibits his fake and るol.mtelfeita
ゑonccessful，i
泊portantly，1
;b'ecause he k
多吋oyhis call
事巴yond問 01
詳 Morec
fand he distri
冶11aractersre ム~
労相celemel
姿。時licated穎lechanism，~fùture social M ミ
瀞sponsiblej
禅socialrecc3証言、'arelevant altemative code. 謀長;;' Historically， Sill曲 rcases have OCCl町 edat the periphery of cultural spheres wl班 E
~Çhînese influence has been prevale瓜“Fakele社ers"appear to have been invented as
了esturesof cultmal resistance at the fringes of powerful centers. The Japanese invention
j紅白eseventh ce蜘 ryof hiraga加 cmsiveand katakana fragmented叩 1Sto s巴rveas
R~yllabic phonograms and the Korean invention of Hang叫 theworld's only entirely
il~i:ficial phonetic code， wl山11was invented dllri昭 therei伊 ofthe E坤巴rorSejo時
~Ilrid promlllgated by him in 1446， are “fake letters" within the Sino心開tricworldview.
~Moreover， the northem nomadic peoples who wished to comp批 W油 Chinesecivilization
rJrivented the Khitan script (ca. 920) and Jmchin script (1119); the needlessly complicat巴d~I)，haracters in both cases undollbtedly reveal their inferiority complex vis-a-vis the linfiuential cultLlral center. However， these “fake" Chinese characters were legitimized :as 'fallthentic" in official documents of these dynasties.24
ミ Itis not by chance or accident that Chinese artists with the conviction ofbridging ごiheirown culture with non-Chinese cultures invented new sets of“fake" letters so as to i{acilitate their communication with others in their passage of transmigration.25 It must already be obvious that Ni and Xu are none oth巴rthan direct descendants of “china"
:'torcelain makers and "japan" lacquer craftsmen. This obser、rationbrings me to propose
the necessity of promoting a “pirates' view" in translation studies as a means of flllly
¥.mderstanding legal and illegal cultural transactions as a whole
。ECEMBER2014 REV1EW OF JAPANESE CULTURE AND SOC1ETY 73
Inaga Shigemi
The Stock-Exchange Model ofTranslation: Toward a“Pirates'View" ofWorld Art History
一-In the Guise of a Tentative Conclusion “Secretly inserting into the text a message that those aware of th巴 situationcould understand but others would take in a completely opposite way has always been a rhetorical measure to which those excluded from the media and power and unintentionally relegated to the periphery ultimately resort.円 26So writes the film historian and cultural critic Yomota Inuhiko in accounting for the situation of Korean residents writing in the Japanes巴languageunder colonial mle; and perhaps a similar sort of "do念whistle"communication is operative in the art ofaXu Bing or a Ni Haifeng.
The same mechanism can be seen to function when a text from a minor and subordinate cultural sphere is translated into a major， predominant market. To offer a comprehensible metaphor， one might think of the stock market. To be listed in the stock exchange， each company has to satisfシinitiallisting requirements. Th巴intemationalstock market is to world literature what the local market is to nationalliterature. The la枕eris either confined within the borders of a local language or unwilling to step beyond the boundaries ofthe vemacular language for fear oflosing its initial and reliable readership. Colloquial expressions are not always exportable. We have examined briefly here some aspects of the contemporary world art market in a historical perspective.27
This analysis will help us better understand the role oftranslation-including non-verbal communication-in a larger context.
