The Japanese Society for Aesthetics

Aesthetics No.22 (2018): 70-86

Reconsidering “The Japan International Art Exhibition(Tokyo Biennale)”: The Intentions of International Art
Exhibitions in Japan After WWIIYAMASHITA Kohei

Kyoto City University of Arts, Kyoto

Introduction: Summary and Purpose of this Paper
Art history in Japan developed after World War II through the regeneration of artorganizations and a focus on the activities of the avant-garde, alongside the movement fromthe end of “modernism” to the expansion of institutionalizing “art.” This paper explores “TheJapan International Art Exhibition” (commonly called the “Tokyo Biennale”), the firstinternational art exhibition in Japan after World War II. In 1952, the first “Japan International
Art Exhibition” was held under the auspices of the Mainichi Newspaper Company, and wascontinuously held until 1990, when the 18th and last exhibition was organized. The exhibitions
inevitable evolved with the trends of the times, but research on these exhibitions as a whole isinadequate. Changes in the organization, structure, and forms of artworks in this exhibition areclosely connected with the phases of the Japanese art environment, and provides a new insight
into the making of Japanese art history after World War II. Moreover, the transformation ofthis exhibition involves the problems of the concept of “Art” and the context peculiar to Japan,
because it was held in the particular region of “Japan.” International and large-scale art
exhibitions have arisen in various districts around Japan since the 1990s. Although they are
the same as international exhibitions after WWII, a large phase has arisen in terms of structure.
Thus, historically examining the structures of large-scale art exhibitions themselves isimportant for future studies. In this paper, I comprehensively examine “The Japan
International Art Exhibition (Tokyo Biennale)” through examining numerous articles about
this exhibition and its illustrated catalogs. Moreover, I review the contribution, significance,and problems of “The Japan International Art Exhibition” in art history by analyzing theintentions of art organizations in Japan that were related to the exhibition, that is, the criteria
of judgments and vector on criticisms of the contemporary art situation in Japan.

1. The State of Earlier Papers About Art History in Japan After World War II and “TheJapan International Art Exhibition”
Where “The Japan International Art Exhibition” is concerned, we often have focused on
the 10th exhibition, the theme of which was “Between Man and Matter.” The 10th “Japan
International Art Exhibition” had great impact. Though Tomii (2011) is the earliest paper
about “The Japan International Art Exhibition,” she also focuses on the 10th exhibition[1].
Comparing this 10th exhibition with “The Japan International Exposition” (commonly calledReconsidering “The Japan International Art Exhibition (Tokyo Biennale)”71

the Osaka Expo), Tomii indicates that artworks in the 10th exhibition, which were called “poorart” as opposed to artworks in “The Japan International Exposition” called “rich art,”
corresponded with the international art situation before and after 1970 and had acquired“international contemporaneity.” However, I think that the context of “international
contemporaneity” is problematic, and that this “internationality” itself involves some phases.
In this paper, therefore, I comprehensively examine “The Japan International Art Exhibition”
as well as the 10th exhibition and the intentions of this exhibition. “The Japan International
Art Exhibition” was the first international art exhibition in Asia, so it appeared in art
magazines since the opening of the 1st exhibition. Table 1 displays a list of articles about “TheJapan International Art Exhibition” from art magazines. There were 97 articles between 1952
and 1990, and the 1st to 10th exhibitions were always features in the magazines. Thus, “TheJapan International Art Exhibition” continuously involved criticism, even before and after the
10th exhibition[2].
Art during the Blank Period after World War II（『戦後空白期の美術』, 1996）by Shinichi
Segi; The History of the Rise and Fall of Art after World War II（『戦後美術盛衰史』, 1979）by Ichirō Hariu; and The Deviation History of Contemporary Art（
『現代美術逸脱史』, 1986）
by Shigeo Chiba[3], all focus on the situation of art in Japan after World War II. However, Segi
only discusses the “Art Organizations Union Exhibition,” which was the former stage of “TheJapan International Art Exhibition,” and Haryū only briefly describes the birth of “The Japan
International Art Exhibition.” Chiba’s work is noteworthy from the viewpoint of discussing therelationship between Japanese art history after WWII and the context peculiar to Japan bypresenting the concept of “Art as a kind.” But this work also refer to only the 10th “Between
Man and Matter” exhibition[4]. In this paper, I reconsider “The Japan International Art
Exhibition,” which is not clarified as a whole in these earlier books.

2. The Intention and Change of “The Japan International Art Exhibition”
First, I clarify the structural change of “The Japan International Art Exhibition” from the
1st to the 18th exhibitions, and examine the intentions behind these exhibitions. Table 2
indicates the basic information and points about each exhibition. While Japan recovered from
WWII, art exhibitions were held one after another and invited artworks from other countries,
and art circles also revived quickly. In October 1945, Nikakai 二科会 had already been reorganized. In March 1946, The Japan Art Exhibition (Nitten,日展) was held, but in April andMay, the proletarian groups Nippon Bijutsukai 日 本 美 術 会 and Genjitukai 現 実 会 ,respectively, were organized. In September, art exhibitions (ex. Nikaten 二科展, Inten 院展,
Shinseisakuhaten 新制作派展 resumed at once. Thus, the first art circles had restarted andreorganized in the Japanese art world after WWII. It is a well-known fact that newspaper
companies organized art exhibitions to respond to the starvation of art lovers, taking part inrestarting art circles[5]. In 1947, Mainichi Newspaper Company held “Bijutsu Dantai
Rengōten,” 美術団体連合展 which showed artworks selected from the main art circles, and in
1951, the company held “Salon de me in Japan” サロン・ド・メ日本展[6]. After closing the
5th “Bijutsu Dantai Rengōten,” the Mainichi Newspaper Company held “The Japan

