AESTHETICS No.13 (2009)

The Japanese Society for Aesthetics / 269

Chouhou by Yokoyama Taikan and “Expression”:
Expressions of the character’s emotion in His Art
UEDA Sayoko
Tokyo National Museum, Tokyo

Introduction
In my previous research [1], I considered why Qu Yuan, which Yokoyama Taikan (18681958) exhibited at the first Nihon Bijutsuin (Japan Art Academy) Exhibition in 1898, attracted
so much attention at that time. I revealed that it was not because the painting implicitly
portrayed Okakura Kakuzo (Tenshin) as the Chinese poet Qu Yuan, but rather because Qu
Yuan was regarded as an excellent example of “Expression”, one of the three main themes
Okakura had chosen for the Exhibition. These three main themes were described as follows:“Moreover, as our now position, the following three objectives must be the aims for young
painters: we must develop our technique more and more following traditional rules, wemust place importance on order and not make outrageous paintings, and we must
represent “Expression.”[2]It was pointed out by Kinoshita Nagahiro that the meaning of this “Expression”, mentioned
by Okakura, was quite vague [3]. However, after the autumnof 1897, the word “Expression” became a common in featurein critiques of Japanese-style paintings, but before spring
1897 this word was hardly seen at all. What were thereasons for this change? Answering this question is one themain objectives of this article.
As will be discussed later, “Expression” in 1898 referredto the expression of the emotions of the characters inpaintings. As Shioya Jun has already mentioned in his
research [4], in history painting in the mid Meiji era, what
was sought after was a psychological portrait of the painting’s subject. However, Shioya didn’t discuss “Expression”
in great detail. It has been speculated that the word “Expression” had a European influence because it was written in
katakana, and furthermore, “Expression” had been an important notion in Western Art since the Renaissance [5]. So whatkind of meaning did “Expression” have for Japanese-style
paintings in the mid Meiji Era?
At that time, the painting that obtained a high appraisal
regarding “Expression” was Chouhou (Fig. 1), exhibited by

Fig. 1 Yokoyama Taikan,
Chouhou, destroyed byfire, 1897, (Saito Ryuzo,ed., Taikan Sakuhin shu,
Otsuka Kogei sha, 1925)

UEDA Sayoko

270

Yokoyama Taikan in autumn of 1897 [6]. This painting no longer survives so there has been
little research into it. However, it was a masterpiece, released between Selfless (Spring 1887,
Tokyo National Museum) and Qu Yuan (autumn 1898, Itsukushima Shrine), two of the mostimportant early works of Yokoyama Taikan, so Chouhou occupies an important place when
tracing Taikan’s history.
In this article, taking Yokoyama Taikan’s Chouhou as a starting point, I consider the
problem of “Expression” from the following viewpoints: First, I explain clearly what “Expression” meant at that time. Secondly, I examine the reasons why “Expression” came to be thefocus of so much attention. Thirdly, concentrating mainly on Chouhou, I consider how Taikan
depicted “Expression” in his paintings. By doing so, I want make clear Taikan’s characteristicof reacting sensitively to new forms of expression.

1. Yokoyama Taikan’s Chouhou
First of all, I want to talk about Chouhou. This work was exhibited in the third Nihon
Kaiga Kyokai Kaiga Kyoshinkai (Japanese painting society painting competitive exhibition)in the autumn of 1897. It received the copper medal at this exhibition. The Agriculture
Department of Commerce then purchased it for 140 yen, and Chouhou was exhibited in the
Paris Expo in 1900, receiving the copper prize [7]. However, it later perished in a fire and nolonger exists. It is said that this fire was caused by the Big Kanto Earthquake [8].
Taikan published an explanation of Chouhou in a magazine in February 1898, immediately
after the exhibition [9].
“When people gather in a temple to listen to the same Buddhist sermon, the meaning isdifferent from person to person. Depicting this was one of my principle objectives when I
painted Chouhou, I wanted to show the difference. Even if various people, for example, awoman, a farmer or a samurai, listen to the same preaching, one person will listen withfaith, another incredulously and another without understanding. I planned to depict
these various states in the guise of contemporary people. ...(Omission)... it was mypurpose to show these characters’ emotions...
When depicting “Expression,” I am afraid it might become flat and monotonous if we use
ordinary methods, so I try to pay attention to shadow, light and darkness, and want topaint as thoroughly as possible...”This explanation shows that Taikan’s intention in Chouhou was to depict the different
emotions and states of various people as they listened to a Buddhist sermon. In other words,
he wanted to depict “Expression”. Here we can understand that “Expression” meant theexpression of the emotions of the characters in paintings.
Chouhou was very well-received when it was exhibited and it was evaluated highly
regarding Taikan’s special objective, “Expression”[10]. Based on Taikan’s explanation, many
previous researchers paid attention to how Taikan tried to express shadow and how hedepicted the various attitudes of the people listening to the sermon [11].
Looking at the critiques made during the third Nihon Kaiga Kyoshinkai exhibition in theChouhou by Yokoyama Taikan and “Expression”

autumn of 1897, “Expression” is discussed regarding other works besides Chouhou. For instance, it
is lamented how Shimomura Kanzan’s Death of
Tsugunobu (Fig. 2), which received the special silver medal [12], lacked “Expression”. It was also
said about Kobori Tomoto’s Tsuneyo, which received the silver medal, that its “Expression” wasinsufficient [13]. In contrast, Taikan’s Chouhou,
which depicted the emotions of the people in an
audience, and Shimada Bokusen’s Chijou Kito [14],which depicted Oishi Yoshio with features full of

271

Fig. 2 Shimomura Kanzan, Death of
Tsugunobu, Tokyo National University of Fine Arts and Music, 1897

indignation, both received high acclaim because they were excellent examples of “Expression.”

