AESTHETICS No.13 (2009)

The Japanese Society for Aesthetics / 235

The Founding of Bunriha Kenchiku Kai: “Art” and “Expression”
in Early Japanese Architectural Circle, 1888-1920
AMANAI Daiki
JSPS Research Fellow

Six members of the Department of Architecture, Imperial University of Tokyo, all fromthe class of 1920, organised Bunriha Kenchiku Kai [Secessionist Architectural Group] [1] before
their graduation. We should call them the first architectural movement started in Japan,
considering the inaugural declaration included in their Collected Works published upon theirfirst exhibition. The group claimed that “architecture is an art” in many of their writings;
however, such claim is not apparent in the group’s name or in their declaration. This paper
analyses the theoretical backgrounds of their claim, referring to the writings published inJapanese architectural magazines of those days.
Bunriha has been regarded as a Japanese wing of contemporary expressionism which
originated in the German-speaking world. Our analyses focus on their view of “expression”
and the two historical backgrounds: first, the perception of “Art” and “Beauty”, the cause of thethen barren controversy, that formed from the influences within and out of the architecturalcircle, and second, the scopes of the conceptions of “expression” which determined the validityof each argument. To conclude in advance, we will find the perceptions varied, old and new,within the Bunriha. Therefore, we can regard the founding of Bunriha as a hinge to pursue theperception of “art” in Japanese architectural circle, in the respect that both views were united toa spectacular appearance through the media, and that their movement itself was a defiance ofanother standpoint.
This paper suggests to review and revise the common understandings of today that: theargument between after-mentioned “Kozoha” [Structure Advocates] and Bunriha was a dispute
between Meiji and Showa mainstreams and Taisyo rebellious minds [2], and the Bunriha has
been treated as theoretically negligible in the point of art for art’s sake [3]. Since the introduction of architecture to Japan, did we see dichotomous schemes between utility and beauty, or
structural mechanics and expression, behind these understandings? The founding of Bunriha
was the dawning of the viewpoint that surpasses such dichotomy. Thus we pay more attention to Morita Keiichi (1895-1983) than to Horiguchi Sutemi (1895-1984), a member of Bunriha,
and to his predecessor Goto Keiji (1883-1919), who have been referred many times before as
typical Taisho architects. We use the term “early” to indicate the time period from the startingof the Japanese architecture until the actualisation of the skepticism toward the above
dichotomy.
The first section introduces the theoretical framework that defined the arguments since
the introduction of architecture into Japan. The second section discusses Sano Toshikata (18901956), the precursor of “Kozoha”, and Noda Toshihiko (1891-1929), the so-called adversary of
Bunriha. The third section focuses on Goto, the one who refuted Noda immediately after Noda

236

AMANAI Daiki

voiced his opinion and became a theoretical predecessor of Horiguchi. In the fourth section wewill analyse the arguments of Horiguchi and Morita who discussed “art” and “beauty” in thefounding of Bunriha 5 years later to Noda and Goto to discover more theoretical potential in
Morita than Horiguchi, though the latter was the one regarded as the leader of Bunriha. Finally,
section five summarises the standpoints above with a focus on their view of “expression”.

1. The Concept of “Architecture” and “Art”
The two understandings that dichotomised architecture were evident since the introduction of architecture to Japan. One was the “structure” or “utility” which meant structural
mechanics or the rooms’ equipments and arrangements, and the other was the “beauty” or“ornament” which meant styles and exterior proportions. Such dichotomy was already recognised by Kawai Kozo in 1888, the year following the publishing of the first Japanese architectural magazine Kenchiku Zasshi (The Architectural Magazine; published as JABS now) by Zoka
Gakkai (present Architectural Institute of Japan; AIJ) in 1887 [4]. The source that influenced
Kawai could be Josiah Conder (1852-1920), a professor of Kobu Daigakko [Imperial College ofEngineering], for similar understandings were found in Kawai’s two-year predecessor Tatsuno
Kingo (1854-1919), who studied in London from Conder’s teacher William Burgess and later
became a professor of Imperial University of Tokyo.
As this dichotomy established itself, people began to take sides. An example would be
President Tatsuno Kingo’s lecture in AIJ annual meeting of 1914, in which he suggested thatstructure and art do not go together; he reinforced the division between the art and science.
Moreover, he said there was a growing concern over the future of the structural aspect ofarchitecture [5]. Shin’ichiro Okada (1883-1932), an alumnus of Imperial University of Tokyoand professor of Waseda University at the time, argued against Tatsuno in the same meeting.
While he introduced the formation of “new architecture” in Europe in response to the shift ofmaterial and structure, he apprehended that let the architecture be divided into two, in today’s
scene the world of art was rather neglectful [6]. We will explore the influence of this dichotomy on the perceptions of architecture in later Japan.
Apart from this, there were those who supported the trichotomy of architecture. Kuroda
Hoshin (1885-1967), an art critic and alumnus of the Department of Philosophy, Imperial
University of Tokyo, made critical remarks on architecture and established a position of architecture critic outside of architectural institution. He proposed the “science, utility, and beauty”
to be the trichotomy of architecture which correspond to the valuation bases “truth, goodness,and beauty”[7]. This was different from the well-known three axes “firmness, utility, andbeauty” by Vitruvius [8]. While the name of Otsuka Yasuji, an aesthetician, is mentioned tohave influenced Kuroda, their perspectives of architecture were not congruent [9]. To Kuroda
the “truth” was to not feign material and structure, and to exclude ornament, while the “goodness” was to meet the needs of buildings or rooms. In regards to the “beauty”, he barely managed to provide nested classification of “beauty” by truth, goodness, and beauty. “Beauty”’scentral definition is only “formal beauty” principled by “unity in multiplicity”. Furthermore,
he altered his definition 5 years later [10], which indicates his struggle to determine “beauty” inThe Founding of Bunriha Kenchiku Kai

237

architecture. From his argument until Noda Toshihiko, there were no arguments that
supported trichotomy [11].

