Asian Review of World Histories 2:1 (January 2014), 17-45
© 2014 The Asian Association of World Historians
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12773/arwh.2014.2.1.017
Okakura Kakuzō’s Art History:
Cross-Cultural Encounters, Hegelian Dialectics
and Darwinian Evolution
Masako N. RACEL
Kennesaw State University
Kennesaw, United States
mracel@kennesaw.edu
Abstract
Okakura Kakuzō (1863-1913), the founder of the Japan Art Institute, is best
known for his proclamation, “Asia is One.” This phrase in his book, The Ideals
of the East, and his connections to Bengali revolutionaries resulted in Okakura
being remembered as one of Japan’s foremost Pan-Asianists. He did not, however,
write The Ideals of the East as political propaganda to justify Japanese
aggression; he wrote it for Westerners as an exposition of Japan’s aesthetic
heritage. In fact, he devoted much of his life to the preservation and promotion
of Japan’s artistic heritage, giving lectures to both Japanese and Western audiences.
This did not necessarily mean that he rejected Western philosophy and
theories. A close examination of his views of both Eastern and Western art and
history reveals that he was greatly influenced by Hegel’s notion of dialectics
and the evolutionary theories proposed by Darwin and Spencer. Okakura
viewed cross-cultural encounters to be a catalyst for change and saw his own
time as a critical point where Eastern and Western history was colliding, causing
the evolution of both artistic cultures.
Key words
Okakura Kakuzō, Okakura Tenshin, Hegel, Darwin, cross-cultural encounters,
Meiji
18 | ASIAN REVIEW OF WORLD HISTORIES 2:1 (JANUARY 2014)
In 1902, a man dressed in an exotic cloak and hood was seen traveling
in India. He looked out of place; possibly Chinese, perhaps a
Daoist sage of some sort. Accompanying him was Surendranath
Tagore, a nephew of renowned Bengali poet, Radindranath Tagore
(1861-1941).1 The strange man was a guest of the Tagore family, Japanese
art critic and founder of the Japan Art Institute (日本美術院
Nihon Bijutsu in), Okakura Kakuzō (1863-1913). While in Calcutta,
Okakura met the frail Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) and his disciple,
an Irish woman known as Sister Nivedita (1867–1911) as well
as members of Anushilan Samiti, a secret Bengali anti-British organization.2
Okakura’s travel through India and his interactions
with Bengali intellectuals confirmed his conviction that India and
Japan shared a common artistic heritage. Shortly after this trip,
Okakura published his influential book entitled The Ideals of the
East with its famous opening sentence: “Asia is One.”3
Originally published in English, this famous phrase and his
connections to Bengali revolutionaries resulted in Okakura being
remembered as one of Japan’s foremost Pan-Asianists.4 Okakura’s
writings were popularized during the 1930s and 1940s since his
proclamation of Asian unity appeared to provide ideological support
for the Japanese war effort that claimed to “liberate” fellow
Asians from Western colonial control and establish the “Greater
1
For an interesting discussion of Okakura’s choice of dress, see Christine E. Guth,
“Charles Longfellow and Okakura Kakuzō: Cultural Cross-Dressing in the Colonial Context,”
Positions 8, no. 3 (Winter 2000): 605-6.
2
For more information, see Rustom Bharucha, Another Asia: Rabindranath Tagore and
Okakura Tenshin (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006), Peter Heehs, “Foreign Influences
on Bengali Revolutionary Terrorism 1902-1908,” Modern Asian Studies 28, no. 3 (July 1994):
533-56; and Okakura Koshirō. Sofu Okakura Tenshin 祖父岡倉天心 (My Grandfather, Okakura
Tenshin) (Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Bijutsu Shuppan, 1999), 87-149.
3
Okakura Kakuzō, The Ideals of the East with Special Reference to the Art of Japan
(London: J. Murray, 1903), 1.
4
For example, in Ajia shugi wa nani o katarunoka: kioku kenryoku kachi アジア主義は
何を語るのか：記憶・権力・価値 (What Does Pan-Asianism Tell? Memory, Power and Value)
ed. Matsuura Masataka 松浦正孝 (Tokyo: Mineruva Shobō, 2013), Prasenjit Duara discusses
briefly about Okara’s contribution to Pan-Asian Movement. In the same book, Nakajima
Takeshi 中島岳志 demonstrates Okakura’s influence on Ōkawa Shūmei 大川周明, another
prominent Pan-Asianist. Both Duara and Nakajima include Okakura’s connections to Indian intellectuals
such as Rabindranath Tagore and Swami Vivekananda.
RACEL: “OKAKURA KAKUZŌ’S ART HISTORY” | 19
East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere (Dai To-A kyōei ken 大東亜共栄圏).”
He did not, however, write The Ideals of the East as political propaganda
to justify Japanese aggression; he wrote it for Westerners as
an exposition of Japan’s aesthetic heritage. After his sojourn in India,
he served as a curator of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston,
splitting his time between the United States and Japan (mostly in
Izura 五浦, Ibaraki Prefecture) as he sought to preserve and promote
Eastern artistic heritage. Much has been written about Okakura’s
idea of the Eastern unity or his role in Pan-Asianism, but little
has been said about his perception of the West, Western art, or
world art history as a whole. Hegel’s influence on Okakura, especially
that of “realization” or “manifestation” of the “Idea,” has been
recognized, but relatively little has been said about the influence of
Hegelian dialectical formula: thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Close examination
of Okakura’s views of both Eastern and Western art and
their history reveals that he was greatly influenced by Hegel’s notion
of dialectics and the evolutionary theories proposed by Darwin
and Spencer. Indeed, Okakura viewed cross-cultural encounters to
be a catalyst for change and saw his own time to be the critical
point where Eastern and Western history was colliding, causing an
evolution in both artistic cultures.
OKAKURA, FENOLLOSA AND HEGEL
Okakura Kakuzō, more commonly known among the Japanese as
Okakura Tenshin 岡倉天心, was born in Yokohama in 1863. 5 His
father, Okakura Kan’emon 勘右衛門, was a samurai of the Fukui
clan, but by order of his lord, was running a silk trading business in
5
When he wrote in English, he used his given name, Kakuzō instead of pseudonym,
Tenshin 天心, which means “the heart of heaven.” There are numerous biographies of Okakura
available both in English and Japanese, including Horioka Yasuko, The Life of Okakura Kakuzo:
Author of “the Book of Tea” (Tokyo: Hokuseidō, 1963); Saitō Ryuzō 齊藤隆三 , Okakura
Tenshin (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Hirobumi kan, 1960); and Okakur a Kazuo 岡倉一雄, Chichi Okakura
Tenshin 父岡倉天心(My Father, Okakura Tenshin) (Tokyo: Chūō Kōronsha, 1971).
20 | ASIAN REVIEW OF WORLD HISTORIES 2:1 (JANUARY 2014)
Yokohama when Kakuzō was born. Yokohama was one of the ports
opened for foreign trade in 1859, and as a result, it had become an
enclave where the English language was widely spoken. Consequently,
Okakura, who grew up in a shop whose customers were
mainly foreigners, was exposed to the English language from the
earliest stage of his life.
