In In Praise of Shadows, Jun’ichiro Tanizaki highlights fundamental differences between Western and Asian cultures. He makes his argument by indicating some of the major differences in architectural thought, and the perceptions both cultures have when it comes to items of utility such as paper. As the article progresses it becomes extremely evident how different Western thought is from Japanese or Chinese thought. There is an obvious care for precision and detail with everything Asian culture does; from their take on architecture, as Tanizaki explains as making a trip to the bathroom an enjoyable experience, all the way to considering which type of paper exudes the warmest and most pleasurable ascetics. I personally have a large amount of respect for how much thought and consideration Japanese culture puts into making their simple day to day routines and experiences beautiful-- In contrast to how greatly Americans pride themselves on utility and functionality, or simply getting the job done as quickly as possible. Tanizaki does an excellent job at explicitly pulling out how differently the two cultures approach life at large and then how these differences materialize in the day to day interactions had in one’s house, or performing a basic human function like going to the bathroom. It was highly enjoyable to read why attention to detail makes all the difference to finding superior levels of beauty in seemingly ‘uncommon’ places.
Tanizaki philosophizes about sensations produced by situations and things informed by a dying sense of Japanese aesthetics. Tanizaki obsessively articulates the importance of simplicity, order, and darkness as qualities to be pursued, however, “In Praise of Shadows” is less concerned with objects themselves, as carriers of traits, or mere forms of equipment, but focuses on how the things in a space create an environment. His ideas on beauty are particularly informed by the weathered, used, quality of time within objects, austere, cold materials like ceramic, and the notion that simplicity and quiet within dwelling places is key towards a connection with nature; for Tanizaki, the qualities of things associated to darkness allow for an intellectual connection with objects. The concept of the shadow acts as a symbol for Tanizaki’s ideal aesthetic. In this work, the shadow is of interest because it is the consequence of other things. He writes, “we find beauty not in the thing itself but in the patterns of the shadows, the light and the darkness, that one thing against another creates” (30). Tanizaki also struggles with Western aesthetic influence as an encroachment to the Japanese lifestyle, and the shadow metaphorically speaks for the effect of West upon the East. The change upon the development of objects in Japan due to the influence of another culture becomes problematic. For Tanizaki, the Western influence of things such as film, pen, bright lights, and even science, yields the dilemma of the outsider, and he feels as if his culture becomes defined by what it is not. This adaptation becomes an attempt to wear an ill fitted suit. I think his fixation on darkness and shadows is not only because of its connection to pre-Western aesthetics, but also his attempt to grasp onto a fading sense of cultural independence.
When I first began to read In Praise of Shadows, I wasn’t certain I understood the topic and how it related to objects. As I read further, it became clear to me that Tanizaki cared dearly for Japanese style and the effects it had on Japanese life, architecture, and of course objects. It also became clear that western and eastern room styles are vastly different and will never be mistaken for one another. The cultural differences within the two realms shape what is desirable to have in your home and what is not. Tanizaki relates his own personal story of building a home, and his struggle to reconcile the modern facilities of the west and the near and dear Japanese aesthetics he wanted to surround himself with. Tanizaki reveals his major success in building his home, the kitchen. His definition of a success is that it is “authentic” to the Japanese aesthetic, not what a success may to be the west. Lastly, Tanizaki addresses why he wrote In Praise of Shadows, it is a thing to hold a memory of a time that is almost gone. Japan has chosen to “follow the west”, and Tanizaki wanted to leave proof that there was once something different, and maybe even better in Japan.
In "In Praise of Shadows," Tanezaki discusses his love and fascination with Japanese rooms and the issue with modernity in terms of esthetic quality. Perhaps the funniest part of the piece is when he talks about Japanese bathrooms. He paints this beautiful picture of what anyone with bathroom anxiety would consider an absolute oasis. But with the beauty that comes with the old comes the reason why they changed in the first place. In the instance of the bathroom it is the lack of genuine care for those few tranquil moments where instead we just need to "piss and get off the pot." And there is also the need for at the very least the appearance of cleanliness. The mostly wood rooms are harder to sustain because no matter how hard you scrub wood will inevitably look dirty depending on the shade and in a bathroom you definitely want a lighter colored wood. What the author is really talking about is the care and the love that appears to go into every Japanese structure for of any kind of enjoyment. Even the calming effect of the shoji lanterns involve thought and consideration. Everywhere you spend time should add something to your state of being. The places we remember most are the places where for some reason or another you felt the most at ease. Feeling cared for in a space is something that we take for granted every day unless you have the time and the money, like the author did, to invest in your surroundings.
In In Praise of Shadows, Tanizaki reminisces about traditional Japanese culture, and clings to a style that reflected traditional Japanese ideals. Before Japan became obsessed with American culture and design, it had a unique style that was entirely its own because the Japanese were unaware of the trends occurring elsewhere. Tanizaki poetically describes the importance of shadows that used to define a Japanese atmosphere. When bright flooding lights that were typical in Western buildings and homes started appearing in Japan the shadows that Tanizaki describe as mysterious and beautiful were no longer there, and the intimate details of rooms, streets, and people were revealed. The adoption of Western style of design ultimately changed Japanese society.
