Writing something and erasing it - I have been repeating this cycle again and again. It has been taking a long time to decide what to write here. Usually, I can write this kind of article while thinking about contents to be written. However, if there is no hint for writing something, I encounter such a difficulty as that of this time. What does the hint mean here? It means an idea about what I should emphasize in writing. Nevertheless, the lack of such main theme does not always mean that there is nothing to be written. Rather, when contents are so wide-ranging that it is difficult to consider them orderly within in a certain framework, it becomes difficult for me to describe them. This first solo exhibition of Kazuya Yamashita, “mirror image” (Gallery Meihodo blanc, 29/Sep/2009 - 18/Oct/2009), was such a kind of show as mentioned above.

     Firstly, let me introduce briefly his creations which were shown in this exhibition. This time Yamashita exhibited the following four works: The “Fugen Enmei Bosatsu” (silk/natural mineral pigment/foil/etc, 1,390mm×670mm, 2004), which he created by copying and reproducing an esoteric Buddhist painting made in the late Heian period based on his presumption, the “Fugen Shinsei Bosatsu” (silk/natural mineral pigment/foil/etc, 1,380mm×600mm, 2007), which was made in paired with the “Fugen Enmei Bosatsu” not only by studying iconographies which are found in the past Buddhist paintings but by adding his originalities to them, the Buddhist painting entitled “Soto Rushanabutsu” (kouzo-gami/ natural mineral pigment/foil/etc, 1,600mm×900mm, 2009), in which Yamashita depicted two heads of a person including his originality more clearly than in the above two exhibits, and the drawing named “Gochuezu”. While the first three exhibits were created prior to the opening of the exhibition, the “Gochuezu” was drawn by the artist directly on temporary wallpaper attached on the wall of the gallery during the exhibition period.
      Therefore, this work showed us a different impression of drawing according to when we visited the exhibition. Here, I have to note that the “Gochuezu” made me expect for being drawn additionally though the overall image had been already depicted at the time I visited the exhibition (01/Oct/2009). Yamashita’s works which were shown in this exhibition can be broadly classified into the genre of “Buddhist painting” in that a scene which is often found in raigo-zu could be seen in the “Gochuezu” though it was created using the composition of sansui-ga.
     Let’s consider the exhibition in terms of flow line. At first, viewers encountered the “Gochuezu”, which was displayed in front of the entrance of the venue [fig. 1] The Gallery Meihodo is composed of two spaces and this solo exhibition of Yamashita was held using a rectangular space named “blanc”, which is narrower than another space in the venue. The exhibition space made us view the “Gochuezu” first, followed by the “Soto Rushanabutsu”, which was displayed on our right hands [fig. 2], and the “Fugen Enmei Bosatsu” and the “Fugen Shinsei Bosatsu” on our left [fig. 3] [fig. 4]. It was impossible for us to overview the four creations all together and we could view them up to three of them at the same time. The narrowness of the space made us get close to the exhibits. It could be considered that the “Gochuezu” [fig. 5], which gave us a relatively free impression, played an introductory role throughout the exhibition in the current situation that Buddhist painting is not considered as a popular genre of art among the public.
     What does this introductory role mean? It represents the introduction to dialogue with the exhibits - Buddhist paintings. A different face which we found in a fracture between two faces which are depicted in “Fugen Shinsei Bosatsu” [ fig. 6] and newborn life which was on a bowl in hand of “Soto Rushanabutsu” [fig. 7] - these new life would have been born from a free “space” (rather than a “left space”) of the “Gochuezu” which was expected to be drawn additionally. Gradually, the “Gochuezu” came to make me feel as if a womb which included unborn life was depicted in it. The newborn life may get out of the bowl to enjoy landscapes or stay within a hand of “Soto Rushanabutsu” and grow up there. The Buddhist paintings which were created by Yamashita can be said to be innovative both historically and ichnographically, therefore they allow viewers to construe them in various ways (eg. They can describe them using such a phrase as “…looks like”).