Okakura met Ernest Fenollosa when he was a student at Tokyo
Imperial University in the late 1870s. A graduate of Harvard,
Fenollosa was hired to teach Western philosophy, including that of
Hegel, Darwin, and Spencer.6 While in Japan, Fenollosa discovered
Japan’s artistic heritage and was so deeply impressed by it that he
became a connoisseur and collector of Japanese art. His student,
Okakura, used his excellent English language skills to serve as an
interpreter for Fenollosa outside of the college classroom. Close
collaboration between Okakura and Fenollosa continued even after
Okakura graduated from Tokyo Imperial University and entered
the service of the Ministry of Education. In 1884, Okakura and
Fenollosa established Kangakai 鑑画会 (Painting Appreciation Society)
in an attempt to preserve traditional Japanese art styles, especially
of the Kanō and Tosa Schools.7 In 1886-1887, Okakura and
Fenollosa traveled to the United States and Europe as part of an
Imperial Art Commission investigating the state of art education in
Europe and America. Shortly afterward, based on Okakura and
Fenollosa’s recommendation, the Tokyo Bijutsu Gakkō 東京美術学
校 (Imperial Art School) was created. Okakura served as the president
of the school from 1890-1898, while Fenollosa, albeit briefly,
served as a highly paid faculty member.8 Around the same time, in
6
Satoko Fujita Tachiki, Okakura Kakuzo (1862-1913) and Boston Brahmins (PhD diss.,
University of Michigan, 1986) discusses Okakura’s interaction with Bostonians, including Ernest
Fenollosa.
7
In 1886, Ernest Fenollosa came to be recognized as a certified art connoisseur by the
Kanō 狩野 School and received the Japanese name, Kanō Eitan 狩野永探 (the eternal quest).
See Michael Sullivan, The Meeting of Eastern and Western Art (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University
of California Press, 1997), 124-39.
8
Technically, the first president of the Tokyo Bijitsu Gakko was Hamao Arata 濱尾 新
(1849-1925) but his role was limited.
RACEL: “OKAKURA KAKUZŌ’S ART HISTORY” | 21
1889, Okakura and Fenollosa launched an art magazine, Kokka 国
華 (National Flower). Between 1889 and 1898, Okakura also served
as director of the Imperial Museum.9 As these activities indicate,
Okakura and Fenollosa worked closely together, though not always
in agreement, and established themselves as the foremost authorities
on Japanese art, until Fenollosa decided to take a position as
the chief curator of Japanese art at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston
in 1890.10
Both Fenollosa and Okakura were greatly influenced by Hegel
and Spencer. According to J. Thomas Rimer, Fenollsa’s May 1882
lecture to Ryūchikai 龍池会 (The Dragon Pond Society) entitled Bijutsu
Shinsetsu 美術真説 “An Explanation of the Truth of Art” was
9 For more information on Okakura’s impact on Japanese art, see Victoria Weston, Japanese
Painting and National Identity: Okakura Tenshin and His Circle, vol. 45 of Michigan Monograph
Series in Japanese Studies (Ann Arbor: Center for Japanese Studies, University of Michigan,
2004).
10
One major disagreement between Okakura and Fenollosa revolved around the issue of
Greek influence on South and East Asia. Fenollosa clearly recognized the Greek influences on
Asia, especially on Buddhist art, in his book, Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art; An Outline
History of East Asiatic Design (1912). Fenollosa’s book contains chapters such as “GrecoBuddhist
Art in China: Early Tang,” and “Greco-Buddhist Art in Japan: Nara Period.”
Before his trip to India in 1902, Okakura seemed to have agreed with Fenollosa, and recognized
the Greek influences on Buddhist art. For example, in his lectures on the History of Japanese
Art delivered in 1890-1892, he recognized the Greek influence on Buddhist art resulting
from Alexander’s invasion (See “Nihon Bijutsu shi 日本美術史[Art History of Japan],” in Okakura
Tenshin zenshū 岡倉天心全集 [The Complete Works of Okakura Tenshin] [Tokyo:
Heibonsha, 1979], 4:44-45). One can also observe the same line of thought around 1897-98,
when he wrote “Essays from Japan: A Painting of the Nara Epoch,” where he notes, “interesting
hints of Greco-Buddhist influence prevalent towards the end of the Six dynasties.” See Okakura
Kakuzō, Okakura Collected English Writings (Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1984), 2:31.
After his visit to India, Okakura came to deny Greek influences on India or Buddhism.
For example, in The Ideals of the East, Okakura states: “In India the art of this early Buddhism
was a natural growth out of that of the Epic age that went before. For it is idle to deny the existence
of pre-Buddhistic Indian art, ascribing its sudden birth to the influence of the Greeks, as European
archeologists are wont to do (74).” As for Gandharan arts, Okakura comments, “. . .a
deeper and better-informed study of the works of Gandhara itself will reveal a greater prominence
of Chinese than of the so-called Greek characteristics. . .The Alexandrian invasion means
rather the extension of Persian influence than Hellenic cultures (78).” Similar comments can be
found in lectures given on East Asian Art history in 1910 (see “Taitō kōgei shi 泰東巧藝史
[Eastern Art History]” in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 4:277-78). Indeed, he came to be convinced
that the British government promoted the idea of Indo-European connection in order to justify
British control over India (See “Shigakukai sekijō no Indo kenkyū-dan 史学会席上の印度研究
談 [India Lecture Delivered to Historical Society],” [1902] in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 3:269).
22 | ASIAN REVIEW OF WORLD HISTORIES 2:1 (JANUARY 2014)
Hegelian in a sense that he emphasized manifestation of “the
Idea.”11 Likewise, Okakura’s emphasis on the spirit of art over realism
is also strikingly similar to Hegel. According to Hegel:
What distinguishes art from other things made by man is, first of all,
that it is made for man’s sensous appreciation in such a way as to address
itself ultimately to his mind, which is to find a spiritual satisfaction
in it. The sensuous shapes and sounds of arts present themselves
to us not to arouse or satisfy desire but to excite a response and echo
in all the depths of consciousness of the mind. The sensuous can be
thus spiritualized in us because in art, it is spiritual that appears in sensuous
shape. A man-made sensuous thing is a true work of art, in other
words, only in the measure that it has been brought into being
through mind, by genuinely spiritual productive activity.12
This theory of art developed by Hegel resonates in Okakura’s emphasis
on the spirit of art that speaks directly to the viewer. Compare
the above statement by Hegel to Okakura’s following state-
ment:
Who of the recognized great painters either in the West or the East
has not directly appealed to us despite the distance of time and race?
Their language is necessarily different. Some may be in the Confucian
sequence of the white, some in the Italian sequence of the brown; others
again in the French sequence of the blue, but behind the veil is the
mind, always eager to tell its own story.13
Hegel’s influence on Okakura can be also clearly seen in The Ideals
of the East, when Okakura spoke of “the three terms by which European
scholars love to distinguish the past development of art.”
The three terms or eras are directly from Hegel’s theory of aesthetics
in which he divided the art history into 1) Symbolic or Formalis-
11
J. Thomas Rimer, “Hegel in Tokyo: Ernest Fenollosa and His 1882 Lecture on the
Truth of Art,” in Japanese Hermeneutics: Current Debates on Aesthetics and Interpretation, ed.
Michael Marra (Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 2002), 97-108.
12
Henry Paulucci, Hegel: On the Arts, 4.
13
Okakura Kakuzō, “Modern Problems in Painting,” in Okakura Collected English Writings,
2:62.