A culture that once valued simplicity and subtlety now began to reflect Western characteristics of excessiveness. Tanizaki is writing to remind people of a Japanese culture that was untainted by outside trends. However, while he continuously points out the superiority of old Japanese design, he is also realistic about the change of style imitating the change of ideals and culture in Japan. Therefore, while he recognizes the beauty of traditional Japanese fashions, he does not anticipate or actively attempt a change.
I enjoyed the structure of Tanizaki's essay. It was not linear in structure and did not include a nice, tidy conclusion. It did not attempt to solve the problem. Rather than a linear series of arguments, much like how western writers structure their essays, it read as a collection of musings. Tanizaki would leave a particular subject but then several pages later return to it if something he wrote reminded him of a previous point. The writing seemed very fluid and organic, which I personally prefer to more structured essays which follow a specific formula.
This essay focuses on western influence in the east--globalization and the adoption of the many conveniences created in the west. Japanese culture seems to be receding into the past. The Japanese "environment"--for Tanizaki pays close attention to the environment objects create, such as a wooden toilet versus a porcelain toilet--was also receding and transforming into a more western environment. What implications does this have on Japanese culture for ones surroundings are not simply objects which do not influence oneself. The external informs the internal in many ways--I think this is his central question and what he pondered upon throughout the essay--and he doesn't come to a definite conclusion.
Tanizaki meticulously recounts the intricate details involved in traditional Japanese architecture. He explains the calming and organic intent behind objects found in Japanese household, where they are not preoccupied with novelties that instantly gratify or immediately catch the eye. Instead, traditional Japanese architecture embodies an appreciation for natural beauty seen only with careful consideration of every element and learns to think about the object not only in its entirety but also as an object capable of lighting rooms and imitating shadows. He emphasizes the humble Japanese disposition towards seeking satisfaction in any and every environment one finds him or herself in. While the Westerner is concerned with the objects ability to function and its aesthetic variations, the Japanese contently pursue the beauty that already exists (31).
Traditional values of Japanese culture are reflected in each object. Tanizaki’s insight on human progression is stated on page 39: “Never has there been an age that people have been satisfied with.” He defines modern culture as one that indulges only the youth, further dividing them from their elders and this is where Western culture differs from the traditional Japanese culture. The acceptance of suffering as part of the human condition is portrayed in their perspective of objects. The Japanese “national character” is successfully portrayed through the Japanese art of lighting and searching for natural beauty (11).
Unfortunately, the Japanese eventually imitate the West and the traditional Japanese art is lost through time. It is interesting to consider the origins of the western “taste” and the Japanese “taste,” and whether they are reflections of a national character, or a character at all. If the Japanese reflect not only on an object itself but also the objects surroundings we are forced to recognizing the distinct philosophies. One more focused on the present and one focused on the immediate. Tanizaki beautifully describes the traditional world of Japanese architecture as a distant memory inevitably altered over time.
Tanizaki rejects the Westernization of the Japanese toilet. Anyone who has visited Japan in the last 30 years can attest that as a country, they possess the most technologically advanced toilets on the planet. What is interesting about Tanizaki’s attachment to the ‘classical’ models is that is frames the loss of tradition in aesthetic terms, rather than political or social ones. What is ‘definitively Japanese’ about the Japanese landscape is being supplanted by Western convenience and advancement. The glare of the fluorescent lights signals the destruction of beauty. As was evidenced from The Hare with Amber Eyes, an object’s aura (ala Benjamin) was a product of its historical tradition, growing from de Waal’s life in relation to that of his ancestors. Tanizaki, similarly, sees the aura of the classic Japanese toilet – but only on the verge of its disappearance from the culture, when it is to become no more than a cult object. In both these readings, there appears to be a historical-cultural condition for appreciation of the object, but what does it say about any object when it’s owner only becomes aware of it’s value when it is being supplanted? Tanizaki is only able to see the beauty of the Japanese aesthetic in light of it’s Westernization; that is, at the end of it’s dominance. Does any object (particularly one that places an aesthetic value over a ‘functional’ one) have a future, once detached from the traditions and cultural milieu that placed it?
Junichiro Tanizaki voices his opinion in "In Praise of Shadows" regarding the change in Japanese culture. He begins his literary piece somewhat light hearted and descriptive as he discusses objects, such as toilets and silverware. He emphasizes the importance of allowing shadows to display each objects beauty while keeping some aspects mysterious. Later on, he brings up the tension that is between Western cuture and Japanese culture. While both are extremely different, Japan is slowly imitating Western lifestyle.
Tanizaki's language and tone throughout the essay allows readers to see how beautiful objects are by itself. An enormous amount of light takes away from the beauty by taking away the mystery as well as discovering all of its flaws. When relating shadows in terms of Japense women's beauty, he stated how they would only show their arms and face. Therefore, all of the focus was placed on the beauty of their face rather than the lack of curves on her body. The essay emphasizes the beauty in shadows instead of light in addition to keeping culture traditional rather than modernized.