In the process of transferring vernacular items to an international market， modifications are often r巴quired.We might ask to what extent Iocal flavor must be sacrificed so that加 itemcan gain global recognition. And， at the same time， we have to gauge the ext巴ntto which standardization must be r司巴ctedso that an item can transmit local or historical particularities. ln other words， the interplay betw巴enthe limits of perτnissible heterogeneity and rejected homog巴neityis at stake at the fringe of the cultural stock-market system. In the current crisis of globalization in the world economy， the mechanism of piracy must be scmtinized， as the black m在rketsecretly sustains and subverts the legal market on the surface. On the one hand， local markets t巴ndto be erroneously seen as illegal black markets due to their different commercial customs that remain impenetrable， incomprehensible， and hence unfair from the point of view of outsiders， or "intemational trad巴rs."On the other hand， the assumption that the global market is the only possible legal market on account of出 internationalvisibility in the hegemonic market system is equally mistaken. Thus， the interplay that takes place b巴tweenlocal and globalmarkets gains vital importance not only in the study of real politics and economy， but also in cultural studies.28
ln this very context， Okakura Kakuzo， the legendary author of The Book 0/ Tea (1906) and the first curatm of the Ori巴ntalcollection at the Museum of Fine Arts， Boston serves as a guide.29 He left his Japanese colleagues and artists with an enigmatic
74 REVIEW OF JAP州 ESECUlTURE AND SOCIETY 臨時制問 20叫
Inaga Shigemi
lesson for traveling abroad. If you are fiuent in Eng1ish， he advised， it is better to wear まourvemac山 rclothi時，but if you do not speak English well， you 1凶 betterp叫 on恥恥t畑emc∞ωO側瓜.円吋f“官En拘u昭glish'お凶紺sぬ古，h'円，冗'h加le悶悶巴悶r民邑 indi凶叫i倒叩巴釘sa umv釘 sally叫 idtoo1 of communiωlOn， ~tseems as if Okakura were preaching that local co1or cannot be effective1y expressed
~vîthout the adequate suppOli of a universa1 too1 of communication. 1 have di組問ltyintinderstanding this parable when transposing it to the context ofthe world aIt markd.
制国can"English" stand forin th巴visualand plastic arts?31 The Greco-Roman canon
ii:s not the on1y standard for aest1凶lCcr市 ria.Should the Japanes巴orIndian grasshopper t)y:ear Gucci or Ferragamo skin so as to disguise itse1f in acceptable or de rigueur a杭ire?~d do so低 therisk of being accus巴dof vio1ating We恥 m copyright? This qu側 lonbIt昭sme to the lndian po巴etRabi凶I認妥苫 Tagore was a Benga1i poet for whom English remained a foreign tongue. 2013
加rksthe centennia1 ofTago的 receiptofthe Nobel Prize 凶 iterature，as the firstAsian ~åureate. In 2012， that is， 99 years 1ater， Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak， an intemationally 知nowned1iterary theorist from Bengal and a professor at Co1urnbia University， was 事llOsenas the recipient of the Kyoto Prize， an intemational prize with the ambition of :もoveringfie1ds that remain unacknowledged by the Nobe1 Prize. What has happened in ゐetween?And what is the meaning ofthe 99 years that separate the 削 woc吋el巴由bra剖訓tionα叩n凶l票h恥etime s叩pa阻nbe臥阿f巴白ent白hemcannot be 巴t白ha抗toぱfasimple c∞on凶凶t討III碍ge阻nc'句y.To this question， rwhich has many re1evant answers， 1et me propose th巴 followinganecdote and suggest
!im additional scenario. A1tho昭 hthey met on1y twice in their 1ives， Tagore wぉ deeplyimpressed by
¥Qkakura. In his posthumous tribute to Okakura， Tagor巴providedthe following insight. 実.ecollectingOkakura's first stay in India in 1901 to 1902， Tagore remarked:“[Okakura] bWOll1d 0食enbuy some verγcheap things， like simple clay-oi1 pots that peasants use， [，With ecstasy of admiration， some things in which we had fai1ed to rea1ize the instinct for ['teautyア34Discovering everyday utensi1s and taking them out of their origina1 context
託decontextualization)was common practice for Japanese tea masters. Ancient tea masters 41adeevsrydaykoreandcEbowlsintohistoricmasterpieces(natllraluauoI1).S山 hbow1s
;問regiven names and transmi出 d合omone gener且1ionto another as unique 0句巴cts.tpollowing in the steps ofhis predecessors， Okakura also procured marvelous trol仰 illes
'(lucky:finds， to use the Fre即 :hexpression) 0叫 ndiansoil， where tea 0均inated.Economics al;:aches us that decontextua1ization supp1ies added v成田andexchange va1ue to otherw邸
'ordinary items. Herein 1ies th巴secretof commercia1 transactions as well as the origins
戸、iracy"as their inevitab1e耐 eeffect.35