RACEL: “OKAKURA KAKUZŌ’S ART HISTORY” | 23
tic, 2) Classic and 3) Romantic eras. 14 He applied this “Western”
theory to Japanese art history, and explained many of the similarities
between Eastern and Western art were due to the parallel development
of the two societies: “the kinship between Japanese
work of this period [the Nara period] and that of the Greco-Roman
is due to the fundamental resemblance of its mental environment
to that of the classic nation of the West.”15
What exactly Fenollosa taught Okakura at Tokyo Imperial
University cannot be ascertained, but Hegel’s influence on Okakura
is undeniable. Several authors, including, Karatani Kōjin, John
Clark, and Okakura Koshirō, Okakura’s grandson, have pointed out
Hegelian aesthetics underlining Okakura’s view, but not much has
been said about the role of Hegelian dialectics.16 Karatani even goes
so far as to state:
Okakura was Hegelian in the sense he grasped the history of Asia as art
history seen as the self-actualization of the idea. In an indirectly way,
however, Okakura reversed Hegel’s Eurocentrism and also targeted
Hegel’s dialectics. In Hegel, contradiction plays an important role
since it engenders struggle and causes history to develop. In contrast,
Okakura brought into play the Indian philosophical notion of
Advaitism (non-dualism), or the oneness of what is different and manifold.
As a result, the expression “Asia is One” came about.17
This study demonstrates Okakura’s embracement of Hegelian dialectics
by examining Okakura’s understanding of both Eastern and
Western civilizations, their art histories and associated concepts.
For him, a meeting of two difficult cultures resulted in formation of
14
Okakura, Ideals of the East, 163-66. Henry Paulucci, Hegel: On the Arts: Selections
from G.W. F. Hegel’s Aesthetics or the Philosophy of Fine Art, 2nd
ed. (Smyrna, DE: Bagehot
Council, 2001).
15
Okakura, Ideals of the East, 65.
16
Karatani Kōjin, “Japan as Art Museum: Okakura Tenshin and Fenollosa,” in A History
of Japanese Aesthetics, ed. Michael F. Marra (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2001), 43-
52; John Clark, “Okakura Tenshin and Aesthetic Nationalism,” East Asian History 29 (June
2005): 1-38; Okakura Koshirō, Sofu Okakura Tenshin, 153-56.
17
Karatani, 47.
24 | ASIAN REVIEW OF WORLD HISTORIES 2:1 (JANUARY 2014)
new trends, much like the meeting of thesis and antithesis resulted
in synthesis in Hegelian dialectics.
OKAKURA’S EAST AND WEST IN ART HISTORY
In order to understand Okakura’s interpretation of art history, it is
imperative to define his delineation of East and West. This is a rather
difficult task since Okakura was not consistent with his usage
of terminology. Indeed, Okakura’s understanding of East and West
shifted depending upon the nature of his work. Most of Okakura’s
writings dealt with the arts, but he also wrote some works with political
overtones, such as The Awakening of Japan, and The Awakening
of the East.18 As a political thinker, Okakura associated the
West with imperialism or the “White Disaster” while identifying
the East as the victim of imperialism.19 In his political writings, he
used the Ural Mountains to define a line, where the West included
Western Europe, Russia and the United States, while the East included
the vast expanse of land stretching from Ottoman Egypt to
the Kuril Islands and possibly beyond to “the Pacific isles” and
“"the Carolines.”20 When it comes to art history, however, the line
dividing East and West was located along the Indus River. Thus,
18
Okakura Kakuzō, The Awakening of Japan (New York: Century Co, 1904); Okakura
Kakuzō, The Awakening of the East, in the first volume of Okakura Collected English Writings.
The Awakening of Japan was not translated into Japanese until the 1920s. The Awakening of the
East is a hand written manuscript found by Okakura’s grandson in 1938. Coming to light during
the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), this politically charged document called for a PanAsian
military uprising against the West, and was immediately published in 1938 both in its original
English and a Japanese translation.
19
Okakura generally depicts the United States in a very favorable light. In The Awakening
of Japan, when speaking of Commodore Perry, Okakura comments: “Our sincere thanks are
also due to the American admiral, who showed infinite patience and fairness in his negotiations.
Oriental nations never forget kindness, and international kindness is unfortunately extremely rare.
The name of Commodore Perry has become so dear to us that, on the fiftieth anniversary of his
arrival, the people erected a monument at the spot where he landed.” This complimentary attitude
was probably due to his primarily American audience and his lengthy sojourns in the United
States. See Okakura, Awakening of Japan, 122.
20
Okakura, Awakening of the East, in Okakura Collected English Writings, 1:138-39.
Okakura was not always consistent in his usages of the terms. Okakura’s inconsistency can be
seen even within the same book, most notably in The Ideals of the East.
RACEL: “OKAKURA KAKUZŌ’S ART HISTORY” | 25
when Okakura declared “Asia is One,” he was mainly referring to
Asia east of the Indus River, with India and China serving as “the
two great poles of Asiatic Civilisation.”21
It should be also noted that Okakura’s understandings of East
and West in art history tended to cluster around the two ends of
Eurasia. One indication of this view can be seen in his usage of
terms when he was writing or speaking in Japanese. In referring to
East and West, Okakura appears to have used the terms Taisei 泰西
(Extreme West) and Taitō 泰東(Extreme East) more frequently
than the generic Seiyō 西洋, the Japanese equivalent of the Occident,
and Tōyō 東洋 or the Orient. This intentional distinction can
be seen in Okakura’s own translation of the title The Ideals of the
East as Taitō risō ron 泰東理想論 instead of Tōyō no risō 東洋の理
想, which became the standard translation of this title.22 Okakura’s
word choice of Taitō implies that his book was only concerned
with the Far East.23 Therefore, even though he talked about the
unity of Asia and saw a connection between Japan, China, and India,
Okakura’s discussion was essentially East Asia centered, while
India was included to recognize the great influence of “Indian”
Buddhism on the art and culture of East Asia. Okakura perceived
the close connection between the arts of China and Japan, but he
felt that Japan was the only place where both Chinese and Indian
elements truly melded together. His view was that the influence of
the two great civilizations moved from west to east, ultimately
causing Japan to become “a museum of Asiatic civilization” where
“the historic wealth of Asiatic culture can be consecutively stud-
ied.”24
21
Okakura, Ideals of the East, 19.
22
Okakura’s letter to Koike Motoyasu, May 17, 1913, in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 7:250-
51. Another translation given to this title is Tōhō no risō 東邦の理想. The term Tōhō denotes
“Eastern region.” The Ideals of the East was never translated into Japanese during Okakura’s
lifetime.
23
For example, he identifies Taitō as specifically China, Japan, and Korea in “Taitō
kōgei shi,” in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 4:259.
24
Okakura, Ideals of the East, 6-7.
26 | ASIAN REVIEW OF WORLD HISTORIES 2:1 (JANUARY 2014)
OKAKURA’S EAST
For Okakura, Japanese art history was inconceivable without the
contributions of China and India. He did not consider the possibility
that there could exist “pure” Japanese arts; instead, he perceived
all Japanese artistic heritage as an amalgamation and synthesis of
indigenous and foreign elements. He commented in a speech to
the Kangakai (Painting Appreciation Society): “Is there such a
thing as uniquely Japanese art? Art was unknown in the earliest
stage of Japanese history. It is impossible to determine what is truly
Japanese, since Japanese art has changed so many times over the
course of history. The art of the Tenpyō era was based upon the art
of three Korean Kingdoms, and those of Enki era were influenced
by the art of the Tang dynasty in China . . .”25 Okakura considered
the sixth century to be the true start of Japanese art history since
that was the beginning of Japan’s contact with foreign cultures.
Okakura recognized these “foreign contacts” to be the chief catalyst
for change when he stated: “Indeed it is not impossible to say
that our country’s arts are almost entirely derived from foreign
lands . . . although there is no need [for the Japanese] to feel
ashamed since the Japanese were able to take something foreign
and make it their own.”26 Okakura’s emphasis on cross-cultural encounters
as the catalyst for change resonates Hegel’s thesisantithesis
synthesis.