I enjoyed reading In Praise of Shadows by Tanizaki. It made me think to look for the shadows and to realize that we often only notice what is lit. He definitely brought my attention to the brightness of Western culture. Although I did think he made some rather general sweeping statements about what Western people find aesthetically pleasing that were off-putting to me. But that said, much of what he said is self evident and true. There is definitely a difference between Asian culture and Western aesthetics that also reflect different mindsets. He mentions that in Asian culture they accept the shadows and dimly lit spaces whereas in the West we try desperately to eradicate all darkness. It is a different mindset, one in which the mysterious is celebrated and enjoyed. Even in the case of objects, "Westerners attempt to expose every speck of grime and eradicate it, while we Orientals carefully preserve and even idealize it" (11). I personally relate and believe that objects become more beautiful when they lose their luster and acquire some wear. From buildings to objects to cooking to women's bodies Tanizaki gives a thorough depiction of the role of darkness in Oriental culture and the lack of it in Western culture. I thought it was particularly interesting that he mentioned the way in which women would be fully dressed and that would be attractive because they were in shadow. Shadows blur fantasy with reality and add a whole dimension to life that Tanizaki is sad to see go unappreciated in the West and is perhaps afraid will be lost as Western influence spreads across the world. If there is one thing I have taken away from this piece it is to appreciate the shadows and the calm, cool mystery that they provide.
"In Praise of Shadows", especially illuminated through the viewing of "Late Spring", documents (though very much a reactionary one) a post-war Japanese culture in a midst of transformation. Tanizaki's describes traditional Japanese aesthetics with such precision and poetry, mostly in the context of architecture, though he does touch upon clothing, theatre, and human beauty. Though his nostalgia is bit overwhelming at times, his constant comparison of Western and Far-Eastern culture does constantly reminds us what is at stake (for Tanizaki) in ruminating on everyday aesthetics: "But we must be resigned to the fact that as long as our skin is the color it is the loss we have suffered cannot be remedied. I have written all this because I have thought that there might still be somewhere, possibly in literature or the arts, where something could be saved." (42) What is lost within Japanese life is not only the aesthetics or sense of beauty, but rather a larger set of things (material & immaterial) due to post-war and post-colonial trauma in conjunction with rapid modernization. It seems from the film and Tanizaki’s essay that these larger historical shifts are seems rather acute and rarely are ever explicitly mentioned and discussed, but that seems to serve an interesting function in these two pieces. Tanizaki’s detailed discussion of aesthetics and Ozu’s focus on everyday practices are not an avoidances of these discussions but a demonstration on how historical trauma and anxieties make themselves most visible in everyday objects and life (things that are generally thought of as frivolous in relations to “Life” with a capital L). Obviously the notion that aesthetics and objects (especially “dying” ones in a sense of loss) are representational of historical moments is not a new idea, but Tanizaki’s essay is hardly just about this. He is showing that objects (and the mundane structuring and interaction with these objects) are literally part of the process of dealing with the said historical trauma/anxiety and potentially establishing a new life (even if it’s one based on reactionary politics ultimately). Finding potential in the “unknown” (the shadows) or invisible or the quiet is an aesthetic philosophy is central to Tanizaki’s envisioned resistance to Westernization of the Japan. In that way, Tanizaki’s seemingly reactionary politics are quite interesting when viewed in that way. His nostalgia is actually honest because he acknowledges that these particular aesthetic views arise from real conditions other than beauty for the beauty’s sake and its almost as if he’s saying “Yes, its all the more beautiful because its dying way of life”. Appreciation of the aesthetics of the invisible, in an increasingly “visible” organization of aesthetics and perception, is strategically very powerful. Kind of like a very round-about anecdote to Foucault. CONTINUE BELOW
The theme of this week’s class a la the syllabus is “Quiet Things.” I feel as if the quietness of the objects is very much about the intense subtlety in which objects (and all things directly related to the objects, ie. Interaction, uses, etc.) convey loss, desire, thoughts, and relationships. I’ll admit that its much more difficult to excavate what precisely Tanizaki is conveying through his objects as he focuses on them in a much more general way. However, its easier to observe this theme in “Late Spring.” Noriko’s intimacy with her father is very much manifested in gendered routines (as well as one based on parent-child relationship) she performs everyday, like giving him towels, hanging up his clothes, cooking. I don’t know if its because my position as primarily a westerner, but its profound how her actions seemed so rigidly structured in the beginning (when one knows nothing about the family or their thoughts, because everyone is so quiet with their thoughts) and it gets immensely complicated as one starts to realize that Noriko performs these task out of her own volition and desire to stay with her father. On a bigger level, she is attempting to maintain a family unity that was lost for her (partially) and man people after WWII. You can see her clearly being angry at her father when she immediately stops being as doting as she was in the beginning, through her routines. What’s interesting is that she rarely expresses herself verbally and her emotional cues are registered by her father through her interactions with the objects in the house. Ultimately though, the objects function in this film as not only establishing intimacy, but remembrance (of a family that they were and should’ve been if it was not for the war). It’s a very subtle, mundane and quiet remembrance through interacting with these objects, particularly oriented around a traditional way of life.