2. The Emergence of “Structure-Advocates”
Following the above emerged those who were found as “Kozoha (Structure-advocates)”.
They were Sano Toshikata who was promoted to professor of Imperial University of Tokyo in
1915, associate professor Uchida Yoshikazu (1885-1972) and Noda Toshihiko who graduatedthe university in 1915. They valued the study of structure as of principle importance. Many of
their writings focused on antiseismic and fireproof architecture built with steel frames orreinforced concrete.
A. Sano Toshikata: The Nation and Architects
Sano Toshikata graduated from the Department of Architecture, Imperial University ofTokyo in 1900; he recalled in his later years that while a student, he was “disappointed” by thelectures because they were oriented to “art” and lacked “scientific theory”. Sano reminisced
that, “discriminating the form and judging the colour are women’s doings, not men’s”[12],which shows his volition from his early days to separate architecture from “art” bysuperposing on the dichotomy of “men/women”.
Moreover, when Sano watched the “Englishmen dominating every enterprise in every
port of call such as Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore, [he] was so agitated with thepossibility that Japan might be in similar situation if unguarded”[13]. After he arrived inGermany he contributed an essay “Resolution of Architects” to Kenchiku Zasshi. In this essay,
he regarded the significance of “Japanese Kenchikuka [Architect]”, unlike that of “Western
Akitekuto [Architect]” as corresponding to the fact that government “[was] constructing at
maximum cost some genuinely scientific structures such as warehouses and factories”.
Moreover, considering the wealth of Japanese government to be “no match for the GreatPowers yet”, Sano hesitated seeing the continuous expansion of armaments in other countries.
Consequently, he stressed Kenchikuka’s duty was to “build strongest buildings with mostadvantages and least cost”, and as a member of the nation “in its period of endurance ofhardships”, he “cannot be absorbed in senseless extravagances”.
Sano’s unique nationalism in this essay defined “art” as follows:[I] understand the value of art, but my interpretation of art is that [...]: “for the time being,art is only a manner to raise our nation’s power, for example by consoling people, cultivating their minds, and promoting benefits. [...A]esthetic designs must be kept simple,
noble, steady and never indulge in gorgeousness. In short, utility is the principal.” [14]While “art” was not completely disregarded in Sano’s duty, the “architectural beauty”
which “[was] merely dynamic and precise expression of weight and support” was a value that
supported univocal understanding of “expression” which delivered definite values to people,
and that enlightened them without spoiling the “utility” “to raise national power” with“gorgeousness”.

238

AMANAI Daiki

B. Noda Toshihiko: Confusion of a Designer
Noda Toshihiko submitted his graduation thesis titled “Tekkin Konkurito to Kenchiku Yoshiki[Reinforced Concrete and Styles of Architecture]”to the Department of Architecture, Imperial
University of Tokyo in 1915. His teacher Uchida Yoshikazu promoted the first half of thisthesis to the magazine published by AIJ, “Kenchiku Zassi”, renaming the title of the paper as“Kenchiku Hi Geijutsu Ron [Theory of Inartistic Architecture]”. The gist of this paper was
regarded that “architecture is not art” as mentioned in its title. This perception had got
significant influence on the Japanese architectural circle; it was expressed clearly in the
introduction by Uchida and in the beginning of Noda’s argument [15]. However, the actual
gist, or his real motive was different from this title.
1) The Relationship between Architecture and Art
Noda summarised that the architecture had been deemed as a “genre of art” that possesses
beauty, utility, and science, where the latter two were of greater and increasing importancethen [16]. He conveyed a trichotomy similar to Kuroda’s one; his trichotomy had got unprecedented correspondence to the three types of drawings: elevation view, ground/floor plan,and construction drawing [17]. The reason for which Noda concluded the former architecture
to be a “result of compromise” of the three could have been a sense of confusion toward the
difficulty of alignment of various conditions of designing and the puzzlement over thevariable criteria.
[T]hey say that these three should ideally accord and such contradiction may not becompromised. Well then, do they have got these three in accordance and use it as
standards of architectural evaluation? No, because they would pass the building as ‘good’,[...] if one of the three excels while the rest may be a little inferior. [18]Noda revealed his irritation toward the lack of clarity of the standard of design and evaluation; he wrote that the ideal planning which consists of the three fields was merely a coincidence. The rejection of the theory that a designer cannot utilise in designing was Noda’s
strong motive behind the scene.
Meanwhile, Noda cited the discrepancy between the definition of “art” and “architecture”
as the basis of the assertion of the title. Primarily Noda’s definition of “art” was in accordancewith Tolstoy’s “What is Art?”[19]. According to Noda’s summary, “art” is a means of mutualcomprehension between the author and the viewer, and between the viewers to share a feelingexperienced by one with another. He regarded art as a type of “language”: “Thought is delivered by speech; Art delivers feeling, what speech cannot deliver”[20]. Moreover while heplaced “beauty” on the same level with appetite and sexual desire, the duty of art was tocultivate man’s social nature, rather than to “express beauty” as “one of pleasant sensations”.
We can point out the theoretical influences of Sano in Noda in the following three points: theattitude to exclude some kinds of pleasure from the foundation of human society; the“expression of beauty” was as directly effective as appetite or sexual desire was; and theconveyance of “feeling”, or a duty theoretically assigned to “art” instead of such “feeling”, wasalso unilinear [21].