Among the most important elements introduced to Japan in
the sixth century was that of Buddhism which came through the
Korean Kingdom of Paekche. In fact, Okakura recognized Bud-
25
Okakura Kakuzō, “Kanga kai ni oite 鑑画会に於て (Speech Given to Kangakai)
(1887),” in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 3:177. Translated from . . . 日本固有なる者は果して何
処に在る乎。日本美術上古はいざ知らず、美術が始めてその形をなしたる時より今日ま
での沿革を考ふるに、変化万端にして孰れを日本固有と定むる能はず。天平の美術は其
の淵源を三韓に取り，延喜の美術之を唐朝の文化に受く。
26
Okakura Kakuzō, “Nihon bijutsu shi,” in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 4:15．Translated
from . . . 実に我邦美術の原因は、其の大部殆ど外国より来れるを云ふも恐らくは不可な
からん。斯く云えば、我邦の美術は甚だ価値なきが如し。然れども外国より伝来せるも
のにして、之れを受くる能く渾化せば、蓋し其の国のものにして亦辱づベきにあらず。
RACEL: “OKAKURA KAKUZŌ’S ART HISTORY” | 27
dhism to be the most important force behind the beginning of Japanese
art when he wrote: “Our national art was in its infancy until
the sixth century, when the rise of the newly introduced Buddhism
suddenly called it into flower and created what is known as the art
of Nara.”27 Okakura understood that the Buddhism introduced into
Japan was not a pure form, but a version that had been morphed
and altered as it filtered through Chinese and Korean lenses. He
considered the period of instability following the fall of the Han
Dynasty (known as the Six Dynasties) as the critical point, since
this was when “the three basic elements of East Asian art” (Tō-A
bunka san dai genso 東亜文化三大原素), Confucianism, Daoism
(more accurately what Okakura called “Laoism”), and Buddhism
came together.28 Here, one should note that Okakura used the rather
specific geographical designation of Tō-A or “East Asia” in his
discussion rather than the broader and less specific Asia or the East.
Buddhism was surely an important element as it brought inspiration
for sculpture and new architectural styles. These new styles
were by no means purely “Indian,” but instead, an amalgamation of
the three teachings into one package.
It should be pointed out that these three philosophical systems
are what Chinese refer to as the “three teachings” (san jiao 三
教, Jp. san kyō), and not “Japanese,” which would have included
Shinto instead of Daoism. Shinto, the indigenous religion of Japan,
was not considered a significant enough artistic element in Okakura’s
mind for specific mention. According to Okakura, “Shintoism
is the national religion of Japan, but it has done very little for art.
It has aimed at simplicity. Except for the images of ancestors and
27
Okakura Kakuzō, “Essay from Japan: A Painting of the Nara Epoch: Eight Century
(1897-1898),” in Okakura Collected English Writings, 2:30.
28
The term, Tō-A bunka san dai genso appears in Okakura’s “Nihon Bijutsu shiron 日本
美術史論 (Japan Art History Theory),” in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 4:141. Okakura usually differentiated
between Daoism (Taoism) and Laoism. He defined “Taoism” as religious Daoism
that sought to attain the secret of immortality or elixir of life. He used the term Laoism for the
philosophical Daoism derived from Laozi and Zhuangzi. The only book in which he did not differentiate
between the two was The Book of Tea (New York: Duffield, 1906). It may be hypothesized
that Okakura’s American editor suggested he use the standard “Taoism” rather than his neologism,
“Laoism.”
28 | ASIAN REVIEW OF WORLD HISTORIES 2:1 (JANUARY 2014)
gods, it has done almost nothing.”29 The only element of Shinto
that Okakura considered as contributing to the development of
Japanese arts was its tendency “to inculcate purity in everything—
especially in architecture. The Shinto architecture, with its undecorated,
plain wooden construction, everything being concentrated
in beauty of proportion,—is an entirely distinct thing from any
other products of Asiatic art.”30 This general de-emphasis on “indigenous”
Shinto seems to be in accord with Okakura’s view that
no Japanese art existed apart from foreign influences.
Since Okakura’s understanding of Japanese art history was so
closely connected to the three teachings of Buddhism, Confucianism,
and Daoism, there is no wonder why he saw China and India
as the two great centers of civilization and why he saw the unity of
Eastern civilization though Buddhism. The concept of unity within
“Buddhaland” is most clearly expressed when he stated: “Buddhism,
introduced into China and the farther East during the early centuries
of the Christian era, bound together the Vedic and Confucian
Ideals in a single web, and brought about the unification of Asia.”31
Interestingly, Okakura identified Buddhism as “Vedic,” thereby
presenting Buddhism as a version of the Hindu tradition. Hinduism,
therefore, in an indirect way, was considered a part of the element
that constituted the Asian unity of which Okakura spoke.32
This unity of Asia, according to Okakura, was destroyed by the
Mongols: “By the Mongol conquest of Asia, Buddhaland was rent
asunder, never again to be reunited.”33 More importantly, Okakura
blamed the Turkish-Mongolian conquerors of India who adopted
Islam as the true cause of the division of “Buddhaland” since “Islam
29
Okakura Kakuzō, “Religions in East Asiatic Art,” in Okakura Collected English Writings,
2:142.
30
Ibid.
31
Okakura, Awakening of Japan, 8.
32
Sister Nivedita, who wrote the introduction to The Ideal of the East interpreted this as
“Indianising of the Mongolian mind” but this appears to be her India-centric interpretation and
does not seem to correspond to Okakura’s East-Asia centered vision. See Sister Nivedita’s “Introduction,”
in Okakura, Ideals of the East, xviii.
33
Okakura, Awakening of Japan, 13.
RACEL: “OKAKURA KAKUZŌ’S ART HISTORY” | 29
interposed a barrier between China and India greater than the
Himalayas themselves.”34
As for the other two elements that constituted “the three
basic elements of East Asian arts,” Okakura considered Daoism or
“Laoism” to be more important than Confucianism. Okakura perceived
China as being divided into two regions, the northern region
along the Yellow river and the southern region along the
Yangtze River. He felt that Confucianism was a product of the
northern section while recognizing the southern section as the
home of the free and independent spirit of Daoism. While he did
not feel that Confucianism had made the same level of contribution
as Daoism, he did acknowledge the emphasis it placed on interpersonal
matters and cosmic harmony though rituals, etiquette,
and music. He recognized the bronze vessels used for ancestor
worship and mirrors used “to correct” disagreeable facial expressions
as examples of artifacts inspired by Confucianism.35 He repeatedly
described Confucianism as being “communistic,” while
describing Buddhism and Daoism/Laoism to be “individualistic.”36
It seems like this was Okakura’s way of explaining the Eastern collective
mentality, but he still felt that the individualistic tendency
of the East far outweighed any tendency toward collectivism.
Okakura generally considered Eastern art and its civilization
to be characterized by a spirit of individualism, freedom, independence,
and peace. As if to refute the conventional understanding
of Eastern civilization, Okakura made constant references to
these concepts in his writings. Philosophical Daoism, which he refers
to as “Laoism,” was referenced as a major factor contributing to
Eastern individualism and the spirit of freedom. In a lecture Okakura
stated:
34
Okakura, Awakening of Japan, 12.
35
Okakura, “Religions in East Asiatic Art,” in Okakura Collected English Writings,
2:134-37.
36
In “Religions in East Asiatic Art,” Okakura commented that Confucianism’s source
was “the communistic ideal of ancient China.” See ibid., 2:134.
30 | ASIAN REVIEW OF WORLD HISTORIES 2:1 (JANUARY 2014)
Laoism aimed at independence and individuality, wishing to play with
the universe, not to bow down to it. Thence arose a great conception.