In his essay, In Praise of Shadows, Tanizaki (ironically) brings light to Japanese aesthetics as a conscious (and at times, nostalgic) look at how the country grew to reflect less of it's own traditional design, to a growing trend instead of Western influence.
Albeit his thought process initially comes off as incredibly distracting in it's arrangement, Tanizaki's construction inspires a concentrated assessment for the details of why the Japanese designed with a thoughtful inclusion of nature. For instance, he examines the novel attributes of the traditional Japanese toilet structure created as an extension of the outside environment.
It's intriguing to see through his eyes and feel his affinity for Japanese culture as Tanizaki transitions adventurously in and out of time and space. For this purpose, his usage of shadows is an incredible utility that demands conscious consideration for how we ascribe meaning to a given lifestyle.
Junichiro Tanizaki’s In Praise of Shadows is a treatise on the placement of objects in the Japanese home as it stands in the dualistic climate of integrating modernization and steadfast traditional values. The author surveys a wide range of objects arrayed in both public and private spaces - objects defined by, and defining, a room and the manner of its use. One of these narrations seems especially interesting, possibly because of the foreign nature of its characterization. Tanizaki begins this vignette, “Every time I am shown to an old, dimly lit, and, I would add, impeccably clean toilet in a Nara or Kyoto temple, I am impressed with the singular virtues of Japanese architecture. The parlor may have its charms, but the Japanese toilet truly is a place of spiritual repose,” (3). What exactly is it about the architecture of the bathroom that makes it more charming than the foyer? Tanizaki writes, “Our forebears, making poetry of everything in their lives, transformed what by rights should be the most unsanitary room in the house into a place of unsurpassed elegance, replete with fond associations with the beauties of nature,” (4). It is, “...[T]here one can listen with such a sense of intimacy to the raindrops falling,” (4). However, the narrator says that there are certain “prerequisites” to the enjoyment of the bathroom: “...[A] degree of dimness, absolute cleanliness, and quiet so complete,” (4). And there are downsides. The author writes that the toilet is, “...[A] bit inconvenient to get to in the middle of the night, set apart from the main building as it is; and in winter there is always a danger that one might catch cold,” (4-5). Further, “...[I]n an ordinary household it is no easy task to keep it clean. No matter how fastidious one may be or how diligently one may scrub, dirt will show,” (5).
The narrator then names the key differences between Eastern and Western toilets, saying, “...[I]t turns out to be more hygienic and efficient to install modern sanitary facilities - tile and a flush toilet... destroying all affinity with ‘good taste’ and the ‘beauties of nature.’ That burst of light from those four white walls... There is no denying the cleanliness; every nook and corner is pure white. Yet what need is there to remind us so forcefully of the issue of our own bodies. A beautiful woman, no matter how lovely her skin, would be considered indecent were she to show her bare buttocks or feet in the presence of others; and how very crude and tasteless to expose the toilet to such excessive illumination. The cleanliness of what can be seen only calls up the more clearly thoughts of what cannot be seen. In such places the distinction between the clean and the unclean is best left obscure, shrouded in a dusky haze,” (5).
The significance of these dichotomous architectural traits of the Japanese bathroom are intrinsically tied to the object around which the room is built: the toilet. The bathroom was constructed to be kept dim, clean and quiet because the toilet demanded this. So what can be discerned about the role of this object in family life based on its influence over its environment? The narrator defends the dimly lit bathroom by juxtaposing it with his Western negative - a glaring hotel hotbox that reveals every nook and cranny of the naked body as it is bent over the toilet - a self observing its own nakedness and own discretion. He compares this serious indecency to a woman showing her rear-end to strangers. This whitewash also reveals the apparent cleanliness of the bathroom, thus provoking one to wonder what unseen filth may be lurking. In a room with a toilet, the narrator seems to imply, it is better to obscure the line between cleanliness and filth. He additionally glorifies silence in this space, in order to procure a sense of intimacy; both with the self and the surrounding nature. Thus the toilet calls for a convening room that visually obscures the act of its use and the subsequent nakedness of its user; masks the end-point of clean space and eliminates the conception of the unclean; is marked by silence, intimacy and surrounded by nature. The bathroom is no longer marked by a feeling of impurity. It is a relaxing pleasure-space where man meets mother nature, and she reassures him saying: “Everybody poops.” This room is why, “The novelist Natsume Soseki counted his morning trips to the toilet a great pleasure, ‘a physiological delight’ he called it,” (4).
However, this intimate room is not so intimately joined to the rest of the house, “It always stands apart from the main building, at the end of a corridor,” (3). The narrator notes how inconvenient it is to go there during the night, and how cold it can be in winter. These factors are still endurable enough for a household to refrain from moving the bathroom further into their family space. Why would this be if the little room was always so inviting? The narrator notes how difficult it is for a family to keep the toilet-space clean, adding, “dirt will show.” This filth connotes a duality in the Japanese family’s relationship to the bathroom object: one of pleasure and of guilt. The form and purpose of the toilet then informs the atmosphere and location of the bathroom - made for, and made by, the relationship between object and person.