72

YAMASHITA Kohei

International Art Exhibition” to connect the Japanese art world with art overseas. 1952 was animportant year for Japan in terms of international exchange. In April 1952, Japan recovered
sovereignty with the San Francisco Lecture Treaty becoming effective. In 1951, Japan was
invited to the first “São Paulo Biennale,” which was an international art exhibition in Brazil.
Moreover, in 1952, Japan took part in the 26th “Venice Biennale” for the first time after WWII.
Kōkichi Funato, who was a staff member in the Arts and Sciences department of the Mainichi
Newspaper Company, asked, “How should we connect Japanese modern art, which thisexhibition has strengthened, with the overseas art world?” after closing the 5th “Bijutsu Dantai
Rengōten”[7]. In the following text, I examine points of the change that relate to the gist of thispaper, referencing table 2.
The 1st to the 9th editions of “The Japan International Art Exhibition” had adopted anational section system like that of the Venice Biennale. As shown in table 2, seven countries
joined in the 1st, and seventeen in the 8th, which was the maximum. A prize system wasstarted in the 3rd exhibition. I focus on the selection of domestic artists as the point of majorchange in this exhibition in the 1950s. In its foreign section, the Mainichi Newspaper Company
had made requests to councils and embassies in other countries. In the domestic section, thesteering committee organized in Mainichi Newspaper Company selected Japanese artists,
researching art circles comprehensively. In the 3rd exhibition, there were 302 Japanese
artworks, which occupied half of the total displayed pieces. That is, the idea of “consciousness
as a comprehensiveness,” which was composed of various styles from masters to middle-rankartists in art circles, was employed. This selection was criticized by art critics, and words suchas “across-the-board” and “an average display” were found here and there in art articles.
However, at this point, overseas displays were also in the same situation. In the first São Paulo
Biennale, 45 oil and Japanese-style painters displayed one work each, and Japan was notfavorably received. In the 26th Venice Biennale, Ryūzaburō Umehara was a leader and elevenartists displayed two works each, a total of 22 pieces. Japan in the 1950s had the intention ofproceeding to the international standard by uniting art circles after their rebirth and the reinflow of European and American cultures.
Thus, the regulation of “The Japan International Art Exhibition” was that “Japanese artists
who were invited once were always re-selected,” but in the 4th exhibition of 1957, the steeringcommittee tried to accept new faces by adding the regulation that “Japanese artist could only
show one work each.” In the 6th exhibition of 1961, the selection committee was made up of
five members: Atsuo Imaizumi, Shūzō Takiguchi, Teiichi Hijikata, Tomoaki Kawakita, andShinichi Segi. Thus, the selection system of Japanese artists changed to one by art critics. As aresult, the number of Japanese artists did not decline extremely, but in the 9th exhibition, thenumber of artworks by Japanese artists was reduced to 175 pieces, and avant-garde artists had
gradually joined the selection of the Japanese section[8]. In the overseas section, after criticism
of the selection system by artists and art critics, the International Art Council was establishedin 1957, and the commissioner system was established in the 1960s. As a result, the intentionsof artist selection and display was gradually made clear. Also, in overseas displays, the steeringcommittee discussed whether Japanese-style paintings should be selected, considering theresults of the 26th Venice Biennale. In fact, in the 27th and the 28th Venice Biennales,

Reconsidering “The Japan International Art Exhibition (Tokyo Biennale)”73

moreover in the 30th of 1960 when the commissioner system began in Japan, Japanese-style
paintings were not displayed. On the other hand, “The Japanese International Art Exhibition”
continued to adapt the genres of Japanese-style and oil painting until the 9th exhibition in
1967. In this condition, the strong hierarchy of Japanese art circles, that is, the “domestic
situation,” had been involved, but simultaneously the people concerned with Japanese art
circles had expected greater progress in oil paintings and Japanese-style paintings as a whole.
I focus on the changes of prize winners as a condition of the 1960s in this exhibition. In
the 6th exhibition, after the selection committee was established, 20 artworks by 19 artists
called “the Japanese artists who have established reputations overseas” were displayed
specially, and artists who had stayed overseas, such as Jōsaku Maeda and Minori Kawabata,
received five prizes among the nine prizes of the domestic section. After that, in the 7th
exhibition of 1963, Toshinobu Onosato received a prize for excellence, and in the 8th
exhibition of 1965, at last Kazuo Shiraga received a prize. The display list in this period
included Yoshishige Saito, Tarō Okamoto, Aiō, Seinosuke Sekine, Jirō Yoshihara, andSadamasa Motonaga, and at last, the steering committee introduced an international judging
system and abolished the frameworks of the domestic and overseas sections in the prize system.
As a result, Jirō Yoshihara, Minoru Yoshida, Shūsaku Arakawa, Jirō Takamatsu, Tomio Miki,and Nobuaki Kojima were selected as Japanese prize artists, and a change was implemented sothat artists as individuals rather than artists from art groups were selected. This greatly
shocked people concerned with art circles. In this situation, deviating from the frameworks ofpainting and sculpture, the forms of artworks had changed into formations composed bydiverse materials such as the terms “idea,” “imagination,” and “jumble” found in various
articles. As a result, the Mainichi Newspaper Company postponed “The Japan International
Art Exhibition” in 1969. The organizer had confronted the problem of how to digest domestic
avant-garde activities. Thus, “The Japan International Art Exhibition” in the 1960s was
dynamically changed in that the avant-garde groups in art circles or the avant-garde artists
who had not depended on the circles had risen. Before and after 1968, when this exhibition was
postponed, the method of International Art Exhibitions had been in question internationally.
Suffering the influence of the May Revolution in Paris, the Venice Biennale was also targeted by
the student movement against the established system and commercialism. In fact, during the36th Venice Biennale of 1970, the steering committee abolished a prize system, and the artorganization in Italy was compelled to change the established system to select younger artists
and make artworks in residence. During the 10th São Paulo Biennale of 1969, an international
boycott movement against the military regime in Brazil occurred, and during the 6th Paris
Biennale at the same time, the steering committee abolished the national section. Moreover, inthe 7th Paris Biennale, the prize system was abolished. Indeed, the committee had tried toreview the established system. In Japan in the same period, a nationwide campus dispute had
broken out. “Bijutsuka Kyotō kaigi 美術家共闘会議” (commonly called Bikyotō 美共闘) by
Yasunao Tone and Naoyoshi Hikosaka was organized in 1969[9].
The catalog of “The Japan International Art Exhibition” observes that “the Steeringcommittee sent out a questionnaire to twenty two critics, curators, and editors of art magazines,
and requested them to examine how to manage an international art exhibition drastically and74

YAMASHITA Kohei

to contribute their opinions.” As a result, dramatic changes were made so that only Yūsuke
Nakahara was appointed as a commissioner and decided selected artists and a subject of thisexhibition, and the 10th exhibition—Man and Matter—was held in 1970. There were threemajor changes in this exhibition. First, artworks that did not fit into the established genre ofpainting and sculpture, and did not represent story and expression, but had subjects with theconceptual elements of perception, recognition, communication, and so on, were shown.
Secondly, almost artists made works in residence. Third, artworks were set outside of the art
museum and in the park[10]. Much criticism against this method of exhibition occurred. Sometitles in art magazines, such as “Accusation Against Tokyo Biennale” in Geijutsu Shinshō 芸術
新潮 and “Why Is This Art?” in Bijutsu techō 美術手帖, clearly show the condition. As an actual
result, the number of audience visitors decreased. This shows a problem in how the public inthis age recognized art. The Mainichi Newspaper Company had considered for three years
holding the 11th exhibition, which was held in 1974. It organized foreign and domestic
sections again. It carried out the exhibition based on the themes of “New Realism Paintings in
America” and “Hyper Realism Prints in Europe.” At the same time, referring to opinions ofsome domestic art critics, the organizer selected Japanese artists and set up the theme“Realism in the Age of Reproduction and Reflection.” After the 10th exhibition, “Man andMatter,” the organizer had tried to establish a challenging theme On the other hand, the style of“foreign vs. domestic” art firmly remained. Like the theme of “Today`s Reflection World” in theDocumenta 5 exhibition of 1972 or the shows of photographs and so-called “hyper realism”
paintings in the 36th Venice Biennale in the same time, the theme of this exhibition’s domestic
section suggests a leaning toward the European-American trend. After this 11th exhibition,with the influence of a stagnant economy after the oil crisis, the organizer abolished thenational section. The 12th exhibition was held four years later in 1978, and the organizer only
invited one country and held a competition in the domestic section. As a result, the establishedgenres of Western painting and Japanese-style painting were demolished at last, and werechanged into the sections of “plane and three-dimensional object.” Thus, the intention of theJapanese art world in the 1970s seems to be an exhibition based on a theme, via the 10th “Manand Matter” exhibition, and the change from the 11th exhibition onward.
In the 1980s, the circumstances surrounding “The Japan International Art Exhibition” hadchanged further. Open-air exhibitions had increased gradually; such as the “Hamamatsu OpenAir Art Exhibition (浜松野外美術展)” in 1980, the “Biwako Contemporary Sculpture Exhibition(びわこ現代彫刻展)” in 1982, and the “Japan Ushimado International Art Festival (JAPAN 牛
窓国際芸術祭)” in 1984. The establishment of art museums in Japan had reached its peak in
the 1980s. There were 55 museums in 1960, but the number of museums had increased to 223
by 1987[11]. During this period, “The Japan International Art Exhibition” had attempted tochange continually. The overseas section had focused on various cultures: Argentina, India,
Belgium, Switzerland, and Holland. Mixed media works had also appeared in this section andhad become avant-garde with the demolition of genre. Thus, in these exhibitions of the 1980s,
diversity had arisen in the foreign section, but on the other hand, competition was completely
adopted in the domestic section from the 14th exhibition in 1982 onward. This selection
committee was composed of 15 critics and artists who were influential in the Japanese art