The Founding of Bunriha Kenchiku Kai

239

Noda explained, “whatever feeling the building has got, it is a feeling of the building itself
and it does not relate to the feeling of a work of art expressed by the buildings”[22]. He judgedthat architecture was inapplicable to the definition of “art” that was based on the view of theexpression as human mutual comprehension. According to Noda, the act of expression cannot
be realised in architecture since an architect cannot express his or her message in the buildings
designed, which is the very condition of “art” that differs from “beauty”. But in spite of thesestatements, his attitude toward the existence of “artistic architecture” remained ambivalent.
In the same way as [music divides time], there may be a genre of art that divides spaceand exhibits the feeling of its designer. [...] But it is not architecture. Though we could
designate it “architecture”, it is not what people live and gather within. Was it an art, it
should forbid people living within and free the designer of the inconvenience. [23]On one hand, Noda regarded architecture as non-art in the respect that one cannot
observe the architect’s expression. On the other hand, while he accepted “artistic architecture”
which exists outside of any restraints of expression, he distinguished such work from“practical architecture” “to fulfil human life by protecting people against the pressure ofnature’s climate”[24]. This ambiguous attitude indicates that his assertion of architecture as
non-art had no veritable motive behind the argument. Besides, while Noda added his own
interpretation to Kuroda’s trichotomy of architecture, he denied it as a designer and reinforced
the dichotomy that was conventional in the architectural circle through advocacy of “inartisticarchitecture”. Two understandings supported such attitude: the understanding of art which
lacked an eye to the material and regarded the action of expression unilinear, and the understanding of expression that it is realised outside of the conditions such as structure or utility.
The former separated beauty from art, and art from architecture while the latter stated that thearchitect’s limitless expression is the qualification to be art. Therefore, Noda was obliged toaccept the existence of “artistic architecture”.
2) The Relationship between Architecture and Beauty, and Recognition of Noda’s Essay
Noda considered other definitions of art and came to support the opinion that what is“true and good can be beauty as well”. To the taste like his, which found “the railway bridgeover Rokugo River” to be “one of the most beautiful structures”, the beauty could be theobjective of architecture. This indicates that the positive relationship between beauty andarchitecture was in his scope. But here the “beauty”, which he put in the same category with
an appetite or sexual desire like Tolstoy, should become an issue.
The fact is that Noda denied only the architect’s need of consciousness for beauty, but did
not deny the beauty itself observed in buildings.
When a building satisfies its practical purposes, it is always beautiful. So it is nonsense toquestion the need of beauty in architecture, that is perfect as a practical item. [...] Whether
architecture requires the expressions of the Zeitgeist or individuality is still more absurd.
Such conditions are satisfied naturally when the purposes of the building as a practicalitem are completely fulfilled. [25]240

AMANAI Daiki

Therefore, Noda subordinated “the standard of beauty”, that stated the method of its realisation, to the theory of structural mechanics. While the works of those who “are untrained asarchitects but are acquainted with the calculation of strength of structure” may have got“disagreeable and unbearable shape”, Noda suggested lack of research of structural mechanics
resulted in such “a failure to attempt to make it beautiful”[26]. We can find the influence ofthat definition of “architectural beauty” by Sano, “a dynamic and precise expression of weightand support”. We can say that Noda’s architectural beauty was defined within the extensive
control of structural mechanics that was realised only when the designer is free from theconsciousness of art and beauty. We continue to explore whether his graduation project was
really “a genuinely utilitarian theatre”, as Uchida Yoshikazu introduced in the beginning of
Noda’s paper [27].
Regardless of the various inconsistency or suggestions as mentioned above in Noda’s
paper, his argument has been hitherto extensively recognised as “architecture is not art”. The
reason to this may be the fact that a graduation thesis originally titled “Reinforced Concrete andStyle of Architecture” was converted into a paper titled “Theory of Inartistic Architecture” by histeacher and published in an academic journal; there could be an intention to recognise Noda’s
argument differently from his original motive, and the effect of this lasted until today.

3. Goto Keiji: the Forerunner of Bunriha Movement
A. Selection of “Laws” and “Self”
Goto Keiji, who entered the university five years earlier than Noda, responded to Noda’s
paper soon after it was published. His argument was familiar to the arguments of Bunriha five
years later, especially that of Horiguchi Sutemi; we can regard him as a predecessor in theory
of Bunriha. Goto commented to the dispute between Tatsuno and Okada (seen in Section 1)
later that actually the architecture of the time lacked both science and art. While he deploredthe lagging of architecture behind the other genres of art in Japan, many of his articles
discussed the themes that Structure-advocates would choose, such as reinforced concrete.
Thus Hasegawa Takashi evaluated him to be a well-balanced embodiment of “Taisho architecture” that is based on the principle of “self”, suggesting that Goto was also a capable structural
engineer [28]. We will discuss the theoretical limit of Hasegawa’s discussion in Section 4.
In his article written in dialogue-style, Goto raised the possibility of frequent conflicts“between the reifying the ideal of nature and the requirement of nature”, or “between structure
or utility [...] and beautiful appearance”. Then he answered as follows:
When we construct a building, we face numerous laws [...] that often conflict with eachother. One solution is to compromise; we stick to all laws loosely so they won’t conflict by
mutual concessions. Another solution is to discard all laws but one. While this solution
seems thorough and uncompromising, it is merely an elusion of the problem. [...] It could
solve everything easily, but the result is reckless and narrow-minded. [29]The first was the standpoint which Noda had refused while the second indicated Noda’s own
standpoint; Goto’s opinion was “the third solution”.