15 comments:
In In Praise of Shadows, Jun’ichiro Tanizaki highlights fundamental differences between Western and Asian cultures. He makes his argument by indicating some of the major differences in architectural thought, and the perceptions both cultures have when it comes to items of utility such as paper. As the article progresses it becomes extremely evident how different Western thought is from Japanese or Chinese thought. There is an obvious care for precision and detail with everything Asian culture does; from their take on architecture, as Tanizaki explains as making a trip to the bathroom an enjoyable experience, all the way to considering which type of paper exudes the warmest and most pleasurable ascetics.
I personally have a large amount of respect for how much thought and consideration Japanese culture puts into making their simple day to day routines and experiences beautiful-- In contrast to how greatly Americans pride themselves on utility and functionality, or simply getting the job done as quickly as possible. Tanizaki does an excellent job at explicitly pulling out how differently the two cultures approach life at large and then how these differences materialize in the day to day interactions had in one’s house, or performing a basic human function like going to the bathroom. It was highly enjoyable to read why attention to detail makes all the difference to finding superior levels of beauty in seemingly ‘uncommon’ places.
Tanizaki philosophizes about sensations produced by situations and things informed by a dying sense of Japanese aesthetics. Tanizaki obsessively articulates the importance of simplicity, order, and darkness as qualities to be pursued, however, “In Praise of Shadows” is less concerned with objects themselves, as carriers of traits, or mere forms of equipment, but focuses on how the things in a space create an environment. His ideas on beauty are particularly informed by the weathered, used, quality of time within objects, austere, cold materials like ceramic, and the notion that simplicity and quiet within dwelling places is key towards a connection with nature; for Tanizaki, the qualities of things associated to darkness allow for an intellectual connection with objects.
The concept of the shadow acts as a symbol for Tanizaki’s ideal aesthetic. In this work, the shadow is of interest because it is the consequence of other things. He writes, “we find beauty not in the thing itself but in the patterns of the shadows, the light and the darkness, that one thing against another creates” (30). Tanizaki also struggles with Western aesthetic influence as an encroachment to the Japanese lifestyle, and the shadow metaphorically speaks for the effect of West upon the East. The change upon the development of objects in Japan due to the influence of another culture becomes problematic. For Tanizaki, the Western influence of things such as film, pen, bright lights, and even science, yields the dilemma of the outsider, and he feels as if his culture becomes defined by what it is not. This adaptation becomes an attempt to wear an ill fitted suit. I think his fixation on darkness and shadows is not only because of its connection to pre-Western aesthetics, but also his attempt to grasp onto a fading sense of cultural independence.
When I first began to read In Praise of Shadows, I wasn’t certain I understood the topic and how it related to objects. As I read further, it became clear to me that Tanizaki cared dearly for Japanese style and the effects it had on Japanese life, architecture, and of course objects. It also became clear that western and eastern room styles are vastly different and will never be mistaken for one another. The cultural differences within the two realms shape what is desirable to have in your home and what is not.
Tanizaki relates his own personal story of building a home, and his struggle to reconcile the modern facilities of the west and the near and dear Japanese aesthetics he wanted to surround himself with. Tanizaki reveals his major success in building his home, the kitchen. His definition of a success is that it is “authentic” to the Japanese aesthetic, not what a success may to be the west.
Lastly, Tanizaki addresses why he wrote In Praise of Shadows, it is a thing to hold a memory of a time that is almost gone. Japan has chosen to “follow the west”, and Tanizaki wanted to leave proof that there was once something different, and maybe even better in Japan.
In "In Praise of Shadows," Tanezaki discusses his love and fascination with Japanese rooms and the issue with modernity in terms of esthetic quality. Perhaps the funniest part of the piece is when he talks about Japanese bathrooms. He paints this beautiful picture of what anyone with bathroom anxiety would consider an absolute oasis. But with the beauty that comes with the old comes the reason why they changed in the first place. In the instance of the bathroom it is the lack of genuine care for those few tranquil moments where instead we just need to "piss and get off the pot." And there is also the need for at the very least the appearance of cleanliness. The mostly wood rooms are harder to sustain because no matter how hard you scrub wood will inevitably look dirty depending on the shade and in a bathroom you definitely want a lighter colored wood.
What the author is really talking about is the care and the love that appears to go into every Japanese structure for of any kind of enjoyment. Even the calming effect of the shoji lanterns involve thought and consideration. Everywhere you spend time should add something to your state of being. The places we remember most are the places where for some reason or another you felt the most at ease. Feeling cared for in a space is something that we take for granted every day unless you have the time and the money, like the author did, to invest in your surroundings.
In In Praise of Shadows, Tanizaki reminisces about traditional Japanese culture, and clings to a style that reflected traditional Japanese ideals. Before Japan became obsessed with American culture and design, it had a unique style that was entirely its own because the Japanese were unaware of the trends occurring elsewhere. Tanizaki poetically describes the importance of shadows that used to define a Japanese atmosphere. When bright flooding lights that were typical in Western buildings and homes started appearing in Japan the shadows that Tanizaki describe as mysterious and beautiful were no longer there, and the intimate details of rooms, streets, and people were revealed. The adoption of Western style of design ultimately changed Japanese society.