Reconsidering “The Japan International Art Exhibition (Tokyo Biennale)”75

world, and there were over 1,500 entries for each exhibition; the competition was very severe,
as only 180 works were shown. In the foreign section “Holland Contemporary Art – Packing
Crate” in the 18th and last exhibition of 1990, artworks were set in common standard
containers. It is interesting that installation works appeared in this exhibition[12]. This 18th
exhibition became the last; it had become a situation that the established organizer could not
maintain.

3. The Structure and Role of “The Japan International Art Exhibition”
Thus, many art critics had been involved in “The Japan International Art Exhibition,”
responding continuously to the movement of the period by trial and error. On the other hand,
this series closed with the 18th exhibition. What are the roles and problems that “The Japan
International Art Exhibition” filled and addressed? I examine criticisms of this exhibition in
the following text.
It is clear and significant that this exhibition had the role of receiving information fromoverseas during the regeneration of Japanese art circles after WWII. Additionally, thisexhibition had formed the stage for nations to compete against each other by adopting anational section. The time of showing Japanese artworks not only to domestic circles but to theoutside world had rose rapidly. The main seven Japanese art circles joined this exhibition:
Issuikai 一水会, Nikakai 二科会, Dokuritsu bijutsu kyōkai 独立美術協会, Kōhūkai 光風会,
Kokugakai 国画会, Shunyōkai 春陽会 and Shinseisakuha 新制作派. Moreover, the following
five art groups also took part: Tōkōkai 東光会, Ōgenkai 旺玄会, Sōgenkai 創元会, Genjitsukai
現実会, and Jiyū bijutsu kyōkai 自由美術協会. As a result, competing groups had gathered as awhole[13]. As an example of discourses surrounding the 1st exhibition, in the beginning of the
1st catalogue, Sōichi Tominaga stated, “the Japanese art world had been confronted with the
problem that we must consider Japanese art through an international position and vision.”[14]Moreover, in the article “A Message to Japanese artworks, Shūzō Takiguchi” (the catalogue ofthe 3rd exhibition, 1955), the following was described,
It is just after WWII at last that the concept of “internationality” emerged as apractical consciousness in Japanese art groups. (...) Anyway, it is just a new condition thatan international art exhibition is held in Japan. First of all, a new geographical diagram
has been occurring in the Japanese art world at least subconsciously. (p.15)
Some art critics had always introduced the art conditions of foreign countries in the
catalogues from the 2nd to the 7th exhibitions. (By Shinichi Segi in the 8th, and by Yoshiaki
Tōno in the 9th.) And also, many round talk meetings were run in art journals. Thus, “TheJapan International Art Exhibition” had become the stage to confirm the condition of Japanese
artworks against the outside world. It is important that people concerned with the Japanese art
world had become conscious of Japan itself as well as the world. Criticisms of Japanese artists’representations and the art movement were always run in this exhibition’s catalogs, with theintroductions of foreign countries. Japanese artworks were checked comprehensively and76

YAMASHITA Kohei

compared with art in the outside world. This indicates the internationality of the binominal
oppositions, that is, “Japan vs. the World.”
I focus on the problems of criticisms derived from that condition. As a result, the diagramof “Japan” and “the World” brings the viewpoint on the problem of the given locale, “Japan,”that is, the domestic cultural condition. The criticisms of the Japanese cultural context on art,
which was indicated by the use of the term “national characteristic” at that time, weredeveloped on the stage of this international exhibition[15]. Many discourses on “national
characteristic” are indicated by “○” in table 1. These marks were often found in the 1950s and1960s, and the sense of the “national characteristic” was already in focus even in the 1st
exhibition. The term “national characteristic” is used in the title of the article “Feature National
Characteristic and Painting: The 4th Japan International Art Exhibition” in the art magazine
Mizuwye みづゑ in vol. 624 of 1957. For example, the following text is from the article“National Characteristic and Internationality by Tarō Okamoto” in this magazine,
Anyway, I may ask what national characteristic in art is at all and whether anythingsuch it will lose the principle in the future or not. (...) Even if art loses a locale’scharacteristics, we ever have the native reality of ourselves. It is true that they are notalways art which has internationality. (...) The Japanese destiny that we assume by force inthis society has no connection with the outside world. It’s a reality that only artists fromJapan have and must confront the reality in this blocked up world. (p.15)
There was also a roundtable discussion about the 4th exhibition called “The Problem of
Climate and National Characteristic In the World Contemporary Art” (art magazine Bijutsu
Techō 美術手帖) by Teiichi Hijikata, Kimihide Tokudaichi, Ryō Yanagi and Ichirō Hariu.
According to the data of table 1, in art magazines, the artworks from peripheral locales such as
Japan, Spain, Mexico, India, and east European countries are compared with those from
Europe, mainly France and Britain. Moreover, the artworks from America, which wereregarded as a new stream, seem to be compared with those from France and Britain. In theirarticles, as well as “national characteristic,” the terms “climate” and “the regional characteristic”
are used. On the other hand, the terms “international,” “the world art,” and “the world art
groups” are used in contrast. Japanese critics had criticized the techniques and subjects ofJapanese artworks, comparing them with artworks from various other countries by adopting
these phrases.
In the 1960s, for example, the following was described in the article “The Roundtable
Discussion About Tokyo Biennale: The Suggestion Toward Tomorrow” (from the art magazine
Mizuwye みづゑ vol. 701, in June 1963) by Kusuo Shimizu, Shūji Takashina, and Jō Tanaka:(Tanaka) In short, I think that there is a need to distinguish the domestic condition fromthe international one. Though there has been a lot of discussion about Japan or thenational characteristic against internationality for the past few years, the attitude about it
has been still chaotic.