2. “Expression”
Next, I want to confirm the meaning of “Expression.” As we can see from the use of
katakana, the word has a similar meaning to the European word ‘expression’. This word has
been known in Japan for quite a long time.
Since ‘Eiwa Taiyaku Shuchuin Jiten (English-Japanese translation dictionary)’ [15], published in 1862 by the shogunal department Yosho Shirabesho, a number of high-quality
English-Japanese dictionaries have appeared in Japan. As for the translation of the word
“Expression” in the main English-Japanese dictionaries from the end of shogunate to the mid
Meiji era, please refer to the table. From the table, we can see that there are various translations for “Expression.” ‘Fuon Sozu Wayaku Eijii (An English and Japanese Lexicon: explanation, pronunciation and etymology, containing all English words in present use, with anappendix)’ and ‘Webster’s unabridged dictionary of the English language’ (both published thelate 1880’s) are known as the most widespread English-Japanese dictionaries from the late1880’s to the 1900’s [16]. The table tells us that after the publication of ‘Tetsugaku Jii (Dictionaryof philosophy)’ in 1881, the meaning of “Expression” in the late 1880s came to mean ‘face color’or ‘facial expression’ [17].
The original meaning of the word ‘expression’ in the West is “to give a visible shape tosomething invisible”[18]. For this reason, the word has a wide range of meanings and translations. This is why the word “Expression” was used in so many different ways in the 1880’s and1900’s [19]. In this article, I don’t just focus on the word “Expression” but also pay attention to
the problem of expressing the emotions of characters in paintings.
In particular I want to note how the “Expression” that I use in this article differs from the“Expression” used to refer to the depiction of feelings by modern artists or, in other words, theartist’s expression of their own feelings. The latter meaning of the word “Expression” wasgiven prominence at the end of the Meiji era by, amongst others, the Shirakaba school’s Kaigano Yakusoku Ronsou (debate about the promises of paintings) [20].
In critiques of Western-style painting, the use of the word “Expression” to denote thedepiction of the emotions of the characters in paintings was often used in discussions. For

UEDA Sayoko

272

instance, in the critique concerning Yamamoto Housui’s The twelve zodiacal signs in 1892, thecharacters of the Horse and Sheep were appraised in terms of the “Expression” of their appearance [21]. Moreover, the Talk on Ancient Romance sketches that Kuroda Seiki had exhibitedin the autumn of 1896 were also evaluated in terms of their “Expression”[22]. However,“Expression” in this sense of the word was rarely seen in critiques of Japanese-style painting
until after the autumn of 1897.
It would not be true to say though that the depiction in paintings of the expressions andfeelings of people was never considered before then. In early 1882, Okakura Tenshin wrote
about the importance of depicting the emotions of the characters in paintings in his “Sho ha
Bijutsu narazuno Ron wo Yomu (Reading the theory that calligraphy is not art)”[23]. But it
wasn’t considered very often [24]. In 1895, Fukuchi Fukuichi published “Menbo no Setsu (The
Theory of Faces)”[25]. Though the word “Expression” was not used in the theory, Fukuchi
insisted that it was necessary, taking into account the physiognomy of the Orient, and thephrenology and the psychology of the West, to depict the feelings of the characters in paintings. In addition, in September of the same year Suematsu Kenchou described how “the facesof the characters in Japanese-style paintings look strange when seen from European eyes” [26].
Furthermore, the facial expression of a painting’s characters became a topic (though the word
“Expression” was not used) in the first Nihon Kaiga Kyokai exhibition in the autumn of 1896
and the second Nihon Kaiga Kyokai exhibition in spring the following year [27].
<Table> Translation list of “Expression” from the middle of Meiji to the end of Edo
year

Dictionary’s name

Expression’s translation

1862

Eiwa taiyaku shuchin jiten

Kai-suru youni iu koto.

1869

Satsuma jisho (Wayaku ei jisho)

Oshitsukeru koto. Genshutsu suru koto.
Arawasu koto.

1869

Eika jii

Jigen. Ji. Shi. Menshoku.

1872

Eiwa jiten

Ku. Gohou. Gen. Ku. Go.

1881

Tetsugaku Jii

Bunji, Gohou, Hyoushutsu, Menshoku.