A culture that once valued simplicity and subtlety now began to reflect Western characteristics of excessiveness. Tanizaki is writing to remind people of a Japanese culture that was untainted by outside trends. However, while he continuously points out the superiority of old Japanese design, he is also realistic about the change of style imitating the change of ideals and culture in Japan. Therefore, while he recognizes the beauty of traditional Japanese fashions, he does not anticipate or actively attempt a change.
I enjoyed the structure of Tanizaki's essay. It was not linear in structure and did not include a nice, tidy conclusion. It did not attempt to solve the problem. Rather than a linear series of arguments, much like how western writers structure their essays, it read as a collection of musings. Tanizaki would leave a particular subject but then several pages later return to it if something he wrote reminded him of a previous point. The writing seemed very fluid and organic, which I personally prefer to more structured essays which follow a specific formula.
This essay focuses on western influence in the east--globalization and the adoption of the many conveniences created in the west. Japanese culture seems to be receding into the past. The Japanese "environment"--for Tanizaki pays close attention to the environment objects create, such as a wooden toilet versus a porcelain toilet--was also receding and transforming into a more western environment. What implications does this have on Japanese culture for ones surroundings are not simply objects which do not influence oneself. The external informs the internal in many ways--I think this is his central question and what he pondered upon throughout the essay--and he doesn't come to a definite conclusion.
Tanizaki meticulously recounts the intricate details involved in traditional Japanese architecture. He explains the calming and organic intent behind objects found in Japanese household, where they are not preoccupied with novelties that instantly gratify or immediately catch the eye. Instead, traditional Japanese architecture embodies an appreciation for natural beauty seen only with careful consideration of every element and learns to think about the object not only in its entirety but also as an object capable of lighting rooms and imitating shadows. He emphasizes the humble Japanese disposition towards seeking satisfaction in any and every environment one finds him or herself in. While the Westerner is concerned with the objects ability to function and its aesthetic variations, the Japanese contently pursue the beauty that already exists (31).
Traditional values of Japanese culture are reflected in each object. Tanizaki’s insight on human progression is stated on page 39: “Never has there been an age that people have been satisfied with.” He defines modern culture as one that indulges only the youth, further dividing them from their elders and this is where Western culture differs from the traditional Japanese culture.
The acceptance of suffering as part of the human condition is portrayed in their perspective of objects. The Japanese “national character” is successfully portrayed through the Japanese art of lighting and searching for natural beauty (11).
Unfortunately, the Japanese eventually imitate the West and the traditional Japanese art is lost through time. It is interesting to consider the origins of the western “taste” and the Japanese “taste,” and whether they are reflections of a national character, or a character at all. If the Japanese reflect not only on an object itself but also the objects surroundings we are forced to recognizing the distinct philosophies. One more focused on the present and one focused on the immediate. Tanizaki beautifully describes the traditional world of Japanese architecture as a distant memory inevitably altered over time.
Tanizaki rejects the Westernization of the Japanese toilet. Anyone who has visited Japan in the last 30 years can attest that as a country, they possess the most technologically advanced toilets on the planet. What is interesting about Tanizaki’s attachment to the ‘classical’ models is that is frames the loss of tradition in aesthetic terms, rather than political or social ones. What is ‘definitively Japanese’ about the Japanese landscape is being supplanted by Western convenience and advancement. The glare of the fluorescent lights signals the destruction of beauty.
As was evidenced from The Hare with Amber Eyes, an object’s aura (ala Benjamin) was a product of its historical tradition, growing from de Waal’s life in relation to that of his ancestors. Tanizaki, similarly, sees the aura of the classic Japanese toilet – but only on the verge of its disappearance from the culture, when it is to become no more than a cult object. In both these readings, there appears to be a historical-cultural condition for appreciation of the object, but what does it say about any object when it’s owner only becomes aware of it’s value when it is being supplanted? Tanizaki is only able to see the beauty of the Japanese aesthetic in light of it’s Westernization; that is, at the end of it’s dominance. Does any object (particularly one that places an aesthetic value over a ‘functional’ one) have a future, once detached from the traditions and cultural milieu that placed it?
Junichiro Tanizaki voices his opinion in "In Praise of Shadows" regarding the change in Japanese culture. He begins his literary piece somewhat light hearted and descriptive as he discusses objects, such as toilets and silverware. He emphasizes the importance of allowing shadows to display each objects beauty while keeping some aspects mysterious. Later on, he brings up the tension that is between Western cuture and Japanese culture. While both are extremely different, Japan is slowly imitating Western lifestyle.
Tanizaki's language and tone throughout the essay allows readers to see how beautiful objects are by itself. An enormous amount of light takes away from the beauty by taking away the mystery as well as discovering all of its flaws. When relating shadows in terms of Japense women's beauty, he stated how they would only show their arms and face. Therefore, all of the focus was placed on the beauty of their face rather than the lack of curves on her body. The essay emphasizes the beauty in shadows instead of light in addition to keeping culture traditional rather than modernized.