If Tagore listed Benga1i poetics in the stock exchange of world literature by trans1ating his own collection of Benga1i po巴ms，the Gitanjali， into English as Song 〈初らrings(1909)， Okakura， for his part， listed Asian popu1ar crafts and the a巴stheticpractice of the tea ceremony on the stock exchange of world art through The Book 91 Tea (1906). Both writers overemphasized the superiority of Orienta1 spirituality
DECEMBER 2014 REVIEW QF JAPANESE CULiURE AND SDCIETY 75
Inaga Shigemi
over Occidental materiality.36 Judging from the perspective of cultural transplantation conducted in the transaction of commodity goods through the Indian Ocean， it may be wise to reconsider these cases of “cultural translation" from the "pirates' view.円37If Tagore's and Okakura's operations were successful， it is simply because th己yboth kn巴wquite well th巴verylimits oftheir possible operations within the Westem colonial world system: to successfully conduct cultural“piracy" within the restrictions of the mles ofthe game (regle dujeu， as PieロeBourdieu called江)，38so as to mak，巴 suchan illegal transaction legal (or to make illegal transactions legally)， one has to recognize the margins ofthe mles in the game that one is obliged to play (jeu de regle). Indeed， by imitating Westem attire， you may be accused of infringing on (Westem) copyright， but by putting on aboriginallnative叫 ire，you may be accused ofviolating the dress code. Asian individuals were forced to mo叩 tsophisticated modes of resistance against such bitter constraints of “intellectual colonialism.円 Thus，if the colonialism they opposed can be seen as operating like a system of"global piracy" comparable to the world wide stock exchange market， thenthe tactics of Asian intellectuals like Tagore and Okakura are little more than forays of"minor piracy" lalillched会omlocal and vemacular markets with the aim of filling in gaps between the local and the global. But who is entitled to determine the ml巴sand peロnissiblemargins of the gam巴?39This is the question of cultural hegemoriy that we must consider and negotiate to further our resistance against intellectual colonialism， which is the global piracy that continues to imprison us.40
Notes
This paper was initially prepared for and read at the twenty-eighth
Kyoto Prize Memorial Workshop，
“What Words Can Tell Us Through
Translation: The Future of the
Humanities，" in the presence of
Gayatri C. Spivak， the recipient of the prize. The relationship between
Bengal and Japan broached at this
event was further conside日dat the
beginning of the paper. which also
examined commercial transac1Ions
crossing the lndian Ocean. Let me here express my thanks to Cody
Pou¥ton and Rustom Bhamcha for their critical reading of the earlier
version of this text and Michael
Cronin for his editorial support ofthis
newer VerSlOTI
1.
The question was raised by Gayatri C
Spivak in her famous essay“Can the
Subaltern SpealピゲinCaryNelson and Larry Grossberg， eds.， }_，[arxisrn and the lntelpretation ofCulture (Urb叩 a
University of ll1inois Press， 1988)， 27ト313.Almost simultaneously， the
present author presented his own view
from an indep四 dentandnorトMarxistpoint of view， though in a far more
modest fashion. See Inaga Shigemi，
“L'impossible avant-garde au Japorし
l'avant-gard巴 existe-t-el1edans le
tiers-monde?" in Transcultu日， ed.，
Connaissance et 1ぜciprocite:actes dll
colloque (Louvain-la-Neuve: Ciaco
editeur， 1988)， 197-207. Th回 目say
was later re-edited and publi5hed as
“L'impossible avant-garde au Japon，"
in Le問 nversementdu ciel (Paris
CNRS Editions， 2011)， 369-89， 612-13; an English translation has been
published as “The Impossible Avant-Garde in Japan，" The Yea，.book 01 Comparative and General Liieratllre，
76 REV1EW OF JA?ANESE CUlTURE AND SOC¥ETγDECEMBER 2014
no. 41 (1993): 67-75.
2. The present paper is conceived
as a continuation of the author's
commentary in James Elkins， ed川
Is Art Histol)' Global? (New York:
Routledge， 2007)‘249-79. See al50
James Elkins， et al.， eds.， AI'/ and
Globalization (University Park， PA Pennsylvania State University P回目，
2010)
3. Re町叩nFukuzu山iは旧rロmJ羽J，
yoru arat同ana ken'、et阻su:Rui Viton
ga hikiokoshita sakuhin tekkyo
jiken" (New Censorship By a Private
Company: An Incident of Louis
Vuitton 's Forced Removal ofWorks)， Aida， no.173 (20 June 2010): 8-18.1 have erased the name ofthe company
from the main body of this text， taking into account the pub1ic nature
ofthe conference. However， publicly
毎回国呂thec∞omp叫 willno坑tdωO印
i由， a出st也h巳c∞ompa叩ny1
ぺ.blicaction on加 n泳部adeso as to make
~èxt is皿tendedneith， criticize the conc
~ee， h仕:p:llw、円N.eonet.