1887

Fuon sozu wayaku ei jii (An English andJapanese Lexicon: explanation, pronunciation and etymology, containing all
English words in present use, with anappendix)

Sakushutsu suru koto, Kyousaku suru koto,
Meikoku suru koto, Sen-yo suru koto,
Hyoushutsu, Taido, Menshoku, Soubou, Kesiki,On-you, Fusai, Gohou, Genji, Bunri

Webster’s unabridged dictionary of the Sakushutsu, Genshutsu, Meikoku, Hyoshutsu,
English language
Bunri, Gohou, Oncho, Menshoku, Keiyo※Menshoku means facial expression.
Hori Tatsunosuke and Horikoshi Kamenosuke, ed., Eiwa Taiyaku Shuchuin Jiten, Yosho Shirabejo,1862(Sugimoto Tsutomu,ed., Edo Jidai Hon-yaku Nihongo Jiten, Tokyo: Waseda University Press, 1981,
included).
Fukkoku Satsuma Jisho (1869 first edition Wayaku ei jisho) Takagi shobo, 1997.
Eika jii, Shosokan, 1869.
Eiwa jiten, chishinkansha, 1872.
Tetsugaku Jii (Dictionary of philosophy), Tokyo daigaku sangakubu, 1881.
Shimada yutaka, ed., Fuon sozu wayaku ei jii (An English and Japanese Lexicon: explanation, pronunciationand etymology, containing all English words in present use, with an appendix), Okura shoten, 1887 firstedition, 1898 17 edition.
Webster’s unabridged dictionary of the English language, Sanseido, 1888 first edition, 1897 32 edition.
1888

Chouhou by Yokoyama Taikan and “Expression”

273

Against the background of such discussions, in critiques during the third Nihon Kaiga
Kyokai in Autumn 1897 the criticism word “Expression” came to be used in various ways, andthe expression of a character’s feelings and personality garnered a lot of attention. So what
was the immediate reason for the sudden attention to the word “Expression”?
After researching the newspapers and magazines of the day, I think the reason for thischange can be seen in two articles published at the same time in mid-July 1897. Both thesearticles discussed the facial expressions of people in Japanese paintings, and these subsequently became the start of the interest in “Expression”. These articles were “Nihonga no Ichi
Gimon (One doubt about Japanese-style painting)” by Suematsu Kenchou and “Nihon Kaiga
Ron (Japanese painting theory)” by Lafcadio Hearn, both published in July, 1897.

3. The reason why “Expression” garnered attention in 1897
First of all, I want to consider the article by Suematsu. This article, “Nihonga no Ichi
Gimon (One doubt about Japanese-style painting)”, was published in The Yomiuri newspaper
by Suematsu Kenchou on July 19, 1897.
The content of the article that Suematsu published is as follows. When Suematsu presented some copies of old Japanese pictures to the child of a British scholar he knew, theBritish scholar expressed the following doubts to Suematsu. The scholar wondered why the
person’s face in the old picture was so flat and conventional even though the tree and theanimal were expressed using shadows. Suematsu had no answer so he said he wanted torequest the opinion of a specialist.
In reply to this, three articles were published in the Yomiuri newspaper. The three replies
were: “Nihonga no Ichi Gimon ni tsuite Seiheiujin ni yosu (To Dr. Suematsu regarding his‘One doubt about Japanese-style painting’) by the Mukian master (Omura Seigai) on July 26,“Nihonga no Ichi Gimon ni tsuite Seihei Hakase ni teisu (To Dr. Suematsu regarding ‘One
doubt about Japanese-style painting’)” by Tatematsu Kiseki on August 2, and “Nihon Jimbutsuga
ni In-ei naki Riyuu tehu Suematsu Hakase ga Gimon ni tsuite (Dr. Suematsu’s question about
the Japanese portrait without shadow)” by Inahata Shotaro on August 9. In these reports, thelack of the depiction shadow in Japanese traditional pictures was discussed along with thefacial expressions of people in Japanese paintings. This enthusiastic discussion attracted a lotof attention.
The day after Suematsu’s report was carried, on July 20 1897, the magazine “Taiyo (thesun)” vol.3, no.15 carried an article by Lafcadio Hearn entitled “Nihon Kaiga Ron (Japanesepainting theory)”.
First, I want to consider the background of this article. At the beginning of “Nihon Kaiga
Ron (Japanese painting theory),” Hearn describes the incident that led him to write hisargument. It was a presentation by Edward F. Strange at the convention of The Japan Societyof London [28], held in London in November 13, 1895. Strange described the collection ofJapanese fine art in the Royal Museum and during the questions and answers section of thepresentation, the British people there voiced an opinion that the facial expressions in Japanese
pictures were strange.

274

UEDA Sayoko

Three plates were published alongside Strange’s essay in “Transactions and Proceedingsof the Japan Society, London”[29], but only one of these plates depicted a person. This was anukiyo-e picture by Kitagawa Utamaro – ‘Edo Meibutsu Nishiki-e Kousaku ’. This shows that theargument was premised on Utamaro’s beauty picture.
Lafcadio Hearn wrote his “Nihon Kaiga Ron (Japanese painting theory)” in response to theargument at The Japan Society of London. Though ukiyo-e was the target of the argument on“Expression” at The Japan Society of London, Hearn extended and developed the debate to include traditional Japanese pictures in general. As his conclusion, Hearn claimed that Japanese
portraits depicted the ‘ideal’ form of Japanese people. In other words, the painter painted an
abstract and idealized form of the Japanese figure. On this point, Hearn claimed that Japanese
portraiture had a lot in common with Greek fine arts:“I think when we look at a cricket, a butterfly or a honeybee, it is not that we scrutinize its
limbs or frame and know it is a cricket, a butterfly or a honeybee, but rather that we only
need to look at it to tell what it is. In other words, we don’t pay attention to the individual
characteristics but rather notice the common features of the species. Therefore theJapanese painter always draws only the common features and copies out a natural ideal,
rather than depicting a realistic shape.”
The word “Expression” appears quite often throughout Hearn’s argument. The kanji“Hyoyo” was written alongside the Kana “Expression” to show what the latter word meant. It
seems that this argument of Hearn led to an increasing attention to the word “Expression” incritiques of Japanese-style painting from autumn 1897 onwards.
The “Nihon Kaiga Ron (Japanese painting theory)” by Hearn aroused lots of interest [30],and was discussed by Tsunashima Ryosen [31] and others alongside a similar argument,“Nihonga no Ichi Gimon (One doubt about Japanese-style painting)” by Suematsu.
Furthermore, Omura Seigai’s counter-argument to Hearn’s argument was serialized 7times in the Yomiuri newspaper from the end of August to the beginning of September [32]. If
we analyse the points of discussion between Lafcadio Hearn and Omura Seigai, as the following diagram shows, it becomes clear that there is a clash of concepts over whether a picture
should depict commonality or whether it should depict individuality and specificity.
Commonality and Generality : The special features arrived at after abstracting from numerous
individuals, the common features shared by numerous
individuals↑↓
Individuality and specificity : The special, specific characteristics pertaining to each separate
individual
Commonality and generality are the concepts Lafcadio Hearn considered to be special
features of Japanese paintings. These concepts basically refer to the special features arrived atafter abstracting from numerous individuals and the common features shared by numerous