Nature was more than man; man was only a small part of nature. Just
see how poor, how trammelled [sic], how ridiculous we are! Look at
nature, with its freedom, its vast intent! The Laoist wished to live in
nature, and so in fine arts gave up e.g. figure painting, and devoted
themselves to landscape and birds and flowers.37
“Laoism” which arose in the Yangtze River Valley, was also associated
with poetry, something Okakura dearly loved. Acquaintances
of Okakura included many famous poets, including Rabindranath
Tagore and Priyamvada Devi Bannerjee. Okakura was a poet himself
and composed poems in classical Chinese, Japanese, and English.
He particularly loved to compose Chinese style poetry (known
as Kanshi 漢詩) and left approximately 130 poems written in classical
Chinese. He felt that the poetic spirit of Laoism was an essential
part of Eastern aesthetics and that it emphasized freedom and individualism.
Speaking of the Chinese poet Qu Yuan 屈原(Jp. Kutsu
Gen, 340-278 BCE) Okakura comments: “This poetry, as exemplified
in Kutsu Gen, of tragic memory, abounds in the intense adoration
of nature, the worship of great rivers, the delight in clouds and
lake-mists, the love of freedom and assertion of self.”38
“Laoism” was also a vital element in the Japanese tea ceremony,
which, to Okakura, was the ultimate expression and example of
the Eastern aesthetic ideal. Okakura considered Zen Buddhism,
from which the tea ceremony arose, to be the “legitimate successor”39
of Laoism as it emphasized “individualism.” As he states:
“Zennism, like Taoism, is a strong advocate of individualism.
Nothing is real except that which concerns the working of our own
mind.”40 Okakura saw both Zen Buddhism and “Laoism” to be philosophies
that recognized the beauty found within ordinary things
37
Ibid., 2:142.
38
Okakura, Ideals of the East, 44.
39
Okakura, Book of Tea, 50-51.
40
Ibid., 65. In The Book of the Tea, Okakura does not differentiate between Taoism and
Laoism. Considering his other writings, it may be assumed he is referring to the philosophical
tradition expounded by Laozi (“Laoism”) and Zhuangzi.
RACEL: “OKAKURA KAKUZŌ’S ART HISTORY” | 31
or customs, with the tea ceremony, or “Teaism,” constituting the
embodiment of such an ideal put into practice:
A special contribution of Zen to Eastern thought was its recognition of
the mundane as of equal importance with the spiritual. It held that in
the great relation of things there was no distinction of small and great,
an atom possessing equal possibilities with the universe… The whole
idea of Teaism is a result of this Zen conception of greatness in the
smallest incidents of life. Taoism furnished the basis for aesthetic ideals,
Zennism made them practical.41
The tea room and its décor, such as arranged flowers and simple
works of art, create a sense of harmony that expresses the ideal of
beauty in small and insignificant things. For example, the tea room
is typically a small rustic cottage characterized for its simplicity
and certainly lacks apparent extravagance, but “a good tea-room is
more costly than an ordinary mansion, for the selection of its materials,
as well as its workmanship requires immense care and precision.”42
The extreme simplicity of the tea room often makes it appear
barren, but Okakura explained that this level of simplicity was
intentional since “it is left for each guest in imagination to complete
the total effect in relation to himself.”43
It was in these qualities that Okakura found Eastern art expressing
the concepts of individualism, freedom, and independence.
Viewing and appreciating art, as Okakura understood it, was
“a game to be played by two persons.”44 The empty space in a tea
room or the lack of background in many East Asian paintings allows
individuals the freedom to impose their own images and conceptions
upon the framework provided, creating an opportunity for
each viewer to add a little of themselves into what they are viewing,
thus increasing their appreciation of the item or room at hand:
41
Ibid., 68-69.
42
Ibid., 77.
43
Ibid., 95.
44
Okakura Kakuzō, “Nature in East Asian Painting,” in Okakura Collected English Writings,
2:148.
32 | ASIAN REVIEW OF WORLD HISTORIES 2:1 (JANUARY 2014)
The artist only gives the suggestion for the spectator’s imagination to
indulge and revel in. In leaving things unsaid art invites the beholder
to come in and fill the gap, that he may feel the joy of joining in this
artistic banquest[sic]. Nothing is more condemned among us as a
painting which leaves no play for the beholder’s imagination. . .45
Okakura continued:
Another point of distinction about Eastern art, is that it is not interested
in beauty as such. The quest of art is not the beautiful but the interesting.
In the world range of eastern criticism you will rarely find a
painting praised because it is beautiful, but always because it is aesthetically
interesting. The Japanese term for artistic, “Omoshiroi” is not
an equivalent of the word “interesting,” but is derived from a word
which means “white-faced.”46
Leaving it up to the viewer to complete the image was a major departure
from most Western art where no part of the canvas was left
unpainted. Conventional Western art tries to create a complete
picture in such a manner as to convey the artist’s complete image
to the viewer and completely controls the viewers’ impression. The
opposite is true of Eastern art, according to Okakura, since it seeks
to form only a partial image and invites the viewer to interpret
freely the image or object as he/she sees it, allowing for a sense of
openness and freedom not found in Western art. Okakura also presented
the idea that while Western art tended to be enjoyed by the
social elite, the simple but elegant pleasures of Eastern art, as represented
by the tea ceremony, were enjoyed by rich and poor alike,
representing the “true spirit of Eastern democracy.”47
Okakura associated the East with peace, while associating the
West with war and aggression. Okakura’s viewpoint on Western
aggression must be viewed through the filter of the Russo-Japanese
War of 1904-1905 when Japan first started to emerge as a major
power in East Asia. Despite the fact that Japan had a long history of
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid.
47
Okakura, Book of Tea, 4.
RACEL: “OKAKURA KAKUZŌ’S ART HISTORY” | 33
the martial tradition and had been recently involved in foreign
wars, Okakura still tried to present an image of Japan, and the East
in general, as being characterized by peace. Perhaps as a reaction
to the popularity of Nitobe Inazo’s book, Bushido: The Soul of Japan
published in 1900, and a lack of true appreciation of Japanese culture
among most Westerners, Okakura commented:
He [an average Westerner] was wont to regard Japan as barbarous
while she indulged in the gentle arts of peace: he calls her civilized
since she began to commit wholesale slaughter on Manchurian battlefield.
Much comment has been given lately to the Code of the Samurai,—the
Art of Death which makes our soldiers exult in self-sacrifice;
but scarcely any attention has been drawn to Teaism, which represents
so much of our Art of Life. Fain we remain barbarians, if our claim to
civilization were to be based on the gruesome glory of war. Fain would
we await the time when due respect shall be paid to our art and ide-
als.48
This contrast of Teaism as an “Art of Life” and Bushido as an “Art of
Death” is interesting considering Okakura’s somewhat militant
tendencies. Indeed, The Awakening of Japan, published in 1904, was
Okakura’s attempt to explain recent Japanese history and to justify
Japan’s actions during the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese Wars.
In his mind, war was something that the West had taught Japan,
and Japan was resorting to war only to preserve its own independence
and peace. Okakura justified the invasion of Korea because he
considered Korea to be “originally a Japanese province, and in the
Tokugawa days paid tribute to the Shogunate.”49 Furthermore,
Okakura and many Japanese of his time considered the control of
the Korean peninsula essential for Japan’s continued survival:
Any hostile power in occupation of the peninsula might easily throw
an army into Japan, for Korea lies like a dagger ever pointed toward the
very heart of Japan. Moreover, the independence of Korea and Manchuria
is economically necessary to the preservation of our race, for
48
Ibid., 7-8.