The Founding of Bunriha Kenchiku Kai

241

Originally, all laws are external. While one adopts these laws and accepts external
judgement, he cannot escape from the contradiction. He could discard all laws but one,but still, the same is true. The only solution is to find an internal law; one must digest all
external objects and establish a totally new autonomic law within oneself. [30]Goto sought for assurance of autonomy and the principle of expression in coincidental
procedure; first absorb any “external objects” to later find an internal law within oneself. Thus
the amelioration of architecture was to depend on “enhancement / extension of the self” rather
than the choice of “external laws”.
[W]ithout us discarding the unity of self, we cannot make a leap forward against ourinternal law. And because such laws generate from our mentality as a whole, we cannot
establish the law unless we fulfil ourselves. [31]The influence of Shirakabaha [White Birch School; a literature and art movement influential in
Taisho Japan] over Goto was evident, as Yanagi Muneyoshi emphasised “enhancement of theself” in the magazine “Shirakaba” [32]. However, it is notable that the dynamism to “leapforward” after dissolution of “the unified self” is unique to Goto.
B. The Countermeasure to the Polemic: Its’ Scope
Noda’s response to Goto’s argument was not apparent. Noda’s counterargument was
directed to Ito Chuta, his former teacher at the university; however we cannot discover a pointof issue. Moreover, he disregarded Goto completely. The fact is, Goto had presented twoquestions to Noda by name three months earlier to the dialogue above in the same magazine.
First he questioned how serious Noda was when he wrote the paper, and then he continued toask:
Can Mister [Noda] execute that purport with devotion? [...] Will he not be tempted fromtime to time to entrust his passion for art that seethes inside him into architecture? [33]Goto stated that the slightest passion may “quite shake his argument”. In fact, Noda had
already expressed repentance in a private letter before these questions were published.
I regret how inconsistent my diploma was, for my advocacy to the needlessness of beauty
in architecture. Have I never attempted to beautify the building in that design? I am very
disconcerted. [34]Goto also indicated that the “truth”, the value Noda claimed to which all beauty agrees,
was biassed in favour of structural mechanics [35]. If Noda had read these Goto’s articles, hewould have realised that Goto defeated him, having his designer’s “self” at stake. However,
his theory “architecture is not art” itself led the argument among Japanese architects more
extensively than Noda’s name. The “Structure-advocates” became the political mainstream inJapanese architectural circle; one example would be Sano’s promotion to professor in theImperial University of Tokyo. The thesis was referred to in various articles and structural mechanics became the theme that monopolised “Kenchiku Zasshi” in those days [36]. Noda himself

242

AMANAI Daiki

continued to assume the name of “inartistic architecture”[37]. Meanwhile the commercial
architectural magazines, rising yet insecure media then, substituted for publishing the articles
that were dropped from “science”, that is, structural mechanics and sanitary engineering [38].
It is unlikely that Goto had made contact with Bunriha members, since they were ten years
junior to him at the Imperial University, and moreover, he passed away in 1919. However,
Horiguchi Sutemi and Goto share a few points: both were well versed in genres of art such as
tanka [traditional Japanese poem] and painting, and both were influenced by the magazine“Shirakaba”. In the next section we will ascertain the theoretical limits in common, in theirunderstandings of “expression” rather than the terms “beauty” and “art” which were focal
points in the controversy with Noda. At last, we will examine Morita Keiichi’s argument
which developed a new theoretical perspective.

4. The Founding of Bunriha Kenchiku Kai
As mentioned above, Morita developed new opinions on “art” and “expression” apartfrom the other five members of Bunriha including Horiguchi, the theoretical leader of the party.
We will discuss two issues in this section: the commonality of Horiguchi and Goto, theforerunner of Bunriha in general, and the limits of such commonality, and Morita’s uniquenessand potential. As we aim to clarify the founding of Bunriha from the theoretical history, we
will deal with the articles of Horiguchi and Morita in the “Collected Works” published in 1920
when they held their first exhibition.
A. Horiguchi Sutemi: Goto Keiji’s Continuator“Architecture, of all genres of art, is the largest, the most multi-dimensional and the mostclosely related genre to human life,” discussed Horiguchi. “Large” signified the physical scaleof the work; “multi-dimensional” consisted of “structure”, “paintings and sculpture”, “deepunderstanding and broad knowledge of life” including “inner life of spirit” and “economy” as aconsequence of “cooperation by large number of people” in construction: this meant the quality
of “Gesamtkunstwerk”. Then he examined the term “art”.
I think art is an expression. Expression must be based on the desire of artistic instinct. [...]
It is by the intuitive desire that the personality and total character appear, regardless of
the artists’ intentions. [...] Instinct is the power that transcends the reason, and theaffirmation of this instinct is piety. [39]The understanding of art based on “instinct” and the refusal of “reason” were not found in
Goto’s argument but in those of Shirakaba School such as Nagayo Yoshiro [40]. This “piety”
was “not in a form of any existing religions”: he explained that “the power of artistic
expression” “suggests the world” beyond time and space, and “people feels the world by thesuggestion”. He related the “instinct” to “inspirations” and “life / vitality”.
[However old or new,] if what I want to express is expressed, I do not care what it is. [...] I
do not know whether my direction is right or wrong. All I do is to perceive a lot, observe

