Hiroshige's Woodblock Print of a Sudden Shower over Ohashi and Atake, from the series One Hundred Famous Views of Edo
The ideals and concepts of Chinese art today rely on the foundation of the country’s rich history and more importantly on two early artists, Hokusai and Hiroshige. Each of these artists has a different perspective in the way they view art and its design. Hiroshige views art as a replica of the environs that surround an individual. For Hiroshige, art should be a virtual display of our surroundings, and it should capture in detail every aspect that comprises of the environment. In order to translate the feeling of reality resorts to employing different colors in his artwork. Hokusai on the other hand views it more vital for an artist to focus on the form of the art. He believes in using decisively organized components in distinct forms.
Hiroshige’s ideologies of traditional Chinese are not according to the sketches he refers to as unique. The Chinese tradition inscribe an image should replicate a landscape as a whole not a detailed location. The Chinese traditional notion also disagrees to replicating the form by adding style and meaning. His style detaches from the old Chinese ideals. The three instances that Hiroshige employs the disassociation are; the prologue to A Hundred Views of Mount Fuji, his prints represent an actual way and many of his landscapes are divulge a reality that seems altered and by adding style and meaning through practice utilization of the full perspective of the woodcut standard.
However, Hokusai is a conservative his art adheres to Chinese tradition he believes in the notion that when replicating forms it is important represent the image as it was originally. Hokusai’s strong point lies in his belief to have decisively organized components in distinct forms. Three instances showing Hokusai argument are the prologue of Hiroshige condemning him as acquiescent to Chinese tradition, the Chinese notion that disagrees with Hiroshige’s approach and Hiroshige’s use exploitation of the woodcut standard.
Clearly, Hiroshige and Hokusai disagree in their style of art. Hiroshige views Hokusai as an individual who is adamant to change and a slave to traditions. On the other hand, the critics that came from traditionalists such the samurai intellectuals strengthened Hokusai opposing views of Hiroshige’s art. The traditionalists were discontent with the encroachment of a money economy that would clearly overstep the ancient organizational structure. A money economy would bring forth free will and result to equal distribution of money, which will transfer the influence of people in one class to the rest in society.
Hiroshige’s argument is about change he writes, “everything lacking in taste and grace must be omitted” (Forrer, 1997). Therefore explaining why he emphasizes on adding personal style to his work. He describes painting as replicating the form of things by adding style meaning. His description is in collision to the Chinese traditional notion and Hokusai’s argument. The authors have provided enough evidence to distinguish the way in which the two authors place their thoughts and views.
Hiroshige’s paintings transcended anyone viewing them into direct contact with nature. In addition, to the romantic appreciation from his paintings it proves the way he rose above perkiness and depravity of his era. The ability of Hiroshige to transform nature into a painting is the reason for his affinity and popularity in the west. However, the authors are quick to establish that in the nineteenth century Hokusai’s work gained more popularity than Hiroshige’s work but both artists got appreciation for their composition, leaving nothing to the imagination skills, line and color. After the nineteenth century, a generation of the spiritual and romantic seekers became accustomed to Hiroshige’s work. I think that both authors have put more emphasis on Hiroshige’s work. The evidence provided by the authors is majored more on Hiroshige and very few details are provided for Hokusai’s work.
An example of the evidence provided was that of Noguchi when he decided to visit the Sumida River. He witnessed the view of the cherry blossoms at Mujokima and made a discovery that the view was a replica of Hiroshige’s painting (Forrer, 1997). However, I agree with the conclusions drawn by both writers despite Hokusai’s work lacking in the kind of waywardness Hiroshige possessed it was still innovative. The only contradiction between the two authors is both their ability to disassociate and associate respectively to Chinese tradition. The difference however does not reflect on their paintings they have both played a significant role in exposing the Japanese art to the western part of the world.
References
Matthi Forrer. Hiroshige: Prints and Drawings Munich, New York: Prestel, and London: Royal Academy of Arts, 1997, Cat.No.95.
