-
14. Representations of “Japaneseness” in Modern Japanese Aesthetics: An Introduction to the Critique of Comparative Reason
- University of Hawai'i Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
153 14 Representations of “Japaneseness” in Modern Japanese Aesthetics An Introduction to the Critique of Comparative Reason Otabe Tanehisa The task of this essay is to clarify how in the past fifty years Japanese aestheticians have pursued “Japanese aesthetic qualities” as their subject matter. As is well known, scholarly study in modern Japan mainly took the shape of “imported learning.” The same has been true in the study of aesthetics. In general, the basic attitude of Japanese aestheticians has been “outward.” I do not mean to argue, however, that Japanese scholars of aesthetics have simply imported Western theories. While adopting Western hermeneutical strategies, they have also published comparative studies on Eastern/Western arts and art theories . These two different movements—the importation of the latest Western theories and comparison between East and West (or Japan and the West)— have not been mutually exclusive but rather have complemented each other. In other words, these scholars, like Janus, have shown two faces and in many cases have simply used whichever face suited their objective—a fact that has caused not a few problems peculiar to the field of comparative studies in Japan . My essay, therefore, will be a “critique of comparative reason.” The history of comparative studies in Japanese aesthetics can be divided into three periods: from the 1930s to the 1940s, the 1960s to the 1970s, and the 1980s to the present. After surveying how Japanese aestheticians pursued their comparative studies, I will consider the ideological background that has led them to follow the comparative path. The Study of Eastern Aesthetic Categories One of the most representative scholars of the first period is Ōnishi Yoshinori (1888–1959). His works, including Kanto: Handanryoku Hihan (A Study of Kant’s Critique of Judgment, 1931), Genshōgakuha no Bigaku (Aesthetics of the Phenomenological School, 1937), and Rōmanshugi no Bigaku to Geijutsukan (The Aesthetics and Art Views of Romanticism, posthumous, 1968), were explorations mainly of the aesthetics in German-speaking countries, from Kant through the romantics to phenomenology. Meanwhile, Ōnishi also pursued his comparative research on East and West in studies such as Yūgen to Aware (Yūgen and Aware, 1939), Fūga Ron: Sabi no Kenkyū (The Theory of Refinement : A Study of Sabi, 1940), and Man’yōshū ni Okeru Shizen Kanjō (Natural Emotions in the Man’yōshū, 1943). All these works finally resulted in Bigaku (Aesthetics, the second volume of which includes a “Theory of Aesthetic Categories ,” 1959–60, 1981), and Tōyōteki Geijutsu Seishin (The Eastern Artistic Spirit, 1988). A distinctive characteristic of Ōnishi’s comparative studies can be seen mainly in his “theory of aesthetic categories.” He argues: Western “aesthetics” which has been imported into our country is originally based on the “aesthetic consciousness” of Western European peoples. In the East, especially in Japan, however, there is a certain aesthetic consciousness that developed independently , and is peculiar to the Eastern or Japanese peoples. Since we must learn Western aesthetics and are obliged to develop it further, we should supplement or expand Western aesthetics by taking into consideration what we consider to be Eastern aesthetics. In Japanese aesthetic consciousness we can discover those Eastern “aesthetic categories” which have not been much recognized by previous Western aesthetics.1 Ōnishi modeled his work after the theories of aesthetic categories developed during the second half of the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century, particularly those of the Hegelian Friedrich Theodor Vischer and the neo-Kantian Hermann Cohen. Ōnishi argues that there are three fundamental aesthetic categories: the beautiful, the sublime, and the humorous. While following Cohen, Ōnishi attempts to deduce aesthetic categories that are in line with a priori structures in the “aesthetic experience.” The three categories can be deduced when the aesthetic experience is composed of “an artaesthetic moment” and “a nature-aesthetic moment.” In other words, if the art-aesthetic moment has the advantage, the humorous will emerge, whereas if the nature-aesthetic moment is stronger, the sublime will dominate. If the two moments are completely harmonized, then the beautiful will emerge.2 Thus, as long as Ōnishi follows the deductive method, there is in his argu154 Otabe Tanehisa [3.81.221.121] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 21:37 GMT) ment no room for an East-West comparative study. This is because East-West differences are simply impossible to deduce, and that is exactly why Ōnishi calls some Japanese aesthetic categories (such as “aware,” “yūgen...