The Founding of Bunriha Kenchiku Kai

243

a lot and consider a lot by myself. Then a momentary inspiration will occur to me withwhich I could judge my direction right or wrong. [...] We cannot make inspirations byourselves. [...] We cannot help but hope for them to come. Our lives always want to berefreshed and saved by such inspirations. [...] Constant purification of our lives purifies
and refreshes our desires and makes them true. [41]There was no “self” in Horiguchi’s argument which Goto applauded, but “instinct”“character” and “life” substituted it. The influences of “Taisho Life-centrism” advocated by
Suzuki Sadami and “personalism” by Nagai Takanori are apparent [42]. However, one issue
remains; as they borrowed the theoretical framework from outside of the architectural context,
both Goto and Horiguchi tended to ignore the substance of buildings when they considered
the action of expression. Goto and Horiguchi postulated that art or architecture was a precise
reflection of designers’ inner desires, and entrusted the conscious improvement of expressions
to “the self” and “life”, respectively. This common point shows that the direct or indirect
influence of the forerunner Goto engendered Horiguchi’s argument that has been regarded as
the best disputant of Bunriha.
B. Morita Keiichi: New Understandings of “Expression”
1) Understanding of “Structure-Advocates”, Art and Expression
The title of Morita’s article “On Structure-Advocates” indicated Peter Behrens who wasregarded as a pioneer in European new architecture, rather than Sano Toshikata or Noda
Toshihiko [43]. Since “the Structure-advocates”, such as Behrens, “never espouses the inartisticarchitecture”, the issue was “how to understand their architecture as an art”. Morita rewrote
this issue, “where can we notice the expression of life, the glitter of personality, in the structure
constructed as dynamics instruct”: he also considered the “art” in relation to “life / vitality” and“personality”. Moreover his praise for unconsciousness and “character” was common to Gotoand Horiguchi.
Fundamentally speaking, a work of art is an appearance of the character of the artist. Its
contents [...] must be the whole expressed in its form, regardless of the artist’s awareness.
We shall endeavor to express precisely the life that we want to express. Let us work
investing the whole depth of our personalities. [...] Let us be fearful of our characters
appearing unconsciously to our work more evidently than the contents we want toexpress consciously. [44]However, similar to the Impressionist painters who found an object of “wonder” and“adoration” in nature, Morita located “the expression of life, the glitter of personality” in “theorganic function” and “the necessary shape” of “the shell of the small lower animals”, or “thestrain of a giant”, “necessity without ostentation” and “the beauty of a great power”. In otherwords, “Structure-advocates” in architecture for Morita was a trend based on the “desire to
express” the “inner serious demand”, stimulated literally by “living” matters and machines thatwere concrete creations of “natural” science. Indeed the structural mechanics was a “suitable
method” to realise “the beauty of nature’s power” within the architecture, but he refused “the244

AMANAI Daiki

result of a mere conceptual knowledge”. Aside from the viewpoint of an architect, he argued
from the viewer’s standpoint that “the analytical beauty of dynamics, the beauty displayed by
the truth” that is essential to our material civilisation and lacks “poetic beauty” assured “theartistic value of Structure-advocates”.
Morita did not entirely appreciate “Structure-advocates” and searched for “a work of art
richer in free emotions”, though he was not convinced of “the form of that expression”. The
significance of Morita’s argument was that he admitted studying structural mechanics and entrusting one’s character to it, contrary to Goto and Horiguchi who had intended the improvement of buildings only by the improvement of “the self” without considering the substance ofbuildings. Goto’s rejection of “the unity of self” and Horiguchi’s advocacy of “inspirations”
were the means through self-consciousness. However, Morita included structural mechanics
among the efforts “to express precisely the life”, by emphasising the “expression” found in thebuildings’ forms and consequently succeeded in pointing out “character” there.
2) The Countermeasure to “Theory of Inartistic Architecture”
Morita regarded Noda’s article as a harmful spin-off of “Structure-advocates”.
[W]hen architecture with a certain basis [=structural mechanics] appeared in the world ofarchitecture of beauty as they speak, architects were obliged to lapse into skepticism byvacillation, unless they regard only existing styles as architecture or they close their eyes
meanly. This skepticism will engender the theory of inartistic architecture in time. [45]Because this skepticism did not limit its target to the style, it coincides with Noda’s refusal that
we saw earlier. Furthermore Morita wrote, “Structure-advocates never espouse inartisticarchitecture; this is obvious when we observe their works”[46]. Thus he depended rather on
the work of a designer than on a designer’s intention as the assurance of architecture’s artistry.
The separation of designers’ intention and his work seized upon Noda’s theoretical ambiguity
and the disagreement of his motive with the title of his article.
The next of our analysis is Morita’s confrontation with Noda’s theory that had limited thedesigning method to structural mechanics. Morita wrote, “Our desires to express generates
Structure-advocates and structural mechanics supplies a suitable method”[47]. If he admitted
that structural mechanics was the method to fulfil the “desires to express”, why did he abstain
from being one of Structure-advocates?
While they exert themselves to study structural mechanics, their fountains of lives wereabandoned and went dry by the hour. When they find themselves comprehending
structural mechanics, their fountains will have dried up. [48]Considering Morita’s intention “to continue scientific research of structure hereafter”,
he seems to have demanded that Japanese “Structure-advocates” should confront “life”,“personality” or “character” because “the rich and subjective feeling or emotion” that sprungfrom the “fountains of lives” was an aspect of “our characters appearing unconsciously to ourwork” and thus it could not be discarded. This was in common with the other members of
Bunriha, including Horiguchi. But Morita accepted the intervention of structural mechanics