Reconsidering “The Japan International Art Exhibition (Tokyo Biennale)”

77(Takashina) Though it’s natural that art has been tinged with an international character
gradually because today, the world has become linked by degrees, I think that the elementof national characteristic that you observed now can’t be removed from real artworks, evenif we desire so. Nevertheless, artists are selected with the reflection of the domestic
condition. I disagree with that a bit.
Thus, “national characteristic” was related to the established hierarchy of the Japanese art
world, and on the other hand, “internationality,” that is, the consciousness of“contemporaneity,” had been expressed. Actually, in the 1960s, discourses about“internationality” (“◎” mentioned in the data of table 1) had increased. In the articles“National Characteristic in Abstract Artworks” by Shinichi Segi, “The Overflow of ‘Unavoidable
Trend’” by Shin Hongō, and “International Style of Non-Individuality” by Toyoshirō Fukuda in
the feature article “Feature of the 6th Japan International Art Exhibition” (the art magazine
Bijutsu techō 美術手帖 [July, 1961]), they pointed out that artworks from various countries
had shown the transition from concrete to abstract. The issue of “characteristic” under thecommon ground of abstract art was argued by this situation. But this “characteristic” itself was
also criticized as stylized or “not-characteristic.” In this situation, “national characteristic” hadbeen threaten by the term “characteristic” under “international contemporaneity.”
Anyway, the comparative structure of “Japanese art vs. that of foreign countries (mainly
the Euro-America)” had arisen with the appearance of “The Japan International Art Exhibition,”and the stage where Japanese critics and artists argued about the “national characteristic” hadbeen set. Though the problem of the cultural context around art had already been found in
ultranationalism before WWII and nationalism during WWII, it arose again after WWII and
was made clear with the appearance of “The Japan International Art Exhibition.” As a result,when I examined critics’ and artists’ opinions, I recognized that the pursuit against theexpressions of painting (includes Japanese-style painting) and sculpture had much beenstrengthened by this comparative structure. Especially when Japanese artworks were sent tooverseas exhibitions, only the “contemporaneity” had been argued in Japanese-style painting.
But in “The Japan International Art Exhibition,” Japanese-style painting had continually
become an object for argument with criticism and expectation, such as in the article “Japanese
Style Paintings in ‘The Japan International Art Exhibition’” by Shinichi Segi (the art magazine
Sansai 三彩 in July, 1957 and the same title by Tanio Nakamura in June, 1963. Japanese-style
painters had also tried to achieve “contemporary” expression on this international stage. Here,another viewpoint relates to this problem. It relates to contemporaneity mentioned above, andis the problem of the extension of the “art” domain, namely one of a reaction to avant-garde.

4. The Intention of “The Japanese International Art Exhibition” and Institutionalized“Art”
First, Shinichi Segi stated the following in the article “The Contribution Toward the 8thTokyo Biennale” (the 8th illustrated catalog, 1965):

78

YAMASHITA Kohei

We must identify the reason that we can’t decrease the numbers of selected artists
though the selection committee has trouble selecting artists every time. Though theconsciousness of established art circles called “Gadan” 画壇 has gradually declined inrecent years, this situation indicates a practical sign that the hierarchy and the valuationbasis against the sense of assignment in art circles have still been kept firmly.
The structure of this exhibition had remained the hierarchy of art circles and theestablished framework of painting and sculpture. On the other hand, it is a fact that this system
had been criticized by critics who were in the position of organizers as in Segi’s article. Thisshows the evident transformation of artworks in the 1960s of Japan as the change mentioned
above. The structure of “The Japan International Art Exhibition” had not been able to respondto the movement in spite of an international art exhibition. Actually, though the selection
committee was established in 1961 and introduced an international judging committee in 1967,
a total of 178 artworks in the genres of oil painting, Japanese-style painting, print, andsculpture were exhibited in both the 8th and 9th exhibitions in the late 1960s.
Here is an important point that we should focus on when we reconsider “The Japan
International Art Exhibition.” The criticism of “national characteristic” that we have examined
here is apt to converge in the institution of “art” that stems from the West, that is, in the“expression” in the closed domain of genres of painting and sculpture. So the western criterionof value is always seen off and on in the consciousness toward the world standard, which iscontemporaneity. Moreover, the pursuit of “Japanese originality” doesn’t work incontemporaneity sufficiently. For example, Yoshiaki Tōno, one of the international judges,
stated that “Japan belongs to the first territory that has achieved modernization and capitalism
like Western Europe, being not Asia. So Japan can accept contemporary art under the westernconcept.”[16]Here exists the problem of “what is internationality” in “The Japan International Art
Exhibition.” There are both the problems of the transformation of artworks and establishedhierarchy, and the relation with institutionalized “art” in “internationality” or“contemporaneity.” In particular, in order to arrange “contemporaneity” in international
exhibitions, Japanese people must understand and use the “national characteristic” mentioned
above, that is, “Japanese originality,” by their own will. Despite the situation, the idea of “whatis peculiar to Japan” on just formalism: color and form, was pursued until the 8th exhibition,and the focus had always turned toward the comparison with France or America. Thoughyoung artists rose in the 9th exhibition, “contemporaneity” there was achieved by the criterionof value that is the international judgment from America, France, and Britain. According toresearch materials, in the international judge system, though Japanese critics focused on
domestic artists and explained their characteristics, they concentrated their attention only on
the point that the artists did not belong in art circles, so they could not present their original
criterion of value. As a result, Japanese critics evaluated Japanese artworks only by“representation”: concept, material, and composition, in institutionalized “art.” Moreover,Japanese-style paintings, which were expected as part of the “national characteristic,” also had
retreated under the international contemporaneity as they were sent to overseas exhibitions.

Reconsidering “The Japan International Art Exhibition (Tokyo Biennale)”

79

Actually, Japanese-style painters didn’t received prizes at all in the 9th exhibition.
Here, I pay attention to the book mentioned above by Shigeo Chiba. Chiba analyzes “thecontext peculiar to Japan” from the peripheral avant-garde actions in which “The Japan
International Art Exhibition” could not take part. For example,
There was western art (painting and sculpture) in Japan originally, and the processesof ruining the traditional art (mainly painting) and one of introducing western art(painting and sculpture) proceeded in Japan intricately. When we naturally explain “art,”
that is, “painting and sculpture” in “Anti-Art (Han-Geijutsu 反芸術),” we presuppose theidea of western art unconsciously without a historical fact. (82)
Noriaki Kitazawa, who published “The Sanctuary of The Eye: The Note of the Adoption ofHistory of Art（
『眼の神殿―「美術」受容史ノート』）” in 1989, also points out that “Japan” isthe particular locale that took in “Art” stemming from the West. Kitazawa questions, forexample, “What is anti-art at all? (...) If I summarize it, it’s a deviation from fine art and abursting from the layout of painting and sculpture”[17].
Thus, the age that “The Japan International Art Exhibition” had pushed its way toward
had not been under the situation that Japanese people had referred to only the changes of styleand art movements in various other countries. This indicates the problems of institutionalized“art” and also one of the “conservative nature” or the “intention” of this international
exhibition. The problem is connected to the intention of the Japanese art world after WWII.
That is to say, though the discourses indicated above always had the intention of establishing a“national characteristic,” in other words, “the expression (or context) peculiar to Japan,” they
were apt to ardent admirers to the blocked up field as modernism: western criticism. The factthat most discourse until the 1960s was about “internationality” and the “national
characteristic” (table 2 ) also seems to relate to institutionalized “art” in modernism. Japanese
art critics had not been able to acutely respond to the actions by the artists called “Gutai” or“Anti-Art.”
This conflict with this art movement was retained in the 1980s. The steering committee
had attempted to respond to the contemporary movement by establishing the sections ofgraphics and video, introducing various cultures. But the basic structure of this international
exhibition had remained traditional in style. In 1990, when “The Japanese International Art
Exhibition” closed, a roundtable discussion about an international exhibition by Yūsuke
Nakhara, Tadayasu Sakai, and Kunio Yaguchi was held[18]. Yaguchi described the following：(Yaguchi) We have recognized that we must match the western context in some way. But
Japan has its original basis in its own way, and the viewpoint that it is not always
understood isn’t true. It may be understood actually. (...) So if an international exhibitionis held in Japan, I think it is interesting that it offers the opportunity to go over the context
peculiar to Japan and an international one. (125)
It is interesting that this remark arises before the appearance of new large-scale art