Chouhou by Yokoyama Taikan and “Expression”

275

individuals. Hearn said that the reason the faces of the ukiyo-e beauties were so stereotyped
was because it was considered proper to capture the commonality of the beauties.
Contrary to Hearn, Omura Seigai thought individuality and specificity were important, inother words the special, specific characteristics pertaining to each separate individual. It was
Omura’s counter-argument that it was not a good thing that Japanese painters tended to draw
only the ‘commonality’ without depicting the ‘individuality’. You could say that this was a direct
example of the confrontation between idealism and naturalism that occurred in those days [33].
So, the subject of facial expressions in Japanese traditional pictures became a hot topic ofdebate in July 1897, but the background to this debate was the fact that the British had felt asense of incongruity regarding “Expression” in Japanese portraits. And this argument overfacial expression spread to cover the expression of shadow in Japanese traditional pictures,
and also grew to include the argument regarding the special features of Japanese paintings
and whether the most important thing was not ‘individuality’ but ‘commonality’.
In the background of this argument, the word “Expression” appeared several times incritiques of the autumn exhibition, and even when they did not use the word “Expression,”many critiques paid attention to the expression of the character and feelings of the people inpaintings.
The article “Hakurankai no Jumbi (Preparation for an exposition)”[34], carried by the“Waseda Bungaku” magazine in December of the same year, described the facial expressions
in Japanese portraits as follows:“In particular, our Japanese portraits are regarded as lacking facial expression and only
showing a stereotypical beauty to foreigners, who hold this in low regard, so our Japanesepainters should try to elaborate and use their skill to contrive to depict characters withexpressive faces and expressive actions.”
The exposition mentioned here was the Paris expo of 1900. The article stated that in orderfor Japanese paintings to be accepted by Europeans, at the Paris expo painters should take carewhen depicting the expression of a character’s face. From this report we can tell that, with theParis expo looming, the Japanese were conscious of how Europeans would react. Moreover,
we can also tell that the debate about “Expression”, first raised regarding old paintings andukiyo-e, had now spread to take in the subject of Meiji Japanese-style painting.

4. The attempt at “Expression” in Yokoyama Taikan’s Chouhou(1) The theme and composition
Now I want to consider how Yokoyama Taikan tried to depict “Expression” in Chouhou.
“Chouhou” is a Buddhist term meaning “listening to Buddha’s law”[35]. This “listening” toBuddha’s law was one of the most important practices (Juppou-gyou) in Buddhism, and the
depiction of the practice of people ‘listening’ was the main theme of Chouhou.
Let’s take a look at Chouhou (Fig.1). In this painting, four people are depicted indoors andten people outdoors. Three aristocrat women sit at the front. The person at the back is an old
woman and next to these women a child is taking a nap. From the right, consider the people

276

UEDA Sayoko

outside. On the right edge a woman is shown leaning forward. Next, separated by a pillar, isa samurai yawning into his hand, then a man with Chonmage-hair resting his chin on his
hands, then a crouching samurai concentrating on the talk. Behind him are an aristocrat man
and woman and in front of them, a samurai looking down and a samurai leaning on alatticework window. Shown on the left are a man with Chonmage-hair and folded arms and acommoner leaning on a stick.
The main feature of this picture, as Nagao Masanori has pointed out [36], is that it’s only
the audience that has been depicted, not the preaching priest. As Nagao said, scenes featuring
people listening to Buddha’s law were often seen in the scrolls of shrines and temples Chouhou is special because Taikan depicted a close-up view of just the audience. Because in
Chouhou the preaching priest is not drawn, the “listening”, which is the theme of the painting,is emphasized by the composition, which depicts the audience close-up.
Furthermore, various people are depicted in the painting, such as aristocrats, samurai andcommoners, along with various poses and expressions such as yawning or taking a nap. In histhemes, composition and depiction of the crowd, Taikan tried to grapple with this “Expression” which was attracting so much attention in those days.
(2) The attempt at expressing shadow
When painting Chouhou, Taikan was also conscious of trying to express shadow.
In critiques at the time, it was pointed out about Chouhou that: “In this picture, the painterdepicts the inside of the temple darkly lit with the glow of the sacred light, and the painter has
tried an interesting experiment regarding the depiction of sunbeams, drawing them so they fillwith sunlight the other section of the crowd outside in the background”[37]. Even if you lookat a monochrome plate of the picture, the front right of the painting, inside the temple, is dark,
as is the right side of the latticework window visible behind the people indoors, or the underarea of the pillar. This shows that the shadow has been drawn whilst conscious of the lightcoming from the inside and outside. If we look at the three men (Fig. 3) standing on the leftoutside, we can see shadow by the side of a nose, the cheek, and the neck, and we can tell that
Taikan has tried to express the shadow in relation to light coming from the left. Although
Taikan said himself that he had tried experimenting with shadow and light, he claimed that hewasn’t so successful in his attempts to depict the contrasting
light and darkness inside and outside the temple. But fromthese critiques and from the plates themselves, it could bethat this was certainly a work strongly concerned with the
depiction of shadow.
About his attempts to depict shadow and “Expression,”
Taikan said the following in his above-quoted explanation:“When depicting “Expression,” I am afraid it might
become flat and monotonous if we use ordinary
methods, so I try to pay attention to shadow, light anddarkness, and want to paint as thoroughly as possible...”Fig. 3 Yokoyama Taikan,
Chouhou, portion