The Founding of Bunriha Kenchiku Kai

245

and suggested the improvement of “forms” of architecture through it. We can see themomentum of Morita’s argument that the self was realised upon the structure and both the
aspect of architecture as physical substance and the endeavour of the self became included into
the scope of a concept of “expression”. This was the first time to demonstrate a constructive
relationship between structural mechanics and “expression” which had been regarded as two
opposing things.

5. Summary Based on the Concepts of Expression
In the first section we have seen the introduction of the concept of “architecture”
accompanied by the dichotomy of beauty and structure; the trichotomy was introduced fromaesthetics or philosophy. In the second section, “dynamic expression” that Sano Toshikata
barely approved as “architectural beauty” was proved to be a unilinear medium of expression
to help enlightenment of the nation. Moreover, Noda Toshihiko’s ambiguous attitude was a
mixture of two understandings: one derived from Sano, that art should be the unilinear
expression and the other influenced by the dichotomy or the trichotomy, that beauty or art
was distinct from structure or utility. However, the title “Theory of Inartistic Architecture”,
hid Noda’s motive and drove the theoretical surroundings in those days.
In the third section and the first half of the fourth section, we observed Goto Keiji andHoriguchi Sutemi countering Noda with such term as “self” and “life” which were introduced
from the preceding art movement, Shirakaba Group. But because of their understandings ofexpression in a direct coupling with “self”, they could entrust the improvement of architecture
only to that of human inner mind and disregard the substance of architecture. Accordingly,
while their arguments showed a typical opposition to “Structure-advocates”, they cannot
provide an effective methodology to the designer intending his improvement. This might
incur a fruitless dispute over whether architecture is art or not, and in fact the discussion
around Bunriha after its foundation tended to be so. However, such discussion will exceed therange of objective of this paper. Here we discovered two popular models of “expression” thatoccasionally appear today: that the author addresses a message through his work of art to thereceiver, behind “Structure-advocate’s” understanding of expression; and that the work of art
should be a true and genuine medium of the artist’s character, behind those of Goto andHoriguchi.
While Bunriha was assembled by an appeal of Horiguchi and two members, anothermember Morita Keiichi possessed the viewpoint to discover a “character” in the “form” ofstructure. The separation of the work from designer’s intention included an immediate effecton Noda as well as it connoted a viewpoint that integrated dichotomy and the trichotomy.
Goto also approached to “expression” of “the content of the buildings themselves” by studying
structural mechanics; but he arranged it separated from designer’s “expression” and did notaccomplish the integration [49]. The integration was found in Morita’s argument for the firsttime in Japan.
Bunriha’s theory is not necessarily significant today, but their opinions and theiradversary’s opinions led the Japanese popular views of architecture and the contour of theAMANAI Daiki

246

concept of art, in respect of the development of their dispute after Bunriha’s founding on
general journalism beyond the architectural journals. The examination of the later dispute isanother theme. This paper points out the conceptual framework that fettered the discussion in
Japanese architectural circle through to Bunriha’s founding and the historical significance of
Bunriha that also presented a viewpoint to overcome the framework.

Notes[ ] of the quotations indicates the addition or the omission by the quoter.
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