勺
祭主sJor也ep町adoxof
籍~e， among 0吐，e目， PU
Aごen5町 eet mlse en
二回parlerveut di児(
戦 82)， 167-205， a叩制a副〈
》G仰 irsηymbωω0/白叩q伊z出 (
~~()ω01)， 343-77.
-~~other example of tl h主thenticityin a cross
呼oncanbefo阻 dint
泌aseof the father-an(
仙.pof Yone and !s.
ゃ'SeeInaga Shigemi，“
疑昌herited世omHis Fa
榊泡e肌 ed.，A山前
FondNewU叩 ianPr iiJriternational Resear
W}apanese Stud悶， 2011)，57-77.This
加dywas supported by a Grant-In時~Aid for Scientific Research (A) from
~the Jap叩 Soc向 forthe Promotion
~Ì:'øf ，Science in pursuit of a research
~.project titled“To Which Extent
海 the'Orien凶， Value Judgment
rPermissible? Acceptance and
¥'，.::R;匂民tionofHeterogeneous Thought
~and Form -!n Search of the Limit
i: of Cultural Tolerance in the Global
:Age"(2010) γ6.
:.http://www.taigart.com八.vorksl
町 chives/cat
才.
See Rosemary Scott and John Guy，
: eds.， South Eαst Asia and China: Art，
lnteraction and Commerce (London
University of London， School of :Asian and African S加di田， 1994)and
Angela Schottenhammer，“Horses in
Late Imperial China and Maritime
East Asia，" in Bert Fragner， ed.， Pferde in Asien: G田 chichte，Handel
und Ku/ture (Horses in Asia: History，
Trade， and Culture) (Vienna: V，町lag
der Osterreichischen A.kademie der 九lIissenschaften，2009). 8. The Percival David Collection of
the University of London clearly
illustrates these historical relations
9. The best ove即時W of these develop-
ments remains Oliver Impey and
Ch口stianJorg， Japanese Export
Lacquel; 1580-1850 (A皿 sterdam:
Hotei Publishing， 2005).
10.
Both were e沿ubitedas part ofjapan
Export Lacquer:. Rejlection of the
West in Black and Gold Maki-e， at
the Kyoto National Musellm and the
Slmtory Museum of Art， 2008-9.
11. SeεChapter Two in Hidaka Kaori，
lkoku no hyosho: kinsei Nihon
yushutsu shikki no sozoryoku
(Representations of a Foreign Land
The !magination of Pre-Modern
Export Lacquer) (Tokyo: Brucke， 2008)
12. The idea was elaborated at the
symposmm‘“All at Sea?' Piracy， the lndian Ocean， and Art History，" held at The Power Institllte at the
University of Sydney. See Inaga
Shi呂田1l，“Sekaibijutsushi no kaizoku
shikan ni mukete， bunmei 00 kaiyo
shikan 0 koete" (Toward A Pirates'
View of World A民 History:Beyond
叩 Oc悶 nicView ofthe Civilizations)，
Aida， no. 192 (April2012): 12ω17;no 193 (May 2012): 26ω29; and no. 194
(June 2012): 15-27
13. Exhibited in Encornpassing the
Globe， Portug，α1 and the World in the
Six:teenth and Seventeenth Centuries， ed. J ay A. Levenson (Washington， D.C.: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery， Smithsonian lnstitution， 2007)， cata-logue number: P-50
14.
In one possible re-emergence of this
pattem of movement of intellectual
Inaga Shigemi
property from Japan to Europe， Hashi皿 oto Osamu notes the
possibiliザ正hatぬefamo凶 monogram
ofLV comes from a Japanese family
crest. See Hashimoto， Hiragana Nihon bijutsllshi (Japanese Art
History in Cursive Letters)， vol. 3
(Tokyo: Shinchosha， 1999)， 81-82. On the ethics of recycling in the
era of world-wide consumption， see Inaga Shigemi，“Bricolage: Toward
a Scrapture， A Proposal of A New
Concept， n Criticallnterventions nO.