Chouhou by Yokoyama Taikan and “Expression”

277

In other words, Taikan thought that when it comes toattempting “Expression”, there was a danger of monotony if
the old methods were followed, so he paid particular attention
to the depiction of shadow. However, Taikan went on to say
the following:“Anyway, while representing the “Expression” of thecharacters in the painting, if possible I also wanted to try
drawing shadow and also express the changes in the air.”If we read this section, it seems that the attempt to depict“Expression” and the attempt to depict shadow were separate
matters. However, these two separate experiments do seem tobe related.
As already stated, in the replies to “Nihonga no Ichi Gimon(One doubt about Japanese-style painting)” by Suematsu,
published in July 1897, some arguments claimed that thereason faces in Japanese portraits were so flat and strange was
because of the lack of shadow depiction. Tsunashima Ryosen
also mentioned the necessity for a realistic depiction of shadow.

Fig. 4 Yokoyama Taikan,
Selfless, Tokyo National
Museum, 1897

It’s quite possible that these arguments were the backgroundto Taikan’s attempts to depict shadow in order to depict“Expression”.
I will now compare Taikan’s Selfless (Fig.4), exhibited inspring of 1897, and Qu Yuan (Fig. 5), exhibited in autumn of1898. On the whole, and in the depiction of the clothes inparticular, Selfless uses lines and flat surfaces quite strongly. In
contrast to this, the depiction in Qu Yuan is more threedimensional and, compared to Selfless, the consciousness oflight and shadow has become more pronounced [38]. Chouhou
is the transitional stage of this change. Thus, Chouhou is anearly example of Taikan’s attempts to tackle the problem oflight and shadow [39].
It seems that the depiction of “Expression” and of shadow
were both attempted at the same time. It also appears that inFig. 5 Yokoyama Taikan,
Qu Yuan, portion,
Itsukushima Shrine, 1898

the middle of the debate about “Expression”, several arguments were made pointing out thelack of depictions of shadow in traditional Japanese paintings. If we consider these two facts
together, we can see that perhaps one of the reasons why Taikan attempted to depict shadow
in portraits was because he had a consciousness of “Expression”.
(3) The meaning of Yokoyama Taikan’s attempts to depict “Expression”
Taikan’s attempts to depict shadow and “Expression” were quite advanced when compared to other similar contemporary attempts by Shimomura Kanzan and Hishida Shunso. In

UEDA Sayoko

278

Death of Tsugunobu (Fig.2), which Shimomura Kanzan
exhibited at the same third Nihon Kaiga Kyokai exhibition
as Chouhou, of the several characters depicted in the painting, three of the character’s faces are not visible and it is
only the three figures in the center of the painting whose
faces have been clearly drawn. Compared to Chouhou,
Kanzan’s consciousness of shadow is generally lacking.
Moreover, if we look at the depiction of the characters andhydrangea of Refelection in the Water (Fig.6), which Hishida
Shunso exhibited at the same exhibition, the consciousnessof expression and shadow is also weak.
Shimomura Kanzan gave the following explanation
about his work, published immediately after the exhibition of Death of Tsugunobu [40]:“The ‘‘Expression” of people in Japanese-style paintings is very imperfect, and in their lack of shadow andtone they simply cannot match European paintings.
Japanese-style painters have to depict characteristics