Bunriha Kenchiku Kai (indicated below as Bunriha) published three catalogues by themselves,
titled Bunriha Kenchiku Kai no Sengen to Sakuhin [The Declaration and Works of Secessionist
Architectural Group] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1920) or Bunriha Kenchiku Kai no Sakuhin[Collected Works of Secessionist Architectural Group] (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1921/1924). The
catalogues contained the members’ drawings, photographs of their scale model and their articles.
Later they annually published similar presentations on commercial magazines until 1928 andthen suspended their activity. In this paper we discuss only the writings in 1920 and indicate
their catalogues as Collected Works. Their declaration collected in the beginning of the “Collected
Works” was as follows: “We rise. / In order to break away from the realm of the past architecture
and to create a realm of the new architecture where all of them are given genuine significance. /We rise. / In order to awaken all that are asleep in the realm of the past architecture and torescue all that are drowning. / We rise. / In order to attain this ideal, we dedicate the whole ofourselves in a state of a joy till we collapse; we are even ready to face death. / In unison, we
declare this to the world.” cf. Jonathan M. Reynolds, Maekawa Kunio and the Emergence of JapaneseModernist Architecture, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 2001,
pp.21-23.
Hasegawa Takashi, ‘ Nihon no Hyogenha [Japanese Expressionists]’, in: Shinden ka Gokusya ka[Shrine or Prison], Tokyo: Sagami Shobo, 1972, pp.1-115; Miyauchi Yasushi, ‘ Fasizumu to Kukan[Fascism and Space]’, in: Dojidai Kenchiku Kenkyu Kai [Society for the Study of Contemporary
Architecture] ed. Hikigeki: 1930 Nendai no Kenchiku to Bunka [A Tragicomedy: Architecture andCulture in 1930s], Tokyo: Gendai Kikaku Shitsu, 1981, pp.28-32. The latter text depicts thecontrast between 1920s and 1930s and its import coincides with Hasegawa’s schema of Meiji andTaisho.
Honda Shoichi, Kindai Nihon Kenchiku Undo Shi [History of Architectural Movements in Modern
Japan], Tokyo: Domesu Shuppan, 2004, p.22. More classic reference is Nishiyama Uzo, ‘ Kenchiku
Undo ni Tsuite [On Architectural Movements]’, in: Nishiyama Uzo Chosakushu 4: Kenchikuron[Writings of Nishiyama Uzo 4: Essays on Architecture], Tokyo: Keiso Shobo, 1969, pp.456-7. Bothtook a standpoint considering social movements and class strife as important.
Kawai Kozo, ‘ Bijutsu no Setsu [On Art]’, in: Kenchiku Zassi [The Architectural Magazine; Now
publishing as Journal of Architecture and Building Science], v.9, no.9, 1888.9, pp.152-3. His
dichotomy was “Butsuri / Bijutsu [Physics / Art]”.
Tatsuno Kingo, ‘ Kaikai no Ji, Fu Shokan [The Opening Address with My Opinions]’, in: Kenchiku
Zassi, No.331, 1914.7, p.3.
Okada Shin’ichiro, ‘Shin Kenchiku no Igi [The Significance of New Architecture]’, op.cit., p.10.
Kuroda Hoshin, ‘ Kenchiku Hihyo no Hyojun [Valuation Bases of Architectural Criticism]’, in:
Kenchiku Zassi, No.293, 1911.5, pp.3-8.
On the valuation bases by Vitruvius, See De architectura libri decem, I,3.2. Morita Keiichi was atranslator of this book [Witoruwiusu Kenchiku Sho, Tokyo: Seikatsusya, 1943].

The Founding of Bunriha Kenchiku Kai

247

Taki Ichiro, ‘Hikaku to Ruikei: Otsuka Yasuji no Bigaku [Comparison and Type: Aesthetics ofOtsuka Yasuji]’, in: Sasaki Ken’ichi ed. Nihon no Kindai Bigaku (Meiji/Taisho Ki) [Modern Aesthetics
in Japan (Meiji and Taisho Period)], Tokyo: Report of Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research, 2004.3,
p.158, n.15; Fujioka Hiroyasu, ‘ Senzen no Kenchiku Hyoronka no Kenchiku Kan’, in: 10+1,
Tokyo: INAX Shuppan, No.20, 2000.6, p.80. We can find Otsuka’s trichotomy of architecture as“purpose/material/taste”, for example ‘ Nihon Kenchiku no Shorai [The future of JapaneseArchitecture]’, in: Teikoku Bungaku [Imperial Literature], Tokyo: Teikoku Bungaku Kai, No.176,
1909, pp.1-18.
[10] Kuroda Hoshin, ‘ Kyogi Kenchiku to Shin Zen Bi [False Architecture and Truth, Goodness andBeauty]’, in: Kenchiku Gaho [Illustrated Architecture], Tokyo: Kenchiku Gaho Sha, v.7, n.10,
1916.10, pp9-10.
[11] Later an architect and critic Nakamura Mamoru argued architecture from four viewpoints:“use/structure/economy/beauty”, but this argument did not also expand afterwards. Nakamura
Mamoru ‘“Kenchiku no Genri” no Soan [A Draft for “Principles of Architecture”]’, in: Nakamura
Otowa ed. Nakamura Mamoru Iko [Posthumous Works of Nakamura Mamoru], private edition,
1936, esp. pp.20-21.
[12] Sano Toshikata, ‘ Tsuiso [Memoir]’, in: Sano Hakushi Tsuisou Roku [Documents of Doctor Sano],
private edition, 1957, p.6.
[13] op.cit., p.14.
[14] Sano, ‘ Kenchikuka no Kakugo [Resolution of Architects]’, in: Kenchiku Zasshi, No.295, 1911.7, p.5.
[15] Introduction by Uchida Yoshikazu, Kenchiku Zasshi, No.346, 1915.10, p.28; Noda Toshihiko,‘ Kenchiku Hi Geijutsu Ron’, op.cit., p.31.
[16] Idem.
[17] The corresponding relations can be observed between: the “Truth” that constituted thearchitecture and the construction drawing without ornaments nor finishing, the “Goodness” andthe ground/floor plan that indicated the functions and arrangements of each room with theconsideration to the activities planned to happen inside, and the “Beauty” and the elevation viewthat shows the exterior, especially the façades, with the consideration to ornaments andproportions.
[18] Noda, p.31.
[19] Noda attached katakana indicating the English pronunciations alongside the Japanese title, but
we cannot identify what English or Japanese edition he referred.
[20] Noda, p.30.
[21] Noda did not reveal any nationalism similar to Sano at least until 1917: “Although we are afraidof our culture being destroyed by the Western cultures, have our beautiful remains never been
influenced by other peoples until today? [...] If they were destroyed by the Western cultures,
there would be worthless to bequeath in any case”. Noda Toshihiko, ‘ Iwayuru Nihon Shumi wo
Nanzu [Criticism for So-called Japanese Taste]’, in: Kenchiku Gaho, v.21, n.4, 1930.4, p.20 [special
issue: Posthumous Works of Noda Toshihiko, originally published in Kenchiku Zasshi, 1917.11].
[22] Noda, ‘ Kenchiku Hi Geijutsu Ron’, p.33.
[23] Noda, p.34.
[24] Idem.
[25] Noda, pp.34-6.
[26] Noda, p.40.
[27] Introduction by Uchida, op.cit., p.28.
[28] Hasegawa, p.30.
[29] Goto Keiji, ‘Kako tomo Shorai tomo Tsukanu Taiwa [Dialogue neither in the Past nor in the
Future]’, Nakamura Mamoru ed., Goto Keiji Shi Iko [Posthumous Works of Mr. Goto Keiji], private
edition, 1925, 116-7. Originally published in Kenchiku [The Architecture], Osaka: Rowakai,
[9]