911 0 (Spring 2日12):49-62.
15.
Kavita S祖国，‘“Allat Sea小 Piracy，
出eIndian Ocean， and Art History，" workshop at The Power Institute， University of Sydney， March 2012 (prospectus in the invitation le壮.er).
16.
Yamamoto Norio， Jagaimo no kita michi (The Path the Potato Traveled)
(Tokyo: Iwanami Shinsho， 2008) 17.
lmmanuel Kant， The Critiqlle of Judgment， trans. J. C. Meredith (Ox-ford: The Clarendon Press， 1911)， s2，e5，e41. pp. 204， 209， 296. Avail-able online at h壮p:11b四dley田町ray
caJtexts/immanuel-kant-critique-of-
jlldgement-pdf-meredith.pdf
18.
Cf. Kitty Zijlmans and Ni Haifeng， eds.， The Return ofthe Shreds (Leiden
Valiz!1vluseum De Lakerihal， 2008). 1
owep訂tofmy analysis to Zijlmans首
長neanalysis.
19.
For a critical assessment of Walter
Benjamin 's famous essay 00 the
task of translator，“Die Aufgabe
des Ubersetzers" (1923)， 5ee Andrew Chesterman， Mernes of pωdαtion: 1百eSpread of ldeas in
T子anslationTheoη(Amsterdam
John Benjamin Publishing Co.， 1997)，
29. Boris Groys's chapter on Walter
Benjamin in his Introduction to
Antiphilosophy (London: Verso， 2012) is also insightful. Here the
author tries to apply a hypothesis
DEcefo帽 ERZ014 REVIEW OF JAPANESE CUlTURE AND SOC1EfY 77
lnaga Shigemi
of contrasting theology (return to
the absolute origin) and philosophy
(future oriented) so as to reveal the
fundamental or foundational p訂 adox
in Benjamin's endeavor.
20.
lnaga Shigemi，‘Topor句ikukan no
naka no nijuisseiki sekai bijutsushi， kokusai bijutsushi gakkai no saishin
doko bekk四 "(Tw叩守田FirstCentury
WorldA抗日istoryin a Topological
Space)， Aida， no. 147 (April 2008):
24司 31.
21.
羽田C田eoぴm，;-e(stomp田gpiCh江田)
provides yet another relevant topic
for research. See “Designed for Desecration: Fllmi-e and European
A此，"in Thomas DaCosta Kau古田nn，
TowardaG回'graphyof Arl (Chica呈:0:The University of Chicago Press， 2004).Pro【lucedas Christian religiol.ls
icons， fumi-e were reappropriated in Japan during the Tokugawa era
(seventeenth to mid-nineteenth
century) and used to identify believe日
in Christianity， which was st口ctly
forbidden
22. Katherine Spears， ed.， Tianshll P山 Sα'gesin Ihe Making of a Book
(London: Quaritch， 200ヲ)23. See， Xu Bing，“Square Calligraphy
Classroom，" http://www.xubing.coml index.php/site/projects/year/1994/
sq uare _ calligrap hy…classroom
24. General theury on ecriture has yet to
deal with the genetics of the peripheral
invention of“fake" letters. See Anne-
Marie Christin， ed.， Histoire de Ecritllre (Paris: Flammarion， 2010
[2001]) 25.
ln this context one may 問先rto the
following classic paper with profit
Mary Louise Pratt，“Arts of the
Contact Zone，" Profession， no. 91 (1991): 33-40
26.
This quote is paraphrased and
abbreviated from Yomota lnuhiko， Nippon no Marano bungaku (Malano
Literatu回 inJapan) (Kyoto: J田bun
Shoin， 2007)， 8. 27.
The case of“world literature" has
been critically analyzed in terms of a
refutation ofFranco Moretti's idea of
“distant reading." See lnaga Shigemi， “lma sekai bungaku wa kano ka?" (ls
World Literature Possible?)， Hi此akubungaA.il此聞か官，etuclesぬlitteratu問
comparee， no. 92 (2008): 104-21， with an Eng1ish summary， vii-ix 28.