Fig. 6 Hishida Shunso, Refelectionin the Water, Tokyo National
University of Fine Arts andMusic, 1897

using lines.”
Kanzan here hesitated to attempt “Expression” and instead placed emphasis on linedrawing. This is similar to the attempt in Death of Tsugunobu, with faces left undrawn and alack in the depiction of shadow.
Moreover, Hishida Shunso gave the following explanation about his work, published
immediately after the exhibition of Refelection in the Water [41]:“Japanese-style paintings need lines...(Omission)...When the painter tries to draw Buddha’s
harmonious face, the one thing that can reflect the character’s feelings are lines.”
Although Shunso did not use the word “Expression,” he insisted on the importance oflines when depicting a character’s facial expressions. In these statements, both Shunso andKanzan show a contrasting position to Taikan’s - they placed emphasis on line-drawing
whereas Taikan attempted to depict shadow.
This difference was explored notably in the magazine “Bijutsu Hyoron (Fine-arts criticism)”in February 1898 [42]. In this magazine, Bankoen, Chouonken, and Mukian-master (Omura
Seigai) discussed Taikan’s self-explanation and judged that Taikan “doesn’t have the wrong
idea,” and “Taikan does not misunderstand things”. In contrast, they criticized Kanzan andShunso sharply. Taikan’s experiments with “Expression” show an early attempt to introduce
Western styles of expression, earlier than Kanzan and Shunso with their emphasis on linedrawing, and showed Taikan’s sensitive reaction to new things.
However, as has already been mentioned, it was Kanzan’s Death of Tsugunobu that wasreceived the highest medal in autumn 1897, the time when “Expression” became the center ofattention. As Shioya had already pointed out [43], depictions of delicate and controlled emotions

Chouhou by Yokoyama Taikan and “Expression”

279

were often seen in Japanese-style history paintings of that era. In contrast, Taikan’s Qu Yuan
attracted attention because of its very strong
depiction of emotions [44]. Thus, it could be said
that Taikan’s attempts at “Expression” in Chouhou
and Qu Yuan were quite at odds with what otherpainters at that time were doing.
For example, Takayama Chogyu publishedFig. 7 Yokoyama Taikan, Mulan, thea long article [45] regarding the “Expression” of
whereabouts - unknown, 1900,
Qu Yuan. He wrote that Taikan shouldn’t have
(Saito Ryuzo, ed., Taikan Sakuhin
drawn Qu Yuan in a great rage but rather shouldshu, Otsuka Kogei sha, 1925)
have depicted Qu Yuan in a state of anguish andworry. This became the start of the Rekishi-ga Ronsou (the history painting dispute). Probably
because of such reactions, when Taikan drew Mulan (Fig. 7), exhibited at the fourth Nihon
Bijutsuin exhibition in 1900, he represented Mulan anguishing over whether to continue on or
go back home [46]. In this way, Taikan came to try a style featuring depictions of quiet andcontrolled emotions, a style quite different from the expression seen in Qu Yuan.

Conclusion
As mentioned above, in this article I examined what “Expression” means, why it attracted
attention in 1897, and how Yokoyama Taikan depicted it.
The “Expression” which attracted attention around 1897 meant the facial and emotional
expression of the characters in a painting. From 1895 onwards, interest grew in the topic offacial expressions in Japanese-style paintings, and the depiction of feelings in Japanese
portraits was raised by Lafcadio Hearn in an argument in July 1897. The debate gradually
spread from ukiyo-e to contemporary Japanese-style painting. These arguments were thebackground to Taikan’s attempts to grapple with the problem of “Expression”, and perhaps
this grappling led him to devise a new form of depicting shadow. Taikan’s attempt at“Expression” was an early attempt to move closer to Western paintings, earlier than otherJapanese-style painters such as Kanzan and Shunso. On this point, it could be said that in the
problem of depicting “Expression” in Chouhou and Qu Yuan, we can see Taikan’s special
characteristic of reacting sensitively to new forms of expression.

Notes[1] Ueda Sayoko “A consideration of Yokoyama Taikan’s Qu Yuan.” Bijutsushi Ronso no.21, (Tokyo:
the department of art history, the University of Tokyo), 2005.
[2] Okakura Tenshin “Nihon Bijutsuin dai1kai ten dampen,” Kokumin Shinbun, November 9, 1898.
[3] Kinoshita Nagahiro, Okakura Tenshin, (Tokyo: Minerva Shobo), 2005.
[4] see, Shioya Jun “Kobori Tomoto, Onshi no Gyoi,” Kokka, no.1234, 1998. Shioya Jun “Kutsugen (QuYuan) Shuui,” Yokoyama Taikan -- sono kokoro to geijutsu exhibition catalogue, Tokyo National
Museum, 2002. Shioya Jun “Danjuro no ‘ Hara gei,’ Gahou no ‘ kokoro-mochi’,” Bijutsushi-ka Oini