49
Okakura, Awakening of Japan, 209.
34 | ASIAN REVIEW OF WORLD HISTORIES 2:1 (JANUARY 2014)
starvation awaits our ever-increasing population if it be deprived of its
legitimate outlet in the sparsely cultivated areas of these countries.50
As far as Okakura was concerned, even in the midst of a war, he
still considered Japan and the rest of the East as representing peace
and harmony and concluded his book by asking, “Europe has
taught us war; when shall she learn the blessings of peace?”51
OKAKURA’S WEST
Upon examination of Okakura’s activities both in Japan and the
United States, it is clear that Okakura’s main concern was the East
and its artistic heritage. The Kangakai (Painting Appreciation Society)
and the Nihon bijutsu in (Japan Art Institute) both encouraged
Japanese artists to preserve an Eastern essence in their work, while
his three books written for a Western audience sought to educate
and inform the reader about the East from an Eastern perspective.
As a result, Okakura spent a relatively small amount of time discussing
the West and its art, but it is important to look at a few examples
of his views on Western art to gain insight into his
thoughts. A series of lectures that Okakura gave on Western art
history delivered at the Imperial Art School between 1890 and 1892
serves as a major source of information.52 Other references to the
West and Western arts appear sporadically in his writings as he
compared and contrasted East and West.
For Okakura, the West was the “antithesis” of the East with a
distinctively different history and evolution. According to Okakura,
both Eastern and Western art histories developed in parallel and
50
Ibid., 208.
51
Ibid., 223.
52
See Okakura Kakuzō, “Taisei bijutsu shi 泰西美術史(Western Art History),” in Okakura
Tenshin zenshū, 4:171-255. Okakura’s lectures were the first lectures on Western art history
in Japan. His source materials are unknown, but the Imperial Art School possessed numerous
foreign publications, including 18 books donated by William Bigelow, a wealthy Bostonian physician,
who supported Okakura’s work. See explanatory notes on “Taisei bijutsu shi” in Okakura
Tenshin zenshū, 4:527-29.
RACEL: “OKAKURA KAKUZŌ’S ART HISTORY” | 35
have roots that can be traced back to ancient times, but the two
forms developed contrasting artistic traditions and ideals. Comparing
the Chinese bronze vessels of the Zhou era to Greek art, Okakura
commented: “Indeed, these together constitute, like the calm
and delicate jade, compared with the flashing individualistic diamond,
the antithesis of ideals, the two poles, of the decorative impulse
in East and West.”53 The fact that he used the term “antithesis”
indicates a level of influence from the Hegelian dialectics.
In his lectures on Western art history, Okakura equated the
West (Seiyō or Taisei) with Europe (Ōshū 欧洲), but in tracing the
Western art heritage, he found it impossible to stick strictly to Europe.
54 He believed that the origin of Western art was to be found
in ancient Egypt, and furthermore, that Western artistic traditions
have a close connection to Asia. This “Asia” was not synonymous to
“East”; instead he simply used the term to refer to the areas that
were conventionally considered to be part of Asia such as Anatolia,
Persia, and Mesopotamia. He divided Western art history into
three periods, Ancient (before c. 395), Medieval (c. 395-1500) and
Modern (after c. 1500), and he saw this connection between European
art and Asia to be especially strong in the ancient period. He
classified Egypt as “the oldest country in the West,” although he
did not consider the Egyptians to be Europeans, Asians or Africans.55
Mesopotamia (Assyria, Babylonia and Chaldea), Persia, and
the Eastern Mediterranean (Phoenicia and Judea), were also included
in Okakura’s list of cultures that contributed to development
of the Western art in the ancient world. As discussed earlier,
the line dividing East from West in Okakura’s art histories was the
Indus River. Okakura argued that when the Greeks under Alexander
conquered Persia, they returned home with new ideas and concepts
that they had been exposed to in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and
53
Okakur, Ideals of the East, 31.
54
Okakura Kakuzō, “Taisei bijutsu shi,” in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 4:171-72.
55
Ibid., 178, reads “Egypt is the oldest state in Seiyō (translated from 埃及は西洋にて
は最旧の国なり).” He also stated “Egyptians are a unique race . . .They are different from the
Aryans of Europe or the Mongoloids of Asia. They are also not dark like Ethiopians or Africans
”(Translated from 埃及は一種特有の人種なり. . .欧州のアリアン人種、亜細亜の蒙古
人種とは一種異なれり。亦エチオピア、亜非利加土人の如く黒からず).
36 | ASIAN REVIEW OF WORLD HISTORIES 2:1 (JANUARY 2014)
Persia, and incorporated many elements into Greek heritage. Okakura
argued that it was the Greeks that truly started “European
art,”56 but he still saw a clear connection between Greek art and
Asian art. For example, Okakura commented that the lion gate of
Mycenae was based upon an “Assyrian style,” and that there is no
doubt that Greek sculpture derived from “Asia.”57
The second stage Okakura identified in Western art history
was the Middle Ages which he defined as starting with the division
of the Roman Empire and ending around 1500. He identified Early
Christian (including that of the Byzantine Empire), Arab-Islamic,
Romanesque, and Gothic to be the main artistic styles of the medieval
period. He recognized the importance of the interaction between
Europeans and Arabs in the development of Western art and
technology, as well as acknowledging Arab contributions to European
music, astronomy, math, and fountain making technology.58
Okakura believed that Gothic architecture was derived from a European
imitation of Islamic architecture, as he explained:
. . .these crusades continued for a long time and [their participants included]
Louis, the King of France, and Richard, the King of England.
Upon their return, they praised the Arabian style [architecture] and
tried to replicate it. This was the beginning of the Gothic style which
combined the Romanesque and Arabian styles.59
The fact that one of the most impressive examples of Islamic architecture,
the Alhambra, is found in Spain may also have helped
shape his view that an Arab-Islamic element had become part of
56
The word used here is Ōshū bijutsu 欧洲美術 (European Art). Okakura Kakuzō,
“Taisei bijutsu shi,” in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 4:92.
57
Ibid., 4:203.
58
Ibid., 4:222-23.
59
Ibid., 4:223-24. Translated from 此等の十字軍は漸次相継続し、仏王ルイ、英王
リチャードも亦其の中にありたりしが、帰国後大いに亜拉比亜風を称美せされ、遂に之
れを行はるるに至る。之れ即ちゴシツク美術の起る基にして、全くローマネスクと亜拉
比亜風の相混じたるものなり。As for Romanesque style, the outline of his lecture seemed to
suggest Okakura may have thought of it as a combination of Early Christian and Arab-Islamic
elements. But he does not go into detailed discussion of influence of the Arabic elements in the
main body. See ibid., 4:177.
RACEL: “OKAKURA KAKUZŌ’S ART HISTORY” | 37
the European heritage. Indeed, Okakura may have even considered
the Arabs to be “Europeans.” In his Book of Tea, he states, “The earliest
record of tea in European writing is said to be found in the
statement of an Arab traveler, that after the year 879 the main
sources of revenue in Canton were the duties on salt and tea.”60
Unfortunately, there are no footnotes in his Book of Tea to indicate
the source of this rather ambiguous statement. Overall, Okakura
appears uncertain of how to fit the Arab-Islamic traditions into his
East and West worldview, so he mentions it without ever fixing it
into either category.