Further， see Inaga Shigemi，“Nishi-
gawa' kindaisei ni tai suru teiko
to 'toyoteki' chinsen e no yuwaku
to" (The Resistance to“Western"
Modernity and the Allure of
“Oriental" Contemplation)， in Sakai Naoki and Isornae Jun'ichi， eds.， “Kind，αi no chokoku" 10 Kvolo
gakllha (“Overcoming Moden1ity" and the Kyoto School) (Tokyo:
Ibunsha， 2010)， 321-49. 29.
F or Okakura， see especially the special lssue“Beyond Tenshin: Okakura Kakuzo 's Multiple Legacies，" Revunv of Japanese Cullll問。ndSociety， vol 24 (December 2012)， which includes this authur's essay，“Ok込町aKak凶 5
and India: the Trajectory of Modem
National Consciousness and Pan-
Asian ldeology Across Borders，" 39-57. Also， see the new Japanese annotated translation of The Book of
T出血 bilingual edition by Kinoshita Nagahiro， Shin'yαku cha no hon (New Translation ofthe Book ofTea) (Tokyo: Akashi Shoten， 2012) 30.
Okakura Kazuo， Chichi Tenshin (My Father， Tenshin) (Tokyo: Seib町 lkaku，1943)，46.
31. This suggests that白eproblem is not
so much with the content but阻 ther
the template (often called “theory") from which the contents are selected
and arranged， or from which it is
78 REV1EW OF JAPANESE CUlTURE AND SOC1ETY DECEMBER 2014
exc1uded. Seelnaga Shigemi“Kegonl
Huayan View and Contemporary
East Asian A比 AMethodological
Proposal，" Cross Sections， vo1. 5
(The National Museum of Modem
Art， Kyoto， 2012)， 2-25， esp. 18-20 32.
For a pioneering survey， see Tapati Guha-Thakt同a，The lvIaking of a N，即
“'Indian" Arl: Artisls， Aeslhelics and
NalIona!ism in Bengal， c. 1850-1920
(Cambridge University Press， 1992) Recent studies on Okalmra in Bengal
include Okamoto Yoshiko，“'Beng町 u
no minzokushugi to Okakura
Kakuzo" (Bengali Nationalism and
Okakura Kakuzo)， in Okakura Toshi， et a1.， eds.， Oka/wra先nshinshiso to
kodo (Okaktrra Tenshin， His Thought and Actions) (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobun!a叫2012)，93同 160
33. On this question， see Gayatri C. Spivak， An Aeslhelic Education in The Era ofGlobalizalion (C叩 lbridge，MA:H訂vardUniversity Pr田s，2012)Due to lack of space， the present allthor refrains from developing his views On this text
34. Rabindranath Tagore，“On Oriental
Culture and Japan 's Mission，" in Sisir Kumar Das， ed.， English f'片山ngsof
Rabindranalh Tagore， vo1. 3 (New
Delhi: SahityaAkademi， 1996)， 605; speech delivered in Japan during
Tagore's final stay in Japan， on 15 May 1929. Quotedin Rustom Bharucha， Another Asia (Oxford University Press， 2006)， 180. 35 The “piracy" on maritime routes through the lndian Ocean， where
English naval power prevailed， is not dissimilar to the overland “legal and
illegal" cultural transactions in the
sphere of Russian hegemony over
“world culture." See Evgeny Steiner， ed.， OrientalismlOccidenlalism: Lan-
guages of Cultures四ー Languages01 Description (Moscow: Sovpadenie， 2012)， which includes a paper by
the present author on the cultural
politics of the puppet monarchy of
Manchukuo:“Crossing Axes: Occi-dentalism and Oriental悶 n阻 Modem
Visual旦.epresentationsofManchukuo (1931-1945)，" 93-112
36.
The Orient-Occident dichotomy is
nO longer relevant as a geographi-
cal metaphor， but it surreptitiously
continues to function under the guise
of another dichotomy between what
Naoki Sakai calls“anthropos" and
~'human出s." See Sakai Naoki， et a1.，
阻troductionto Traces: A Multilingz田l
Series ofCultural Theory and Trans-
lation， no. 1 (2002)
37.