280

UEDA Sayoko

Warau -- Kono Motoaki sensei no tame no Nihon Bijutsushi ronshu, (Tokyo: Bryucke), 2006.
[5] see, for example, Sasaki Ken-ichi, Bigaku Jiten (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press), 1995. Moreover,Rensselaer W. Lee (translation: Morita Yoshiyuki and Shinozuka Fumio), “Shi ha e no gotoku -Jinbun shugi kaiga ron,” Nakamori Yoshimune ed., Kaiga to bungaku, (Tokyo: Chuo University
Press), 1984. Osano Shigetoshi, “bibliography: Charles Le Blun “Conference sur l’expression despassions,” Seiyo Bijutsu Kenkyu, no.2, (Tokyo: Sangensha), 1999.
[6] Chouhou was exhibited at the third Nihon Kaiga kyokai Kaiga Kyoshinkai exhibition (October 25
to December 7,1897).
[7] Tan-o Yasunori “Paris Bankoku Hakurankai to Nihon Bijutsu,” Nihon Bijutsuin Hyakunen shi,No.2-jou, (Tokyo: Nihon bijutsuin), 1990.
[8] see, Saito Ryuzo,.ed, Taikan Sakuhin shu, (Tokyo: Otsuka Kogeisha), 1925. According to this book,
Chouhou’s size is length 272.7 cm and width 151.5cm.
[9] Yokoyama Taikan, “Gakai Shinsai,” Waseda Bungaku, February, 1898.
[10] Kyokugaisei, “Kaiga Kyoshinkai Hyouban (2),” Yomiuri Shimbun, November 17, 1897. “Bijutsu
kore miruga gotoshi,” Taiyo, vol.3 no.25, December 20, 1897. “Muhimon,” Bijutsu Hyoron, no.6,
January, 1898.
[11] When Chouhou existed, it wasn’t published in Taikan gashu (Tokyo: Geisodo) in 1912 nor Taikan
gashu (Tokyo: Seikasha) in 1916. In 1925, after being destroyed by fire, it was published for the
first time by Saito Ryuzo,ed. Taikan Sakuhin shu (Tokyo: Otsuka Kogei sha).
There are the following references to Chouhou. Ishii Hakutei, Nihon Kaiga Sandaishi, (Tokyo:
Sogen Sha), 1942. Saito Ryuzo, Yokoyama Taikan, (Tokyo: Chuo Koron Bijutsu Shuppan), 1958.
Yoshizawa Tadashi, Yokoyama Taikan no Geijutsu -- Nihonga Kindaika no Tatakai, (Tokyo: Bijutsu
Shuppan Sha), 1958. Nagao Masanori,ed. “Chouhou ni tsuite no Kaisetsu,” Taikan no Garon,(Tokyo: Yokoyama Taikan Kinenkan), 1993. Shioya Jun (2002, 2006) above-shown notes 4.
Although Nagao and Shioya (2006) have related “Expression” to “Kokoro mochi”, asHashimoto Gaho claimed, there is no data from those days correlating “Expression” with “Kokoro
mochi.” I think “Kokoro mochi” is relevant to a painter’s own personal expression, and“Expression” means the expression of the emotions of the painting’s characters, so those are notnecessarily associated. Therefore, I have a different opinion to the above.
[12] Hakugansei, “Kaiga shokan hyo (1),” Waseda Bungaku, January, 1898. “Bijutsukyoku Gaikan,”
Taiyo, vol.3 no.24, December 5, 1897. “Bijutsu kore miruga gotoshi,” Taiyo, vol.3 no.25, December
20, 1897.
[13] “Bijutsukyoku Gaikan,” Taiyo, vol.3 no.24, December 5, 1897.
[14] “Bijutsu kore miruga gotoshi,” Taiyo, vol.3 no.25, December 20, 1897. See Shioya Jun (2006)
above-shown notes 4.
[15] Hori Tatsunosuke and Horikoshi Kamenosuke,ed., Eiwa Taiyaku Shuchuin Jiten, Yosho
Shirabejo,1862 (Sugimoto Tsutomu, ed., Edo Jidai Hon-yaku Nihongo Jiten, Tokyo: Waseda
University Press, 1981, included).
[16] Nagashima Daiten, “Gogaku 2, Eigo Jisho no Hattatsu (1) Eiwa Jisho,” Nihon no Eigaku 100nen
Henshubu,ed., Nihon no Eigaku 100nen Meiji-hen, Tokyo: Kenkyusha, 1968.
[17] see, Kitayama Koji, “Ryuko-ron 6. Bijin wo soseisuru no yoken chu,” Yomiuri Shimbun, July 29,
1888. It defines Expression as the change in facial expressions due to joy, anger, humor andpathos.
[18] Sasaki Ken-ichi, Bigaku Jiten, above-shown notes 5.
[19] For example, see Gakyosei, “Shasei,” Nippon, February, 1896, saying “It is natural that a painting
demonstrates ‘ Expression’, just like poetry.” Here “Expression” generally meant “expression,” buta question mark is attached behind “Expression” in the article “Shasei kahi” (Waseda Bungaku,
March, 1896), from which the above sentence is quoted, so it seems that the meaning of thatparticular example of ‘expression’ was not clearly understood.

Chouhou by Yokoyama Taikan and “Expression”