I enjoyed reading In Praise of Shadows by Tanizaki. It made me think to look for the shadows and to realize that we often only notice what is lit. He definitely brought my attention to the brightness of Western culture. Although I did think he made some rather general sweeping statements about what Western people find aesthetically pleasing that were off-putting to me. But that said, much of what he said is self evident and true. There is definitely a difference between Asian culture and Western aesthetics that also reflect different mindsets. He mentions that in Asian culture they accept the shadows and dimly lit spaces whereas in the West we try desperately to eradicate all darkness. It is a different mindset, one in which the mysterious is celebrated and enjoyed. Even in the case of objects, "Westerners attempt to expose every speck of grime and eradicate it, while we Orientals carefully preserve and even idealize it" (11). I personally relate and believe that objects become more beautiful when they lose their luster and acquire some wear. From buildings to objects to cooking to women's bodies Tanizaki gives a thorough depiction of the role of darkness in Oriental culture and the lack of it in Western culture. I thought it was particularly interesting that he mentioned the way in which women would be fully dressed and that would be attractive because they were in shadow. Shadows blur fantasy with reality and add a whole dimension to life that Tanizaki is sad to see go unappreciated in the West and is perhaps afraid will be lost as Western influence spreads across the world. If there is one thing I have taken away from this piece it is to appreciate the shadows and the calm, cool mystery that they provide.
"In Praise of Shadows", especially illuminated through the viewing of "Late Spring", documents (though very much a reactionary one) a post-war Japanese culture in a midst of transformation. Tanizaki's describes traditional Japanese aesthetics with such precision and poetry, mostly in the context of architecture, though he does touch upon clothing, theatre, and human beauty. Though his nostalgia is bit overwhelming at times, his constant comparison of Western and Far-Eastern culture does constantly reminds us what is at stake (for Tanizaki) in ruminating on everyday aesthetics: "But we must be resigned to the fact that as long as our skin is the color it is the loss we have suffered cannot be remedied. I have written all this because I have thought that there might still be somewhere, possibly in literature or the arts, where something could be saved." (42) What is lost within Japanese life is not only the aesthetics or sense of beauty, but rather a larger set of things (material & immaterial) due to post-war and post-colonial trauma in conjunction with rapid modernization. It seems from the film and Tanizaki’s essay that these larger historical shifts are seems rather acute and rarely are ever explicitly mentioned and discussed, but that seems to serve an interesting function in these two pieces. Tanizaki’s detailed discussion of aesthetics and Ozu’s focus on everyday practices are not an avoidances of these discussions but a demonstration on how historical trauma and anxieties make themselves most visible in everyday objects and life (things that are generally thought of as frivolous in relations to “Life” with a capital L). Obviously the notion that aesthetics and objects (especially “dying” ones in a sense of loss) are representational of historical moments is not a new idea, but Tanizaki’s essay is hardly just about this. He is showing that objects (and the mundane structuring and interaction with these objects) are literally part of the process of dealing with the said historical trauma/anxiety and potentially establishing a new life (even if it’s one based on reactionary politics ultimately). Finding potential in the “unknown” (the shadows) or invisible or the quiet is an aesthetic philosophy is central to Tanizaki’s envisioned resistance to Westernization of the Japan. In that way, Tanizaki’s seemingly reactionary politics are quite interesting when viewed in that way. His nostalgia is actually honest because he acknowledges that these particular aesthetic views arise from real conditions other than beauty for the beauty’s sake and its almost as if he’s saying “Yes, its all the more beautiful because its dying way of life”. Appreciation of the aesthetics of the invisible, in an increasingly “visible” organization of aesthetics and perception, is strategically very powerful. Kind of like a very round-about anecdote to Foucault.
CONTINUE BELOW
The theme of this week’s class a la the syllabus is “Quiet Things.” I feel as if the quietness of the objects is very much about the intense subtlety in which objects (and all things directly related to the objects, ie. Interaction, uses, etc.) convey loss, desire, thoughts, and relationships. I’ll admit that its much more difficult to excavate what precisely Tanizaki is conveying through his objects as he focuses on them in a much more general way. However, its easier to observe this theme in “Late Spring.” Noriko’s intimacy with her father is very much manifested in gendered routines (as well as one based on parent-child relationship) she performs everyday, like giving him towels, hanging up his clothes, cooking. I don’t know if its because my position as primarily a westerner, but its profound how her actions seemed so rigidly structured in the beginning (when one knows nothing about the family or their thoughts, because everyone is so quiet
with their thoughts) and it gets immensely complicated as one starts to realize that Noriko performs these task out of her own volition and desire to stay with her father. On a bigger level, she is attempting to maintain a family unity that was lost for her (partially) and man people after WWII. You can see her clearly being angry at her father when she immediately stops being as doting as she was in the beginning, through her routines. What’s interesting is that she rarely expresses herself verbally and her emotional cues are registered by her father through her interactions with the objects in the house. Ultimately though, the objects function in this film as not only establishing intimacy, but remembrance (of a family that they were and should’ve been if it was not for the war). It’s a very subtle, mundane and quiet remembrance through interacting with these objects, particularly oriented around a traditional way of life.