     On the other hand, in contrast to the “Gochuezu”, which strongly gave us an extemporaneous image, the reproductive artwork, “Fugen Enmei Bosatsu”, and the “Fugen Shinsei Bosatsu” which was created based on study of traditional Buddhist painting as well as the artist’s imagination, made me consider the definition of originality. The “Fugen Shinsei Bosatsu”, in which another face can be found in a fracture at the center of the face of Bosatsu would remind you of the Buddhist statue entitled “Standing Statue of priest Houshi” (H: 159cm, Heian period, Saioji), which was made in the Heian period and in which a different face appears from a crack at the center of two faces. Indeed, there is a difference between the “Fugen Shinsei Bosatsu” and the “Standing Statue of priest Houshi” in that the former has a gold-colored face and rahotsu, which would show that this is a statue of Amitabha Buddha different to the latter, but similarities between the two statues indicate that Yamashita introduced various kinds of iconographies which are depicted not only in paintings but in sculptures of the past in the “Fugen Shinsei Bosatsu” though he created the work paired with the “Fugen Enmei Bosatsu”. Thus, the following has not been written in order not only of their creation period but of the number of opportunities that they have been quoted: The “Fugen Enmei Bosatsu”, the “Fugen Shinsei Bosatsu”, the “Soto Rushanabutsu” and the “Gochuezu”. In this way, Yamashita raised issues about reproduction, extraction and originality in the field of painting under the theme of extremely stylized genre of Buddhist painting while using the exhibition space to make viewers face with iconographies depicted in his creations. The title of this solo exhibition, “mirror image”, clearly represents the above-mentioned attempt made by Yamashita.

     Then, what does the originality mean? In fact, this is a significantly profound question, but every artist after the modern era has been trying to establish his/her own originality. Some artist depicted various kinds of figures which were viewed from different angles in one picture plane and other artist exhibited a lavatory pan for male on which he had signed. The reason these creations are still described as innovative works in the field of art is that there has been no precedent for them and that they had a great impact on the art field afterwards.
As for “reproduction”, quite a number of readers would think that originality is missing to some extent in reproductive artworks. Some of you may state that reproductive works cannot be considered as creations. Yamashita made the “Fugen Enmei Bosatsu” by copying and reproducing the original based on his imagination. In other words, he reproduced the existing original work by presuming its initial colors and condition. Therefore, it can be said that the iconography depicted in the “Fugen Enmei Bosatsu” was originally created by some other person. Then, does this Yamashita’s work include any of his originalities? Is it possible to make a judgment about whether a work is good or bad focusing on originality of a person who created it? The first reason the Kano school had been positioned at the center of art world for about 400 years since the Muromachi period until the time the Meiji Government replaced the Edo Shogunate was that they established their own creative styles by elaborately copying funpon (original works). It has been widely known that new iconographies were created through reproduction of great works made by ancestors or through attempts to improve them. This would be apparent in works created by modern artists, such as Hisashi Tenmyouya, Furansowa Fujii, Akira Yamaguchi and Taro Yamamoto, who actively quote precedent Japanese paintings in their works. As shown in the “Fugen Shinsei Bosatsu”, compared with the above-mentioned modern artists, Yamashita seems to refrain from factitious extraction as much as possible, which contributes to creating a casual impression of this work as if it was made by him originally. Nonetheless, exactly, such obscure alterations of the original are indications of Yamashita’s inventiveness in this creation. Rephrasing the preceding sentence using the word “originality”, it can be said that Yamashita’s active selection of the act, namely, reproduction, is itself his originality.
     Nevertheless, considering the past Buddhist paintings, I have to confess that the “Soto Rushanabutsu”, which is indeed one of Yamashita’s creations, gave me an extraordinary impression because of its disadvantage in that we were unfamiliar with regarding it as a “Buddhist painting”. Other two exhibits, the “Fugen Enmei Bosatsu” and the “Fugen Shinsei Bosatsu”, made me consider them as typical “Buddhist paintings”. This is the reason I have written at the beginning of this article that “contents are so wide-ranging that it is difficult to consider them orderly within in a certain framework”. The “Soto Rushanabutsu” made me confront a problem that it was difficult to regard it as one painting without my prejudice against Buddhist paintings. Then, I was puzzled how to view the creation. In this way, Yamashita’s works posed a difficult-to-solve question for me. It would be nonsense to ask the artist how we should look at his creations. What can I feel from the space completed by the artist? This depends on me. While looking at his works, I noticed that they were reflecting my thought diffusely.
(Translated by Nozomi Nakayama)