Oriental Wood Sculpture
There exists in the Sainsbury collection two, seated,
Buddhist wood sculptures. One from Japan, a Buddha Amida of the Kamakura Period
(13th to 14th century AD). The other is from China, a
Bodhisattva of the Yuan dynasty (13th to 14th century
AD). In other words the two sculptures are from the same date, in the same
material, and are inspired by a common faith. It might be expected, therefore,
that the two figures would be aesthetically and technically very similar. Such
a view, however, though credible, necessitates a closer examination of the two
figures to see how their respective traditions relate, if at all.
The Chinese have a long history of wood sculpture, dating
from the pre-Buddhist period onwards. But it is with the advent of Buddhism
that their sculpture takes on much of the stereotypical characteristics one
normally associates with religious figures of this type. The seated Buddha,
with its dyana or yoga posture, illustrates Enlightenment gained by following
the path of asceticism. However this Chinese figure is a Bodhisattva rather
than a Buddha. A Bodhisattva is one whose essence has become intelligence: a
Being who will in some future life (not necessarily the next one on the samsara
or long cycle of birth and rebirth) be born a man who will escape samsara to
obtain Buddhahood.
Buddhist art is a religious art and so it is the religion
that explains the postures. The figure’s right arm is missing, up to just below
the elbow, so it is difficult to define its position. Its mudra or arms may be
in the Bhumisparsa position. This means “Earth-touching” or “Witness”; it
refers to the episode under the Tree of Wisdom, when Sakyamuni (the original Buddha,
who’s name was the historical figure of Gautama Sakyamuni around whom the myths
arose) called the Earth as his witness during his temptation by Mara. In other
words his hand may have been turned palm inwards and pointing downwards as
though touching the ground. However this is a posture more usual for a Buddha
than a Bodhisattva.
The figure’s asana or legs seem to be in the Maharajalila or
Ardha-paryanka position. This could be roughly translated as ‘royal-ease’: one
leg is vertical, the other horizontal. The right arms rests on the right knee
further emphasising this casual attitude but it seems curious that a
Bodhisattva should take on the posture of an indolent monarch. Furthermore
there are no kingly attributes, such as a crown, to justify that interpretation.
It is probably more likely that it is simply a variant of the Lalita position:
one leg up, one horizontal, though without its foot resting on the opposite
thigh. The positioning of the feet is a little confused, anyway, by the right
foot being broken off. But, because of the Maharajalila overtones, it may well
be an Avolokitesvara Bodhisattva rather than a Maitreya.
The wood on the Chinese figure shows traces of lacquer and
gilding. Buddhist images are usually painted or lacquered or covered with gold
leaf. The painting might take as long as the carving. First seams and cracks
would be covered with fabric or paper, then the entire surface would be covered
with gesso. (In Japan, the gesso, called gofun was made from baked seashells
crushed into a powder and mixed with water.) The gesso would then be burnished
down and painted. Gold leaf was used extensively, either for covering the
entire figure or, in the form of kirikane, for highlighting certain decorative
details. In this case the positioning of the gold fragments suggests that it
was completely covered. This negates the idea of a wood aesthetic; though such
an aesthetic did exist it was reserved for sandalwood and fine fruit woods.
On first appearance the Chinese Bodhisattva looks to be
carved from a single block. This is the ichiboko technique. Several cracks,
which look like joints, are irregular and therefore just splits in the wood.
But where the right arm has broken off there is a central hole which indicates
the presence of a joint. This is substantiated by the fact that it is a limb
sticking out and would have required a much larger original block. Also it
would have been impractical, since the line of the grain would have made a limb
cut from the same block extremely fragile. (Splits occurring along the grain
not against it.) Nevertheless the bulk of the figure could be said to have been
created using the ichiboko technique.
The Chinese figure seems to be wearing only an undergarment
called antaravasaka, tied at the waist with a girdle. He may be wearing a thin
outer garment or mantle (sanghati) but it is by no means as full as that of the
Japanese Buddha. The hair is less stylised on the Chinese figure and is tied up
at the centre to form a bun. The chest also shows greater modelling,
particularly on the ribs, than the Japanese figure. The Chinese figure bears an
elaborate necklace as well as several bracelets, while the Japanese one has
only a simple neckband. In both the ears are enlarged and extended as a sign of
divinity and superior knowledge. The left arm of the Bodhisattva is straight
against the body, as if in postural support though not actually supporting the
figure. Both figures are actually supported by cutting off the natural contours
of the body at the base and making them completely flat. The base is larger on
the Japanese figure making the most of the large amount of drapery at base
level.
The Buddha has, as one might expect, what has become known
as a Buddha or dhyana posture; the left hand, palm forwards, rests on the left
knee and the other hand is raised, palm forwards, is a gesture of welcome. The
hands are clearly articulated and detailed down to the fingernails. The one
hand that is left on the Bodhisattva is club-like and very poor, but this may
be due to damage. The feet of the Japanese Buddha are not shown. The eyes are
shown by simple lines, with long eyebrows, a long nose and central spot on the
forehead. On the Chinese figure the eyes are indicated by lines but are
surrounded by a convincing eye bulge. The nose is shorter but the eyebrows
similar. The shape of the face is longer and more rectangular than the rounded
Japanese face. The Chinese rectangular face is typical of early Yuan, so the
figure probably dates from the first century of that dynasty.