In his essay, In Praise of Shadows, Tanizaki (ironically) brings light to Japanese aesthetics as a conscious (and at times, nostalgic) look at how the country grew to reflect less of it's own traditional design, to a growing trend instead of Western influence.
Albeit his thought process initially comes off as incredibly distracting in it's arrangement, Tanizaki's construction inspires a concentrated assessment for the details of why the Japanese designed with a thoughtful inclusion of nature. For instance, he examines the novel attributes of the traditional Japanese toilet structure created as an extension of the outside environment.
It's intriguing to see through his eyes and feel his affinity for Japanese culture as Tanizaki transitions adventurously in and out of time and space. For this purpose, his usage of shadows is an incredible utility that demands conscious consideration for how we ascribe meaning to a given lifestyle.
Kat said:
Junichiro Tanizaki’s In Praise of Shadows is a treatise on the placement of objects in the Japanese home as it stands in the dualistic climate of integrating modernization and steadfast traditional values. The author surveys a wide range of objects arrayed in both public and private spaces - objects defined by, and defining, a room and the manner of its use. One of these narrations seems especially interesting, possibly because of the foreign nature of its characterization. Tanizaki begins this vignette, “Every time I am shown to an old, dimly lit, and, I would add, impeccably clean toilet in a Nara or Kyoto temple, I am impressed with the singular virtues of Japanese architecture. The parlor may have its charms, but the Japanese toilet truly is a place of spiritual repose,” (3). What exactly is it about the architecture of the bathroom that makes it more charming than the foyer? Tanizaki writes, “Our forebears, making poetry of everything in their lives, transformed what by rights should be the most unsanitary room in the house into a place of unsurpassed elegance, replete with fond associations with the beauties of nature,” (4). It is, “...[T]here one can listen with such a sense of intimacy to the raindrops falling,” (4). However, the narrator says that there are certain “prerequisites” to the enjoyment of the bathroom: “...[A] degree of dimness, absolute cleanliness, and quiet so complete,” (4). And there are downsides. The author writes that the toilet is, “...[A] bit inconvenient to get to in the middle of the night, set apart from the main building as it is; and in winter there is always a danger that one might catch cold,” (4-5). Further, “...[I]n an ordinary household it is no easy task to keep it clean. No matter how fastidious one may be or how diligently one may scrub, dirt will show,” (5).
The narrator then names the key differences between Eastern and Western toilets, saying, “...[I]t turns out to be more hygienic and efficient to install modern sanitary facilities - tile and a flush toilet... destroying all affinity with ‘good taste’ and the ‘beauties of nature.’ That burst of light from those four white walls... There is no denying the cleanliness; every nook and corner is pure white. Yet what need is there to remind us so forcefully of the issue of our own bodies. A beautiful woman, no matter how lovely her skin, would be considered indecent were she to show her bare buttocks or feet in the presence of others; and how very crude and tasteless to expose the toilet to such excessive illumination. The cleanliness of what can be seen only calls up the more clearly thoughts of what cannot be seen. In such places the distinction between the clean and the unclean is best left obscure, shrouded in a dusky haze,” (5).
Kat also said:
The significance of these dichotomous architectural traits of the Japanese bathroom are intrinsically tied to the object around which the room is built: the toilet. The bathroom was constructed to be kept dim, clean and quiet because the toilet demanded this. So what can be discerned about the role of this object in family life based on its influence over its environment? The narrator defends the dimly lit bathroom by juxtaposing it with his Western negative - a glaring hotel hotbox that reveals every nook and cranny of the naked body as it is bent over the toilet - a self observing its own nakedness and own discretion. He compares this serious indecency to a woman showing her rear-end to strangers. This whitewash also reveals the apparent cleanliness of the bathroom, thus provoking one to wonder what unseen filth may be lurking. In a room with a toilet, the narrator seems to imply, it is better to obscure the line between cleanliness and filth. He additionally glorifies silence in this space, in order to procure a sense of intimacy; both with the self and the surrounding nature. Thus the toilet calls for a convening room that visually obscures the act of its use and the subsequent nakedness of its user; masks the end-point of clean space and eliminates the conception of the unclean; is marked by silence, intimacy and surrounded by nature. The bathroom is no longer marked by a feeling of impurity. It is a relaxing pleasure-space where man meets mother nature, and she reassures him saying: “Everybody poops.” This room is why, “The novelist Natsume Soseki counted his morning trips to the toilet a great pleasure, ‘a physiological delight’ he called it,” (4).
However, this intimate room is not so intimately joined to the rest of the house, “It always stands apart from the main building, at the end of a corridor,” (3). The narrator notes how inconvenient it is to go there during the night, and how cold it can be in winter. These factors are still endurable enough for a household to refrain from moving the bathroom further into their family space. Why would this be if the little room was always so inviting? The narrator notes how difficult it is for a family to keep the toilet-space clean, adding, “dirt will show.” This filth connotes a duality in the Japanese family’s relationship to the bathroom object: one of pleasure and of guilt. The form and purpose of the toilet then informs the atmosphere and location of the bathroom - made for, and made by, the relationship between object and person.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.