As for the philosophica1 dimension
and meaning of the “passage .of也e
lndian Ocean" in modemity， see Inaga Shigemi，“Japanese Philosophers Go
West: The Effect of Maritime Trips
on Philosophy in Japan with Special
Reference to the Case of Watsuji
Tetsuro (1889-1960)，" Japan Revi品目
no. 25 (2013): 127司 58.
38.
Pierre Bourdieu， Les regles de
1 'art: Genese et st円 tcturedu chαmp
litterai陪 (Paris:Fla血marion，1998
[1992])
39.
Similar questions should be raised in
Inaga Shigemi
the context ofthe“legitirnization" of
African art. See Maureen M山phy，De 1 'imaginaire QU musee: L目。rts
d'A)うiqllea Paris et a New York
(1931-200の(Saint-Etienne:Les
Presses du Reel， 2009).
40.
For more on this issue， see Inaga Shi也
geml，“Hi-bogo to iu rua ni wa nani ga
kakarukaつ"(What Can a Lure Named
Non-Mother-Tongue Catchη， inGuo Nanyan， ed.， Bairingaru na Nihongo bungaku (Bilingual Japanese Lite-
rature) (Tokyo: Sangensha， 2013)， 22司 46.
DECEMBER 2014 REV!EW OF JAPANESE CULTURE AND SOC!ETY 79
York， 2012). He recently co-edited From Posれvarto Postmodern: Art in Japan 1945-1989 (The Museum ofModernArt， 2012)， a volume on postwar Japanese art criticism. He co-curated the international exhibition Cubism in Asia in 2005 (The Nationa1 Museum ofModern Art， Tokyo， The National Museum of Contemporary Art， Korea， and Singapore Art Museum).
Inaga Shigemi is Professor at th巴IntemationalResearch Center for Japanese S印dies，Kyoto. Since obtaining his Ph.D. in Paris (L'Universit己ParisVII， 1988)， where he studied French nineteenth司 centuryart history， comparative literature， and culture， he has extended his field ofresearch to encompass cu1tural anthropology， and intercultura1 ethics. He is co司 founderof Transcultura with Umberto Eco， Alain Ray， and Alain le Pichon. His books include: Kaiga no Tohδ(The Orient of Painting， From Orientalism to Japonisme; Nagoya D乱igakuShuppankai， 1999)， Kaiga no rink.αi (Images on the Edge，AH回f五iおstωoricalSurvey of East Asian Trans万s-c印ulhれu官ra叫lMod由巴r紅m工刀n泌t“leωs;Nagoya Da幻19a汰k知u 1
Shuppanka厄i，2014の).He is editor 0[: Crossing ClIIμtzωm刀叫'alBoωrd.εers: Ant，幼hrop戸ology(Intemational Research Center for Japanese Studies， 1999)， Traditional JapaneseArts and Crafls in the 21st Centllry (Int巴mationalResearch Center for Japanese Studies， 2005)， and Questioning Oriental Aesthetics and 1方inldng(Intemational Research C巴nterfor Japanese Studies， 2010).
Yuko Kikuchi is a Reader at TrAlN (Research Centre for Transnational Art Identity and Nation) and the CCW graduate school at the University of the Arts London. Her key works include: Mingei Theory and Japanese Modernisation: Cultur・'alNationalism and “Oriental Orientalism" (RoutlegeCurzon， 2004)， R抑 lctedModernity: Visual Culture and 1dentity in Colonial Taiwan (University ofHawai'i Press， 2007)， and special issues: “Transnational Modem Design Histories in EastAsia，" The Journal ofDesign History， 27-4 (2014) and “Negotiating Histories: Traditions in Modem and Contemporary Asia拘
Pacific Art，"酌rldArt， 5-1 (2015). Awarded the Terra Foundation Senior Fellowship at the Smithsonian American Art Museum in 2015， she is currently working on a book about Russel Wright and the U.S. intervention inAsian design dl出ngthe Cold War， and compiling a critical reader ofEastAsian design.