80

YAMASHITA Kohei

exhibitions from the 1990s onward. This discourse, the intention of not cutting-edge but“locality” in an international art exhibition, had already occurred. In Japan, after the blankperiod of the decade from 1990, international art exhibitions relating to “locality” hadappeared in succession, as the “Echigo-Tsumari Art Field” in 2000 and “Yokohama Triennial”
in 2001. It is symbolic that Yūsuke Nakahara, who had been related to “The Japan
International Art Exhibition,” used the term “Post-Art” to describe the “Echigo-Tsumari Art
Field,” which appeared in the whole Tōkamachi-city of Niigata-prefecture, which is regarded asa country area[19]. For the foregoing, though “The Japanese International Art Exhibition” hadfinished its role, it is said that the exhibition is very significant and works greatly as the
preparation for the situation of the 21st century.

Conclusion: The Phase and Structural Change of an International Art Exhibition in
Japan After WWII
Thus, I have analyzed the structure of “The Japan International Art Exhibition” from its
birth to its end and examined the intentions of criticism related to the exhibition. “The Japan
International Art Exhibition” endured from the restoration period after WWII to 1990, and itschanges can become a touchstone for the intentions of the Japanese art world after WWII. In
the above-mentioned study by Segi, Hariu, and Chiba, the authors did not consider thisexhibition’s structure, but I have gathered the intention of this exhibition through thisinvestigation. We find the structure of “Japan against the world” in the intention of “the Japan
International Art Exhibition” at its birth, but Japanese “originality” had been pursued as the“national characteristic” in the diversity of “expressions” in various styles, as the use of theword “comprehensive” indicates.
The form of “a comprehensive display” had changed from the late of 1960s to the 1970s.
The consciousness of “contemporaneity” in an international art exhibition had increased, andthe “cutting-edge,” which many international art exhibitions possess today, that is, the criterionof value that indicates a period’s movement, had appeared. However, the Japanese art world
had simultaneously held the western criteria of value in the “avant-garde” and a conservatismtowards institutionalized “art.” The transformation of artworks in Japan involved theconservatism of institutionalized “art” and the problem of expansion or deviation from it. Thisis an important issue that relates to the formation and criticisms of Japanese art history after
WWII, as indicated by the description of “art as a kind” by Shigeo Chiba. The condition had
appeared as a limitation in the organization and structure of “The Japanese International Art
Exhibition.” The exhibition had formed an important stage for criticism of the changes of theJapanese art world after WWII. This exhibition had relatively indicated the locale of “Japan”
with the merits and demerits in the points of an international art exhibition and selection.
I propose that a limitation of “The Japan International Art Exhibition” was that it could
not create “locality” or “originality” peculiar to Japan situated in Asia. In the case of aninternational exhibition, it is conversely inevitable to consider the problem of the locale of“Japan,” as art critics had become aware of this problem. As I focus on “national characteristic”
in this paper, the problems of institutionalized art and the context peculiar to Japan that have

Reconsidering “The Japan International Art Exhibition (Tokyo Biennale)”81

continued from the modern era onward are again expressed at the stage of this international
exhibition after WWII.
However, the organization in the 1980s had been distressed not to achieve an“international” art exhibition peculiar to Japan that many countries and artists took part in,and this has resulted in new large-scale art exhibitions from the 1990s onward by different
organizations. As the starting point, I have examined the organization and institutionalchanges of “The Japan International Art Exhibition” and clarified its structural phases andproblems in this paper.
Notes
[1]

Tomii, R. (2011): “Toward Tokyo Biennale 1970: Shapes of the International in the Age of‘International Contemporaneity’,” Review of Japanese culture and society 23, 191-210.
[2] I investigated this number myself, based on the results of references of the search engine of the
National Diet Library. I used the following words: “The Japan International Art Exhibition,”“Tokyo Biennale,” and “international art exhibition.”[3] Segi, S. (1996): Art During a Blank Period After World War II, Shinchōsha; Haryū, I. (1979):
The Rise and Fall History of Art After World War II, Tokyo shoseski; Chiba, S. (1986): The
Deviation History of Contemporary Art, Shōbunsha.
[4] The following books are also important: Asano, K. (1997): Short History of Art Exhibtions After
World War II（『戦後美術展略史（一九四五―九〇年）』）, Kyuryūdō; Sawaragi, N. (1998): Japan,
Modern, Art（『日本・現代・美術』）, Shinchōsha; Raiji, K. (2010): The Anarchism of The Body（『肉体のアナーキズム』）, grambooks. However, they do not discuss “The Japan International Art
Exhibition,” so they are not used in this paper.
[5] Segi, op.cit., 80-88.
[6] Yomiuri Newspaper Company held “The Occident Masterpieces” exhibition in 1947 and the first“Japan Independents” exhibition (Yomiuri Independents) in 1949, which has become wellknown today. Asahi Newspaper Company also held “The Western Art Masterpieces” exhibition in1947 and “The World Contemporary Art” exhibition in 1956.
[7] Funato Kōkichi : “The Decade of ‘The Japan International Art Exhibition’”（「日本国際美術展の十年」）, Bijutsu techō, no.191 (June 1961), 34.
[8] For example, in prizes in the domestic section, the fine work prize in the 3rd exhibition was On
White Color by Masanari Murai, the most excellent prize in the 4th exhibition was Burial by
Ichirō Fukuzawa, and The national modern art museum prize in the 5th exhibition was The
Trace of Blue Color by Yoshishige Saitō.
[9] Japan Advertising Artists Club (commonly called Nissenbi 日宣美), which was authoritative inthe design field, was dissolved by a student movement in August 1969.
[10] For example, Richard Serra’s work was To Encircle: Base Plate (Hexagram). He buried the circle
of iron under the asphalt. (He tried to perform the work in front of the Tokyo Metropolitan Art
Museum, but it was rejected. Finally, he carried out the performance in the Ueno Park.) Christo’s
work was Wrapped Floor. He packed the sculpture room in the underground floor of the Tokyo
Metropolitan Art Museum with 175 sheets of drop cloth. Toshiaki Minemura, who belonged tothe division in the Mainichi Newspaper company at that time, handled this exhibition.
[11] Namiki, S. (1998): Contemporary Museum Learning（『現代博物館学』）, Kyoto University of Art& Design, 54.
[12] On the point of organization, Sjarel Ex, director at Central Museum Utrecht, planned thisexhibition. This plan is a pioneer in a special exhibition by a so-called curator.