281[20] see, Yamawaki Shintoku, “Kinoshita Mokutaro kun ni,” Shirakaba, vol.2, no.11, November, 1911.
Nakamura Yoshikazu, “‘Shirakaba’ Kindai Shugi no Soten,” Zoku Nihon Kindai Bijutsu Ronsoshi,
Tokyo: Kyurudo, 1982. Thanks to Tanaka Atsushi (National Research Institute for Cultural
Properties, Tokyo) for instruction on this matter.
[21] Kyogasei, Ohara Shoichiro, “Yamamoto Hosui-shi no Junishi-ga to Kuroda Seiki-shi no Shozoga(2)(3),” Mainichi Shimbun, June 18,19, 1892.
[22] “Yogaka Hyobanki Bobo Taika no Kaidan,” Taiyo, vol.3 no.5, March 5, 1897.
[23] Okakura Kakuzo, “Sho ha Bijutsu narazuno Ron wo Yomu,” Toyo Gakugei Zasshi, August,
September, and December, 1882.
[24] Regarding the aesthetics of the Edo period, Nakabayashi Chikudo, who was a literati-artist in thelate Edo period, wrote “Gakugasha kanarazu utsushi terasu bekikoto” (Chikudo Garon, 1802,
Sakazaki Tan,ed., Nihon Kaigaron Taikei, vol.1, Tokyo: Meicho fukyukai, 1980, included), dealing
with the facial expressions of the characters in paintings. However, it seems that it didn’t attract
much attention. Moreover, under the influence of physiognomy studies brought over from China
during the Edo period, we can see a concern with a person’s looks (the relation between face andcharacter) in the Kaishi-en Gaden vol.4 and Kitagawa Utamaro’s Fujin Sogaku Juttai series or 100menso etc. However, it can be said that the “Expression” which attracted attention in 1897 meanta temporary facial expression of joy, anger, humor and pathos, and was different fromphysiognomy, which deals with the underlying characteristics of a face.
[25] Fukuchi Fukuichi sensei koujutsu, “Menbo no Setsu,” Kinko Zatsuso, vol.5 and vol.6, June 26 andOctober 30, 1895.
[26] Suematsu Kencho, “Nihonga no Isho (Shozen),” Taiyo, vol.1 no.9, September 5, 1895.
[27] for example, in the first Nihon Kaiga Kyokai Kyoshinkai exhibition in critiques of Okakura
Shusui’s Shin-nyo So-un, Terasaki Kogyo’s Shidda Tenshi ni kataru zu, and Hashimoto Gaho’s Kokei
Sansho, in the second Nihon Kaiga Kyokai Kyoshinkai exhibition in critiques of Otake Kokkan’s
Saigyo Hoshi, Kawai Gyokudo’s Mobo Danki, Kobori Tomoto’s Bushi (Minamoto no Tametomo),
Terasaki Kogyo’s Genshiryo, Honda Tenjo’s Sobu, and Yamada Keichu’s Bion. (see, “Sakuhinhyo,”
Nihon Bijutsuin 100nen shi, vol.1 jo, Tokyo: Nihon Bijutsuin, 1989.)[28] About the Japan Society of London, see Nagaoka Shozo “Nihon Kyokai no Soritsusha Arthur
Diosy,” Eigakushi Kenkyu, no.29, 1996.
[29] Edward F. Strange, “The Japanese Collections in The National Art Library, South Kensington
Museum,” Transactions and Proceedings of The Japan Society, London, vol.4, London, 1900.
[30] see, for example, “Nihon no Bijutsu ni taisuru Gaikokujin no Kansatsu ni san,” Taiyo, vol.3 no.16,
August 5, 1897.
[31] Tsunashima Ryosen, “Suematsu hakase no teishutsu seru nihonga no ichi gimon nitsukite (Tsuki
Hearn shi no nihon kaiga ron),” August, 1897 and Ryosen Bunshu, (first apparance unknown)
Hidaka Yurindo, July, 1905, included. “Bijutsukai Nihonga no ichi gimon ukiyo-e no jimbutsu,”
Waseda Bungaku, no.40, August, 1897. These two articles have overlapping portions with similar
contents and conclusions, so it is highly possibile that both writers are Tsunashima Ryosen.
[32] Mukian Master (Omura Seigai), “Koizumi Yakumo shi no ‘Nihon kaiga ron’ ni tsuite (1)--(7),”Yomiuri Shimbun, August 30 to September 3, 5 and 6, 1897. This counter-argument by Omura wasintroduced also by “Shuho,” Waseda Bungaku, vol.7 no.1, October, 1897.
[33] see, Shioya Jun, “‘Risoga heno dotei -- Hashimoto Gaho Ryuko igo,” Bijutsu Kenkyu, no. 377, 2003.
[34] “Shuho Hakurankai no junbi,” Waseda Bungaku, vol.7 no.3, December, 1897.
[35] Nakamura Hajime, Kosetsu Bukkyogo dai jiten, vol.2, Tokyo Shoseki, 2001.
[36] Nagao Masanori,ed., Taikan no Garon, above-shown note 11.
[37] “Bo nihonga gahaku hyo,” Mainichi Shimbun, December 5, 1897.
[38] Taikan’s Autumn Thinking was exhibited at the first Nihon Bijutsuin exhibition with Qu Yuan.
Autumn Thinking is deficient in modeling in comparison with Qu Yuan. The lower half of a

282

[39]

[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]

UEDA Sayoko

character’s face is in dark shadows in Autumn Thinking. In the painting, Taikan is conscious of thelight from the upper-left direction.
Rain of Four Seasons (Tokyo National University of Fine Arts and Music) was exhibited at thesecond Nihon Kaiga Kyoshinkai exhibition in the spring of 1897 with Selfless. Although theconsciousness of the expression of air and rain is strong in Rain of Four Seasons, the consciousnessof light and shadow is weak.
Shimomura Kanzan “Gakaishinsai,” Waseda Bungaku, February, 1898.
Hishida Shunso, “Gakai shinsai,” Waseda Bungaku, February, 1898.
Bankoen, Cho-onken, and Mukian, “Zatsu kan,” Bijutsu Hyoron, no.8, February 20, 1898.
see, Shioya Jun, 1998, the above-shown note 4.
see, Ueda Sayoko, the above-shown note 1.
Takayama Chogyu, “Rekishi gadai ron,” Taiyo, vol.4 no.21, October 20, 1898.
Mushokusai Shujin, “Bijutsuin kaiga kyoshinkai no sakuhin (11),” Yomiuri Shimbun, November 30,
1900.

[Additional remark] When I translated this manuscript, I recieved the cooperation of Daniel Moran.