The third stage that Okakura identifies in Western art history
is the Modern era which started around 1500. Here, Okakura’s discussion
comes to focus almost exclusively on Western Europe, but
even then he attributes the beginning of the Renaissance to the
Turkish conquest of the Byzantine Empire and subsequent migration
of “Eastern Romans” to Italian cities.61 It is also this time period
when he comes to include “Northern Europe” (i.e. Germany and
France) and the Low countries in his discussion.
Okakura describes many Western art styles to be realistic
(shasei teki 写生的), but he felt they lacked spirit (seishin 精神).62
This Western emphasis on realism was one of the areas that Okakura
found to be fundamentally different between Eastern and
Western art. He explained that Eastern painters did “not draw from
models, but from memory,”63 while Western artists did just the opposite.
Okakura reasoned that truly good art directly appealed to
the heart of the viewer, clearly in line with Hegel’s theory on aesthetics.
He did not believe that working from models and producing
realistic images was the true goal of art. Hence, of all the Western
painters, Leonardo da Vinci seemed to be held in the highest
60
Okakura, Book of Tea, 13-14.
61
Okakura, “Taisei bijutsu shi,” in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 4:226.
62
One example of such comment is “realistic but lacking in spirit” (translated from 写生
的のみにして、精神的ならざるや). See ibid., 4:211.
63
Okakura, “Nature in East Asiatic Painting,” in Okakura Collected English Writings,
2:150.
38 | ASIAN REVIEW OF WORLD HISTORIES 2:1 (JANUARY 2014)
regard by Okakura. The “Last Supper” was especially praised by
Okakura for its depth of human emotions:
The subject matter [of the “Last Supper”] is Jesus, knowing there is a
betrayer amongst them, is asking questions of his disciples. [The
painter masterfully] depicted a wide range of emotions such as sorrow,
anger and doubt [in Jesus’ disciples]. Among the disciples was Judas,
resting on his elbow in front of Jesus as he incessantly denied he was
the betrayer. Yet, Judas’s mind was in agony, and [Leonardo da Vinci]
was able to convey Judas’ distress. [He] was able to capture the subtle
nuance of [this complex] feeling masterfully.64
Okakura also rated favorably other Western painters such as Rembrandt
(1606–1669), Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot (1796-1875), and
Jean Francois Millet (1814-1875), since they emphasized “spirit” over
purely realistic representations of objects.65
Okakura also thought that the representation of human beings
and the human body was a distinctive feature of Western art.
He traced the origin of this “humanism” to the Greeks and expressed
that such a concept was contrary to Eastern (especially to
Daoist) traditions, as he explained to a Western audience:
Portraiture has never obtained such a prominent place in our art. Why
should we perpetuate this evanescent thing, this cradle and nest of lust
and mean desires. We have no desire to glorify the human body as the
Greeks did, or give special reverence to man as the image of God. The
nude does not appeal to us at all. We have not, therefore, conceived
an ideal type of human body… The outward man is not more important
than other manifestations of outward nature,—trees, rocks,
waters.66
64
Okakura, “Taisei bijutsu shi,” in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 4:236-38. Translated from
其の図題は耶蘇が其衆徒弟に向て己を密告せし人あるを知て、反問者を誰何するの状な
り。其の中には或は之れを憂ふう状、怒る相、疑ふる状等千様万状を画き尽せり。然る
に其等の中独りジューダーなるもの耶蘇の前に肘付きて此の衆徒中誰か反するものあら
んやと、頻りに其の否を語る所の形状あれども、其の心中煩悶を保ちしを以て自然其の
顔容に憂苦の状を表はしたるは、其の妙を写し得たりと云うべし。
65
Ibid., 4:252, 255.
66
Okakura, “Nature in East Asiatic Painting,” in Okakura Collected English Writings,
2:147.
RACEL: “OKAKURA KAKUZŌ’S ART HISTORY” | 39
While Okakura considered Michelangelo to be one of the Western
world’s greatest artists, he felt that Michelangelo was excessively
faithful to human anatomy (kaibō teki 解剖的) and that this led
him to create figures Okakura felt were unnatural.67 Raphael’s
“Madonna,” on the other hand, was praised for its elegance, although
Okakura considered Michelangelo to be a superior artist to
Raphael.68 Okakura considered Peter Paul Rubens’ works to lack
hin 品, which can be variously translated as grace, dignity, or re-
finement.69
Okakura considered the High Renaissance, the world of Leonardo
da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael to be the highest point
of Western art history. From the seventeenth century forward,
Okakura saw a decline in Western art. The seventeenth century
saw a change in popular painting styles and subjects (fuzokuga 風
俗画 or ukiyoe 浮世絵) to include a great number of decorative
paintings, such as landscapes, flowers, animals, and still-life, which
Okakura felt was a step backwards from earlier Western art. By the
nineteenth century, the elements of Greek revivalism were gone,
replaced by an artistic style almost exclusively concerned with realistic
representation of objects.70
Worse yet, with industrialization and the development of a
middle class society, Okakura perceived Western art’s further decline.
For him, industrialism and subsequent commercialism
meant a complete lack of individuality and creativity. He felt that
this period degraded Western art to nothing more than mere decoration
or display of wealth:
67
Okakura, “Taisei bijutsu shi,” in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 4:238-40.
68
Ibid., 4:240-51. Raphael is oftentimes thought to be the favorite of Okakura, as his
friend, William Bigelow and J. E. Lodge stated in their reminiscence “He liked Raphael and disliked
Rubens.” (Okakura Collected English Writings, 3:227-32). But upon closer examination of
Okakura’s works, he rated da Vinci the highest among the giants of the High Renaissance. In his
travel diary in Europe (1887), one can also observe some negative comments on Raphael, such
as “Perugino ceiling in Sistine chapel fine. Raphael mediocre,” and “Vatican gallery and paintings,
Carlo Crivelli superb, Raphaels Ascension awful.” See Okakura’s Europe Travel Diary
(1887), “Ōshū shisatsu nisshi 欧州視察日誌” (1887), in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 5:310-11. His
travel diary is written in a combination of English and Japanese.
69
Okakura, “Taisei bijutsu shi,” in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 4:252.
70
Ibid., 4:250-55.
40 | ASIAN REVIEW OF WORLD HISTORIES 2:1 (JANUARY 2014)
We of the East often wonder whether your society cares for art. You
seem not to want art, but decoration,—decoration in the sense of subjugating
beauty for the sake of display. In the rush for wealth there is
no time for lingering before a picture. In the competition of luxury, the
criterion is not that the thing should be more interesting, but it should
be more expensive. The paintings that cover the walls are not of your
choice, but those dictated by fashion.71
Okakura was repulsed by Western society’s obsession with the
“vulgar display of riches.”72 He criticized Western architecture, interior
decorations and even the use of flowers “to be a part of the
pageantry of wealth.”73
The development of a mass consumer driven society resulting
from industrialization meant artists lost their freedom to express
their own ideas and emotions. What was considered desirable art
became dictated by the market, generating an environment detrimental
to artistic creativity:
Competition imposes the monotony of fashion instead of the variety of
life. Cheapness is the goal, not beauty. The democratic indifferences of
the market stamps everything with the mark of vulgar equality. In
place of the handmade works, where we feel the warmth of the human
touch of even the humblest worker, we are confronted with cold
blooded touch of the machine. The mechanical habit of the age seizes
the artist and makes him forget that his only reason for existence is to
be the one, not many. He is impelled not to create but multiply. Painting
is becoming more and more an affair of the hand rather than of the
mind.74
Bearing in mind Okakura’s feelings about the steep decline in
Western art, it is understandable when he criticized those Japanese
who simply accepted everything Western as superior to anything
Japanese. He argued that the Western art introduced to Japan during
the 19th century was “at its lowest ebb” and was not worthy of
71
Okakura, “Modern Problems in Painting,” in Okakura Collected English Writings, 2:74.