82

[13]
[14]
[15]

[16]
[17]
[18]

[19]

YAMASHITA Kohei

Minemura Toshiaki: “Tokyo Biennale Has Been Discontinued”（「東京ビエンナーレが中止になって」）, Bijutsu techō, no.354 (April 1972), 363-368.
Tomimoto Sōichi: “What ‘The Japan International Art Exhibition’ Brings”（「第一回日本国際美術展のもたらすもの」）, the first illustrated catalog, 1952, 4.
At that time, “international contemporaneity” had frequently been used to indicate the situation
peculiar to Japan. “Locality” was often adapted from the 1990s onward in place of the word. Bothterms are important concepts in considering Japanese art after WWII, and we should examine
them in detail with considering contexts of the time. I only point out this problem in this paper
due to the word count limitation, and I will write these analyses in another paper.
Tōno Yoshiaki: “On the Occasion of the Opening of the 9th ‘The Japan International Art
Exhibition’”（「第九回日本国際美術展開催にあたって」）, the 9th illustrated catalog, 1967, 6.
Kitazawa, N. (1989): The Sanctuary of The Eye: The Note of the Adoption History of Art（『眼の神殿―「美術」受容史ノート』）, Bijutsu Shuppansha, 320.
Nakahara Yūsuke, Sakai Tadayasu and Yaguchi Kunio [Roundtable discussion] : “The System ofan International Exhibition: To Hold an International Art Exhibition in Japan”（「国際展のしくみ―日本で国際美術展を開催するには」）, Bijutsu techō, No.627 (August 1990), 108-126.
Nakahara Yūsuke: “What Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennale Brings”（「越後妻有アートトリエンナー
レのもたらしたもの」）, Echigo-Tsumari art field: Echigo-Tsumari Art Triennale2009, Special
nonprofit corporation Echigo-Tsumari Country Hill Cooperation Oraganizaton, 2010, 15.

* This paper is based on the Japanese version printed in Bigaku (Aesthetics), No. 245 (Vol. 65, No. 2),
2014, 85-96, published by the Japanese Society for Aesthetics.

Reconsidering “The Japan International Art Exhibition (Tokyo Biennale)”83

Table 1 Articles about “The Japan International Art Exhibition”
time

year

magazines

1st

1952

・illustrated catalog○

・Gejitsu shinchō(52.6) ・Mizuwye(52.7）○ ・Bijutsu techō（52.7)○ ・Eigo Seinen(52.9)
・Atelier(52.7)○ ・Bijutsu hihyō(52.6)(52.12)

2nd

1953

・illustrated catalog○◎

・Gejitsu shinchō(53.6)○(53.7) ・Mizuwye(53.7）○ ・Bijutsu techō（53.7)○
・Zokei bijutsu(54.2) ・Bijutsu hihyō(53.6)

3rd

1955

・illustrated catalog○◎ ・Gejitsu shinchō（55.7)○◎ ・Mizuwye(55.7）○ ・Bijutsu techō(55.7)○ ・Color circle(55.7)○

4th

1957

・illustrated catalog○

・Gejitsu shinchō（57.7) ・Mizuwye(57.7）○◎ ・Bijutsu techō(57.7）○ ・Sansai(57.7)○

5th

1959

・illustrated catalog○

・Gejitsu shinchō(59.5)(59.6)○◎ ・Mizuwye(59.6） ・Bijutsu techō（59.7)◎ ・Sansai（59.6)
・Jiji tushin（59.7)○ ・Kindai bijutsu kennkyū（59.7)○

6th

1961

・illustrated catalog○

・Gejitsu shinchō(61.6)◎(61.7)○ ・Mizuwye(61.7）○◎ ・Bijutsu techō（61.7)○◎
・Sansai(61.6)○◎ ・Geino(61.7)

7th

1963

・illustrated catalog

・Gejitsu shinchō(63.6)○◎ ・Mizuwye(63.7）○◎ ・Bijutsu techō(63.7) ・Sansai（63.6）
・Geino(63.6) ・Kindai bijutsu kennkyū(63.7)

8th

1965

・illustrated catalog○

・Gejitsu shinchō(65.6)○(65.7) ・Mizuwye(65.5)○◎(65.7) ・Bijutsu techō(65.7)
・Sansai(65.7)

9th

1967

・illustrated catalog○◎

・Gejitsu shinchō(67.6) ・Mizuwye(67.7) ・Bijutsu techō(67.6) ・Sansai(67.7)◎・Asahi journal(67.6)

10th

1970

・illustrated catalog

・Gejitsu shinchō(70.2）(70.7) ・Mizuwye(70.7） ・Bijutsu techō(70.7）(72.4)◎(78.1)
・Sansai(70.8)(70.9) ・Space design(70.7)
・Asahi Journal(70.6)

11th

1974

・illustrated catalog

・Gejitsu shinchō(74.7) ・Mizuwye(74.7) ・Bijutsu techō（74.7) ・Bunka hyoron(74.9)

12th

1978

・illustrated catalog

・Gejitsu shinchō(78.6) ・Mizuwye(78.6) ・Bijutsu techō(78.7)

13th

1980

・illustrated catalog

14th

1982

・illustrated catalog

・Gejitsu shinchō(82.6) ・Bijutsu techō(82.7) ・Sansai(82.7)

15th

1984

・illustrated catalog

・Sansai(84.6)

16th

1986

・illustrated catalog

・Gejitsu shinchō(86.6） ・Sansai(86.6) ・Atelier(86.7)

17th

1988

・illustrated catalog

18th

1990

・illustrated catalog

・Bijutsu techō(90.6）（Notes）
・the figures in ( ) indicate the time the magazine was published. For example, (52.6) refers to June of 1952.
・○ indicates whether the discourse of “national characteristics” is mentioned.
・◎ indicates whether the discourse of “internationality” is mentioned.

YAMASHITA Kohei

84

Table 2 Changes in “The Japan International Art Exhibition”＊“The Japan International Art Exhibition” involved diverse changes in each exhibition. In this table, only points of the changes are noted because of limited space.
PeriodTime Year
Grounds
Participating naitons
Prize
Notes
(Tokyo)

1st

2nd

1952

1953

May. 22 June. 13

Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo) /Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art (Kyoto) /3 grounds (Nagoya・Osaka・Fukuoka)

May. 20 June. 8

Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo) /Takamatsu Art Museum (Takamatsu) /5 grounds (Nagoya・Osaka・Ube・Fukuoka・
Sasebo)7 countries (including Japan) /233 artists 396 pieces–

Japan (oil・Japanese-style・print)
98 artists 194 pieces＊San Francisco Peace Treaty comes into
effect10 countries (including Japan) /300 artists 548 pieces
Japan(oil・Japanese-style・
print)145 artists 223pieces＊Participating in the 26th Venice
Biennale.