248

[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]

[37]

[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]

[43]

[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]

AMANAI Daiki

No.200, 1916.7.
Goto, pp.116-7.
Goto, p.118.
Yanagi Muneyoshi, ‘ Kakumei no Gaka [Painters in a revolution]’, Shirakaba [White Birch], Tokyo:
Rakuyodo, v.3, n.1, 1912.1, p.4.
Goto, ‘ Misukiato Kenchiku Hi Geijutsu Ron [Miscellany: Theory of Inartistic Architecture]’, in: Iko,
p.104. Originally published in Kenchiku No.196, 1916.4.
Noda, a letter to Ogura Tsuyoshi, 1915.7.2., Kenchiku Gaho, v.21, n.4, pp.113-4.
Goto, ‘ Misukiato (Kanso) [Miscellany: Impressions]’, in: Kenchiku Gaho, v.6, n.7, 1916.4, p.4.
It is noteworthy that this tendency occurred before the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923. Sanobegan to seek seismic standards since the Nobi Earthquake of 1891 and the San Francisco
Earthquake of 1906. He published his doctoral dissertation “Kaoku Taishin Kozo Ron[Earthquake-Resistant Structure of Houses]” in the same year where Noda published ‘ Theory of
Inartistic Architecture’. cf. Fujimori Terunobu, Nihon no Kindai Kenchiku Ge [Modern Architecture
in Japan, The Second Volume], Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1993, p.127.
Noda Toshihiko ‘ Kenchiku Hi Geijutsu Ron [Theory of Inartistic Architecture]’. Kenchiku Gaho,
v.21, n.4, pp.44-50. The title was the same as his debut article in 1915 but originally published asa report of a mixer in his alumni association Todai Mokuyo Kai in October 1922. Although he wasaware of the divergence between the title of his lecture and his own assertion (p.45), he
concluded again that architecture was not art (p.50).
In 1920, six commercial magazines of architecture were being issued; however, of the five thatwere launched in the prior four years, the two were already discontinued in three years.
Horiguchi Sutemi, ‘ Kenchiku ni Taisuru Watashi no Taido to Kanso [My Attitude andImpressions toward Architecture]’, in: Collected Works, p.4.
Nagayo Yoshiro, ‘ Geijutsuka no Shoshin [Timorousness of Artist]’, Shirakaba, v.4 n.7, 1913.7,
p.174.
Horiguchi, p.12.
On “Taisho Life-centrism”, Suzuki Sadami, “‘ Seimei’ de Yomu Nihon Kindai [Reading Modern
Japan by ‘Life’]”, Tokyo: NHK Books, 1996. Suzuki use this term instead of “Vitalism”, the term
he once used. Japan Review, No. 5, 1994, p.131ff. A blacketed term “personalism” was used in
Nagai Takanori, ‘1930nendai Nihon no Sezannu Juyo: “Jinkaku” kara “Zokei” e [Acceptance of
Cézanne in 1930s Japan: From “Person” to “the Plastic”]’, in: The Japanese Society for Aesthetics
ed. Bigaku Geijutsugaku no Konnichiteki Kadai [The Present Problem of Aesthetics and Sciences ofArt], 1999.3, esp. pp.17-9. About before 1920, idem., ‘ 1910-20nendai Kyoto no Bijutsu Hihyo to
Geijutsu Ron [Art Criticism and Art Theory in 1910-20s Kyoto]’, Iwaki Ken’ichi ed. Geijutsu / Katto
no Genba: Kindai Nihon Geijutsu Shiso no Kontekusuto [Art: The Scene of Conflicts, The Context ofThought of Art in Modern Japan], Kyoto: Koyo Shobo, 2002, pp.103-18.
AEG Turbine Factory was completed in 1909 by Behrens and consequently it was featured in theJapanese magazines. Morita’s understanding of “Kozoha” inherited the lectures by Ito Chuta.
Yoshida Hirohiko, ‘ Bunriha no Hataage no Koro [When Bunriha Started]’, in: Kenchiku Bunka[Architectural Cuture], n.73, 1952.9, p.30.
Morita Keiichi, ‘ Kozoha ni Tsuite [On Structure-Advocates]’, in: Collected Works, p.35.
Morita, p.34.
Idem.
Morita, p.35.
Idem., sic.
Goto, ‘ Misukiato (Kanso)’, p.5.