The Japanese figure has traces of what looks like gilding;
if so, it is surprising that there is only mention of the red lacquer in the
catalogue of the collection. The way the drapery is cut in deep folds is
similar on both figures, especially if one compares their respective left
knees. There is greater emphasis upon frontality in the Buddha; the Bodhisattva
is, in a sense, more three dimensional in that it has a greater number of satisfactory
viewing points. Yet despite this the Buddha gives an overall impression of
being more naturalistic and subjectively exudes a tranquil, devout, meditative
air which the Bodhisattva lacks. Despite the fact that the wood does not look
as though it would have been visible in either case there is virtually no sign
of the tools the carvers used. They must have been worked using sophisticated
chisels and so on, then smoothed off on all surfaces without destroying the
deep cutting of the original carving.
Images of the Buddha Amida or Amitabha are generally gentle
and compassionate, like the Japanese one, as he offers salvation to those who
believe in him. Raigo paintings of the Kamakura period are quite similar to the
sculptures, though they show him accompanied by angels and bodhisattvas,
descending to earth to receive the faithful. The Amida Nyorai, or Butsu as he
is often called, is the Buddha of the Western paradise, and is symbolic of
eternal life and boundless light. As the chief deity of the Jodo sect, which
flourished during the Kamakura period, he forms a popular subject.
Chinese precedent can be seen for the Buddha as far back as
the Tang dynasty, early seventh century. There is a wooden Amida of the same
size which used to be in the Tai-ssu Temple of this period, and which sits in
the same dhyana mudra and asana position. But it was not until the opening
years of the Kamakura period, around 1200, that this image received its classic
Japanese formulation. The sculptor credited with this development (the An-ami
style) is Kaikei who, together with his brother Unkei, was a major innovative
force at this time. Kaikei was a devout Amidist, his religious name was An
Amida Butsu, and the Buddha in the collection must derive, directly or
indirectly, from the ‘Kei’ school of sculpture. Indirectly is more likely. Taking
Kakei’s Amida as example, the figure looks like a ‘progression’ of two or three
generations though remarkably similar.
The dent in the centre of the headdress of the Japanese
figure probably held a round, decorative feature of a different material,
possibly a jewel. It is too small and shallow for it to have been attached at
this point to the halo or aureole (funagoko) of a larger Buddha. Even so, it
might have been part of a larger Temple composition of several figures. The
figure has been constructed in the joined wood or yosegi technique. Although it
is impossible to know without handling the object, the blocks are probably
hollow. Six blocks are discernible: the torso, the right arm and thigh, the
left arm and thigh, the legs and drapery, plus the two sections of the head.
The hands may also have been added.
Japanese and Chinese culture had reopened contact in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, after centuries of alienation. Friendly
visits had been resumed; Japanese student monk began to visit China on
pilgrimages to the ancient centres of Buddhist worship. It is not unreasonable to
assume that what they saw, and mementos they brought back, could have
influenced Japanese Buddhist art. But it would still be the Sung, rather than
the Yuan, style that would be most in evidence in the ancient shrines. In a
sense the An-ami style of the Japanese figure is in opposition to the
naturalistic, unidealized portraits that fill much of the Kamakura period. But
having noted that, it might be worth repeating that the Japanese figure gives a
greater overall sense of naturalism than the Chinese Bodhisattva. This
naturalism corresponds to contemporary thought in Japanese Buddhism. The
Shinran and Nichiren sects tried to demystify Buddhism and apply it to the
common man and, for the first time, woman. The Sung period (AD960-1279) in
China shows some of the same religious trends and, consequently, some of the
same emphasis on realistic human features and non-idealisation.
It would seem that the Kamakura period in Japan was more
influenced by the previous Sung period in China than by the contemporary Yuan
period. Generalisations are always suspect but, as far as such generalisations
are valid, China seems to be the initiator of style and Japan the perfector. It
is not unknown, but it is rare for Japanese work to influence Chinese. The two
figures are from the same period and religion and probably performed the same
ritualistic function. They probably had altars placed before them, on which
incense would be burnt, and sacrificial food and wine displayed. The Buddha
Amida, in particular, would serve as an intermediary between the person or
people and the deity concerned. The Bodhisattva might have been part of the
entourage of such a deity. But despite both bearing “Oriental” characteristic,
not to say “Buddhist” characteristics, the two figures show different
priorities in detailed modelling: the hair and chest in the Chinese, as opposed
to the hands and extensive drapery of the Japanese figure. The facial structure
varies, which is an aesthetic rather than racial variation. The two figures
display different attitudes to the viewing of their three-dimensional form.
Above all, they display different techniques, the sophisticated yosegi
technique when compared to the Chinese ichiboko technique. There are
cross-currents between the two traditions, and it would be a mistake to artificially
divorce them, just as it would be a mistake to underestimate individual artistic
creativity in forcing them into an unnatural harmony.
No comments:
Post a Comment