–(Japan) Artists who accepted invitations
once always were invited.

＊“The Contemporary Art Exhibition of Japan” (only domestic) has been held since 1954. After this, this exhibition and “The Japan International Art Exhibition” adopted
a biennale system.

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

1955

May. 20 June. 5

Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo) /Takamatsu Art Museum (Takamatsu) /6 grounds (Nagoya・Osaka・Hiroshima・Ube・
Fukuoka・Sasebo)

1957

May. 23 June. 16

Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo) /Takamatsu Art Museum (Takamatsu) /7 grounds (Nagoya・Osaka・Hiroshima・Ube・
Fukuoka・Sasebo・Kumamoto)

1959

May. 9 June. 2

1961

1963

May. 1030

May. 1030

The
beginning / The sculpture section was added.
The best /Prize system: The sections of “foreign
Japan (oil (print)・Japanese-style・ Kazu
countries” and “Japan”
sculpture) 195 artists 302 pieces Wakita
12 countries (including Japan) /396 artists 609 pieces

14 countries (including Japan) /356artists 461 pieces

The best

Japan (oil (print)・Japanese-style・ Ichiro
sculpture) 218 artists 218 pieces Fukuzawa(Japan) The steering committee tried toaccept new faces by adding the regulationthat “Japanese artists could only show one
work each.”

Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo)

15 countries(including
Japan)/364 artists 469 pieces

The best“The sculptures and drawings of Henry
Moore” in a special exhibition.

A group) 7 grounds
B group) 3 grounds

Japan (oil・Japanese-style・print・
sculpture) 234 artists 234 pieces

KinosukeEbihara“The contemporary American printings”

Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo)

15 countries (including Japan) /299 artists 464 pieces

The best(The domestic selection) The five steering
members. Atsuo Imaizumi Shūzo
Takiguchi, Teiichi Hijikata, Tomoaki
Kawakita, Shinichi Segi

A group) 7 grounds
B group) 4 grounds

Japan (oil・Japanese-style・print・
sculpture) 179 artists 179 pieces

NoneTokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo) /Takamatsu Art Museum (Takamatsu) /8 grounds (Sendai・Nagoya・Osaka・KitaKyūshū・Fukuoka・Sasebo・Kumamoto・
Kagoshima)

11 countries (including Japan) /292 artists 398 pieces

The best

Japan (oil・Japanese-style・print・
sculpture) 228 artists 228 pieces

Toshinobu
Onosato“Britain Contemporary sculpture”in a
special exhibition＊The Tokyo Olympics were held in 1964, and the 16th “Yomiuri Independent” was discontinued.

8th

9th

1965

May. 1030

Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo) /Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art (Kyoto) /5 grounds (Nagoya・Takamatsu・Kitakyūshū・Saga・Sasebo)

1967

May. 1030

Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo) /Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art (Kyoto) /5 grounds (Nagoya・Takamatsu・Kitakyūshū・Sasebo・Nagasaki)

17countries (including Japan) /258 artists 432 pieces

The best“Picasso's Print” “The Contemporary
French Sculpture”

Japan (oil・Japanese-style・print・
sculpture) 178 artists 178 pieces

KimuraKentaro17 countries (including Japan) /248 artists 432 pieces

Domestic
first prize

Introduction of international judging
system.

Japan (oil・Japanese-style・print・
sculpture) 175 artists 175 pieces

Jirō
Yoshihara“Miro and Giacometti’s Print” in a special
exhibition.

Prize

Notes

＊“The Japan International Art Exhibition” was postponed for one year to consider an international exhibition.
Time Year

10th

1970

Period(Tokyo)Grounds

May. 1030

Tokyo Metropolitan Art
Museum (Tokyo) /Kyoto Municipal Museum ofArt (Kyoto) /Aichi Prefectural Museum ofArt (Nagoya)

Plan(Theme)Participating naitons

Man andMatterYūsuke Nakahara only wasappointed as a commissioner andselected 40 young artists.

＊“The Japan International Art Exhibition” was postponed again to consider an international exhibition.

Not carried Many artists were in residence for making
out
artworks.
＊Japan International Exposition

Reconsidering “The Japan International Art Exhibition (Tokyo Biennale)”Time Year

PeriodGrounds

Plan

Prize

May. 10-30
Foreign section) America 21artists 36pieces, Britain
Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo) 8artists 13pieces
11th

1974

June. 15-30
Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art (Kyoto)

85

Notes

National exhibitions were
Not carriedabolished, and exhibition based onout
a theme was adopted.

Domestic section) “The Realism in The Age of
Reproduction,” reflection 108artists 108pieces

America: New realism paintingsoil, Japanese-style painting, print, poster, sculpture,ceramic, photo, and so on. Various materials.

Britain: Hyper-realism prints＊Postponement again.

12th

13th

14th

15th

16th

17th

18th

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

Apr. 25 - May. 10
Special exhibition)
Painting 29 artists 70 pieces
Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo) Bulgarian Contemporary
Art: From The 1930s toJune. 6-18
Graphics 27 artists 70 pieces
Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art (Kyoto) Today
Domestic section) The
Development of MassMedia
Special exhibition)
Apr. 24 - May. 9
Argentine
Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo)
Contemporary Art
June. 7-19
Domestic section)
Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art (Kyoto) Individual and Societyin The 1980s

RevivalDomestic section) —(Complete competition)

Domestic section changed to acompetition.

Plane151 pieces, Three-dimentional object
Genre became plane and three(including Video) 58 pieces、Graphics 7
dimentional object.
piecesPainting 30 artists 60 pieces、sculpture 6
artists 18 pieces＊“Hamamatsu Open-air art
Exhibition” started.

Plane 121 pieces (1247 pieces),
Three-dimentional object 60 pieces (269
pieces), Video 9 pieces (24 pieces),
Graphics 12 pieces(60 pieces)＊“Aperto” started in the Venice
Biennale.

Apr. 27 - May. 12
Special exhibition) “A Century of Italian Art (1880-1980)” oil,Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo) sculpture 65 artists 100 pieces
May. 26 - June.6
Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art (Kyoto)

The beginning of the system ofinviting one overseas country.

The genre of Graphics wasabolished.

Plane 129 pieces, Three-dimentional
object 42 pieces, Video 6 pieces

Apr. 25 - May. 10
Foreign section) “Indian Contemporary Art” 95 pieces (oil, collage,
Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo) print, water color and so on. Various genre.)

The art museum prizes increased.
(Total was 13 pieces)

June. 6-17
Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art (Kyoto)

Plane 145 pieces, Three-dimentional
object 47 pieces, Video 5 pieces＊“The Japan Ushimado
International Festival” started.

Belgium 7 artists 70 pieces (oil, acrylic,gouache)＊“Chambres d’Amis” exhibition
by Jan Hoet was held.

Domestic section) —Foreign section)
Apr. 23 - May. 7
Contemporary Art ofTokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo)
The Seven Flanders
June. 4-15
Domestic section) —Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art (Kyoto)

Plane 171 pieces, Three-dimentional
object 41 pieces, Video 2 pieces

Apr. 23 - May. 7
Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum(Tokyo)

Foreign section) Swiss
Contemporary Art

10 artists 59 pieces (mixed-media, oil,acrylic, iron, resin etc.)