Kinoshita Nagahiro was a Professor of Art History at Yokohama National University before his retir巴ment.He has published and edited numerous volumes on art history， including several studies ofVinc巴ntVan Gogh and Okakura Kakuzo. His 1992 Shisoshi ωshite no Gohho (Van Gogh as IntellecぬalHistorγラ GakugeiShorin) rec巴ivedthe Geijutsu Sensho Award for New Writers from the Ministry ofEducation. His most recent
。ECEMBER2014 REVIEW OF JAPANESE CULTURE AND SOCIETY 367
RモVIEW OF JAPANESE CULTURE AND SOCIETY
城西大学国際学術文化振興センタ…紀要Vol. X，'XVI
COMMENSURABLE DlST制 CTI0NS:INTERCULTl汲ALNEGOTIATI0NS OF MODERN AND CONTEMFORARY JAPANESE VISUAL CULTURE
Editor in Chief: Mizuta Noriko (Comparative Literature， Women's Studies) Director， Josai International Centerおrthe Promotion of Art and Science， Josai University
Guest EditOf: Bert Winther-Tam北 i(Art Hi，tory Departm叩 t)，University of California， lrvine and Kenichi Yoshida (Global Arts Studies Program)， Unive日ityof Califomia， Merced
Managing Editor: Miya Elise Mizuta (Modem Japanese Literature and Art)， University of So叫hernCalifomia
Assistant Edi拍口
Haga KoIchi (Contemporary Japanese Literature)， Josai International University
Section Editor， Art in Focus: R田 koTomii (Modern and Contemporary Japanese Art)， Independent Scholar
Administrative and Editorial Assistant: Tajima Miho (Modern Japanese Literature and Gender Studies)年 JosaiUniversity
Administrative Assistant Nara Hiroe， lntemational Center for血ePromotion of Art and Science， Josai University
Production Editor: Natta Phisphumvidhi (Graphic Dcs沼n)
Editorial CommIttee: Marilyn YaloU1 (Comparative Literature， Women's Studies)， Stanford University E. Ann Kaplan (Compa回 tiveLiterature， Film Studies)， State University ofNew York at Stony Brook Eiji Sekine (Japanese Literature)， Purdue University Kobayashi Fukuko (American Literature， Women's Studies)， Waseda Unive日1tyJared Lubarsky (Comparative Cultures)， Josai lnternational Unive日1tyYagi Kinuko (Sociology， Women's Studies)， Josai lnternational University 日fachiYasuko (Cultural Anthropology， Women's Studies)， Josai lntemational University Kitada Sachie (Japanese Literatu問)， JosaI Intemational University D. Cuong Q'Neill (Japanese Literature)， University ofCalifomia， Berkeley
Editorial and Business Ofl品ce:JosaI lntemational Center for the Promotion of Art血 dScience， Josai University 1-1 Keyakidai， Sakaao-shi Sai出血a-ken，Japan 350-0295 Tel. 049-271-7731 FAX: 04ヲー271-7981e町聞町ma醐1旧閣a創l川 l1p戸re叫s回s@ji山u.a町C.J叩P h加ome伊g京e:w叩、仰J伊0'祖a町c田s∞ m
Price per lssue Inside Japan:￥2，000. Please pay by postal transfer (Tokyo 6-62423)
Tokyo Office: 3-26， Kioicho Chiyoda-kl1， Tokyo， Japan 102-0094 Tel. 03-6238-1000 FAX: 03-6238-129ヲ
Al1 other coun回目 u.s.$20.00 plus handling and postage $5.00. Allow up to 21 days for delivery Send check or intemational money order to
Jδsai Intemational Center for the Promotion of Art and Science， Josai University 1-1 Keyakidai， Sakado-shi， Saitama-ken， Japan 350・0295
Make all checks payable to‘Review of Japanese Culture and Society.'
TheRe四ewof Japallese Clllture tmd Society is阻 annualEnglish-language journal dedicated to the crIucal analysis of Japanese cultun using thematic and interdisciplinary approaches. Please direct all correspondence to the editorial and business office (Saitama， Japan)
Graphic design: eUe+eUe， Los Angeles Cover: design basedon Tsukioka Yoshitoshi， Mitaso Tenpo nenkan okosho nojfcokll (C町抽出 Habitsofan Okosho oftheTenpo Era， 1888) in the series Fu=oku sanjuniso (Thiロy-T wo Aspects ofCustoms and Manners)， in也ecollection of出eMizuta Museum ofAロ，]osai Unive田町
it 2014 by Jδsai University， All rights reserved. No part ofthe contents ofthis volume may be日producedwithout the ¥vritten pennission of the publisher Printed in Tokyo， Japan ISSN 0913-4700