June. 8-19
Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art (Kyoto)

Domestic section) —Plane 146 pieces (1420 pieces),
Three-dimentional object 34 pieces (134pieces)Apr. 23 - May. 7
Foreign section) Dutch
Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Tokyo) Contemporary Art —Packing Crate —16 artists (Three-dimentional object in asame standard container)

June. 6-17
Kyoto Municipal Museum of Art (Kyoto)

Plane 142 pieces,Three-dimentional object 35 pieces

Domestic section) —Only the sections of plane andcubing were adopted incompetition. / The forms ofartworks had diversified.
The five art critics organize asteering committee.
Installation artworks have beendeveloped in the foreign section.

Notes●About organizers: Mainichi Newspaper Company had been the only organizer from the 1st to the 6th exhibitions. The Japan International Art Promotion Association had
joined from the 7th to the 18th. Kyoto city had joined at Kyoto ground since the 11th. And the order of the Japan International Art Promotion Association and Mainichi
New Paper company had changed since the11th exhibition. The Art Culture Promotion Foundation had joined since the 14th. Swiss • Pro • Helvetica Culture Fondation
also joined at the 17th “Swiss contemporary art”.
●About selection: The organizer had made requested to embassies, councils, cultural organizations, and national modern art museums, except in the 10th “Human andMatter” exhibition in the overseas section, cooperating with correspondents and Takanori Ogisu. The steering committee of the Japan International Art Exhibition and
the Japan Contemporary Art Exhibtion had managed the domestic section from the 1st to the 5th. The steering committee had consisted of an Arts department manager,
a division manager, some members in the arts and sciences department, magement employees in the division, and Chōken Ueshima (a file department) who had been
deeply concerned with the management of this exhibtion. Yasuhiro Uchii (a division department), Kōkichi Funato (an arts and sicences department). The five art critics,
Atsuo Imaizumi, Shūzo Takiguchi, Teiichi Hijikata, Tomoaki Kwakita and Shinichi Segi had selected Japanese artists since the 6th exhibition. Yūsuke Nakahara only
made selections in the 10th. The organizer selected under the opinions of Ichirō Hariu and some art critics in the 11th. Competition had been adopted from the 12th tothe 18th, the selection committee had been organized by the 15 members who consited of art critics and artists.
●About participating nations: Seven countries, America, Britain, Italy, Brazil, Frence, Belguim, and Japan, participated in the 1st. Swizerland, Germany, and Mexico alsojoined in the 2nd, and the total was 10 countries. India and Yugoslavia (then) also joined in the 3rd, and the total was 12 countries. Austria and Spain also joined in the
4th, and the total was 14 countries. The Soviet Union also joined in the 5th, and the total was 15 countries. The numbers in the 6th was same as in the 5th. The Soviet

86

YAMASHIATA Kohei

Union, Brazil, Mexico, and Yugoslavia left in the 7th, and the total was 11 countries. Brazil, South Korea, Sweden, the Soviet Union, Portugal, and Yugoslavia also joinedin the 8th, and the total was the highest with 17 countries. The numbers of the 9th was same as the 8th.
●About this prize system: the prize system started in the 3rd exhibition. The prize system of this exhibition had overseas and domestic sections until the 8th exhibition.
First, the members of the steering committee were nine art critics (Atsuo Imaizumi, Shūzō Takiguchi, Sōichi Tominaga, Takachiyo Uemura, Yasuo Kamon, Tomoaki
Kawakita, Kenzo Tadika, and Ryō Yanagi). Some numbers changed until the 9th exhibition. For example, Shinichi Segi joined in the 5th, Ichirō Hariu and Yoshiaki Tōnojoined in the 6th, and Yoshiaki Honma joined in the 8th. An international judging system was intoroduced in the 9th exhibition, and overseas and domestic frameworks
for awards were abolished. Judges were Atsuo Imaizumi, Yoshiaki Tōno, Ichirō Hariu, Teiichi Hijikata, Michel Ragon (France), Jacia Reichardt (Britain), Maurice
Tuchman (America). The prize system was abolished in the 10th and the 11th exhibitions, but revived in the 12th. The selection committee consisted of 15 art critics inthe sections of plane and three-dimenstional object and 5 designers in the section of graphics. Just one selection committee by 15 members had been organized since the13th exhibition. (Some members had changed until the 18th.) The main members were Yasuo Kamon, Tomoaki Kawakita, Yoshishige Saitō, Ikkō Tanaka, Tatsuo
Takayama, Yoshiaki Tōno, and Yūsuke Nakahara Teiichi Hijikata, Shigemitsu Hirano, Shigeo Fukuda, Masayoshi Honma, Tamon Miki, Junkichi Mukai, and Katuhiro
Yamaguchi. The titles of this exhibition's prizes in the overseas section had been the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Prize, the Ministry of Education Prize, the Governor ofTokyo Prize, and the Mainichi New Paper Company Prize from the 1st to the 8th exhibitions. In the domestic section, the prizes in the 3rd were the Best Prize and theFine Work Prize. In the 4th, not only the Best Prize, the Fine Work Prize, but also the National Modern Museum of Art Prize, and so on. There were each Art Museum
Prizes. The Fine Work Prize changed to the Prize for excellence since the 5th exhibition. There had become The Fisrt Prize, the Fine Work Prize, and the Art Museum
prizes since the 12th.
●About grounds: This exhibiton had toured not only in the Tokyo Metoroporitan Art Muesum, but also art museums, department stores, memorial halls, and gymnasiums
in all parts of the country from the 1st to the 9th exhibitions. Sogō Gallery (Osaka), Iwaya Gallery (Fukuoka) in the 1st. Tsurumai Gallery (Nagoya), Sogō Gallery (Osaka),
Ube Citizen Hall (Ube), Iwaya Gallery (Fukuoka), Sasebo City Public Hall Gallery (Sasebo) in the 2nd. For example, about grounds, Matsuya Gallery (Nagoya), Aichi
Culture Hall Art Museum (Nagoya), Sogō Department Store (Osaka), Fukuya Tenmaya (Hiroshima), Watanabe Memorial Hall (Ube), Iwaya Department Store (Fukuoka),
Sasebo City Public Hall (Sasebo) were used in the 3rd exhibition. In the 5th and 6th exhibitions, this organizer chose artworks at his discretion and they toured, dividing
into two groups. The lists after the 10th exhibition are indicated in this table.
●About the steering committee of the 17th and the18th exhibitions: This organizer started it up again to reconsider the methods of international art exhibitions. The membersof the steering committee in the 17th exhibition were Yasuo Kaomon, Tomoaki Kawakita, Yūsuke Nakahara, Masayoshi Honma, and Tamon Miki. They were Yasuo
Tamon, Tomoaki Kawakita, Yūsuke Nakahara, and Honma Masayoshi in the 18th exhibition.
＊Reference material: Hirano Shigemitsu. (1978): “The abrided chronological table of ‘The Japan International Art Exhibition’,” The 12th The Japan International Art
Exhibtion (illustrated catalog).