72
Okakura, Book of Tea, 98.
73
Ibid., 129.
74
Okakura, “Modern Problems in Painting,” in Okakura Collected English Writings, 2:80.
RACEL: “OKAKURA KAKUZŌ’S ART HISTORY” | 41
imitation.75 Okakura feared that cultural imperialism would cause
Eastern art to be abandoned in favor of anything and everything
Western. Worse yet, this form of cultural imperialism was not being
imposed by Westerners, but propagated by the Japanese themselves.
He harshly criticized those Japanese who blindly adopted
everything Western: “That eagerness and profound admiration for
Western knowledge which confounded beauty with science, and
culture with industry, did not hesitate to welcome the meanest
chromos as specimens of great art ideals.”76
For Okakura, the history of Eastern and Western art had taken
two completely different courses and he felt that they should
remain as two separate and distinct artistic heritages. He feared
the complete destruction of the Eastern artistic heritage since he
saw it as possessing higher artistic ideals than that of the West.
He translated “modernization” to mean “the occidentalization of
the world,”77 and in such a world, he feared the great Eastern artistic
tradition would be overcome by the inferior Western version,
and Eastern sensibilities would completely lose their place: “. . . it
would appear that in fundamental nature the two arts are so widely
different that, except in a few important points they can never
grow into one. And it would be a calamity should the great art of
the Asiatic past be lost.”78
A MEETING OF EAST AND WEST: THESIS-ANTITHESIS-SYNTHESIS
Even though Okakura saw a clear division between Eastern and
Western artistic traditions and tried to preserve Eastern ideals, he
did not reject Western concepts completely. As has been demonstrated,
Hegel’s influence on Okakura is especially notable. Additionally,
he was greatly influenced by the evolutionary theories
75
Okakura, Ideals of the East, 226.
76
Ibid.
77
Okakura, “Modern Problems in Painting,” in Okakura Collected English Writings, 2:77.
78
Okakura, “Nature in East Asiatic Painting,” in Okakura Collected English Writings,
2:153-54.
42 | ASIAN REVIEW OF WORLD HISTORIES 2:1 (JANUARY 2014)
proposed by Darwin and Spencer. Indeed, his vision for the future
of Japanese art was not purely the preservation of ancient heritage,
but instead the evolution of Japanese art to a higher level. Okakura
identified himself as a “conservative” who found it “deplorable that
traditions of Chinese and Japanese painting should be entirely
lost,”79 but he also identified himself as a shizen hattatsu ron sha,
自然発達論者, or “natural development theorist.” He explained this
concept to Japanese artists in 1887:
Natural development does not distinguish between the East and West,
but bases itself on the basic principle of art, it would take in what is rational
and master what is beautiful. Art should be based on the arts of
the past, but it needs to evolve to accommodate the modern experience.
If it is appropriate, study the works of Italian masters, or use oil
paintings techniques. Furthermore, one should spend time on research
and testing and seek the best way for future generations . . . Artists of
Japan, art is in co-possession of heaven and earth. Let us not have a
distinction between East and West.”80
For a Western audience, he stated in 1904:
I do not mean to say that we should not study the Western methods,
for thereby we may add to our own method of expression. Nor do I desire
that we should not assimilate the wealth of ideas which your civilization
has amassed. On the contrary, the mental equipment of Japanese
painting needs strengthening though the accretion of the world’s
ideals. We can only become more human by becoming more univer-
sal.81
One can ascertain from these two statements that Okakura emphasized
the selective adoption of art practices from the West. The
79
Okakura, “Modern Problems in Painting,” in Collected English Writings, 2:79.
80
Okakura Kakuzō, “Kanga kai ni oite 鑑画会に於て(Speech Given to Kangakai
(1887)),” in Okakura Tenshin zenshū, 3:173-78. Translated from 自然発達とは東西の区別を
論ぜず美術の大道に基き，理のある所は之を取り美のある所は之を究め、過去の沿革に
拠り現在の情勢に伴ふて開達するものなり。伊太利の大家中に在て参考すべきものは之
を参考し、画油の手法も之を利用すべき場合に於ては之を利用し、猶更に試験発明して
将来の人生に的切なる方法を探らんとす. . .日本の美術家諸君よ、美術は天地の共有な
り、豈東西洋の区別あるべけんや。
81
Okakura, “Modern Problems in Painting,” in Okakura Collected English Writings, 2:79.
RACEL: “OKAKURA KAKUZŌ’S ART HISTORY” | 43
trace of evolutionary theory in Okakura’s argument is apparent as
he studied both Eastern and Western art histories, he saw the arts
to be constantly evolving, and never static. He also found the crosscultural
interactions between different groups of people to be one
of the greatest catalysts of change, whether it was the Japanese encounter
with China or the European encounter with the Arabs. For
Okakura, the era in which he lived represented an era of crosscultural
interaction and he found it completely natural for the arts
to change and evolve within this new context. What he found unnatural
was the abandonment of Eastern heritage in favor of its
Western counterpart. Surrounded by Americans who appreciated
Eastern art, Okakura was also well aware that some Western artists
gained inspiration from Eastern art and began to incorporate these
new Asian ideas and techniques into their art. As a student of Hegelian
philosophy, Okakura saw the meeting of the East and West
to be the meeting of thesis and antithesis, which led to the synthesis
of the two, but not necessarily creating one new culture; instead,
both artistic traditions are evolving into something new, based on
their own respective traditions.
CONCLUSION
Okakura Kakuzō, remembered chiefly as a leading Pan-Asianist,
was an art critic and art historian who fought to preserve the artistic
heritage of the East in the face of rampant Westernization. His
most famous quote, “Asia is One,” was derived from his study of
Japanese art history in which he saw a strong connection between
India, China, and Japan though the thread of Buddhism. This
meant that Okakura’s conceptualization of “Asia” or “the East” was
limited to the area east of the Indus River, with India and China
serving as the two great centers of Eastern Civilization. Okakura’s
concept of the East, however, was ultimately East-Asia centered,
with India included only because of its influence upon the arts of
China and Japan through Buddhism.
44 | ASIAN REVIEW OF WORLD HISTORIES 2:1 (JANUARY 2014)
Conceptually, he associated Eastern civilization and its art
with individualism, freedom, and peace. As if to challenge the stereotypical
view of Asia shared by many in the West, he repeatedly
pointed out examples of individualism and freedom in the Eastern
artistic traditions, including those grounded in both Buddhism and
Daoism. He valued art based on spirit to be of a higher caliber than
that which simply sought to depict realism. Artwork that drew in
the viewers and allowed them to become a participant in the art
was considered by Okakura to be the goal of a true artist. He believed
that Eastern art tried to emphasize a concept of spirit, by
having artists produce works from memory and imagination rather
than from using models or copying landscapes. He also saw strong
elements of individualism and freedom in the way that most Eastern
art styles emphasized simplicity and restraint, often leaving
much of the image blank to allow the viewer to complete the picture
in their own mind rather than have the artist dictate exactly
what the viewer should see and feel from the art. Ultimately, he
saw the gentle art of the tea ceremony as the highest expression of
the Eastern aestheticism and Eastern peace because of its simple
elegance that could transcend social, economic, and spiritual
boundaries.
On the other hand, Okakura saw much of Western art as
nothing more than an attempt to copy and represent nature exactly
as the artist saw it. The overemphasis on realism, whether the subject
matter was the human body, a landscape, animals, or a still life,
left the work devoid of the spirit and character which defined Eastern
art. Okakura especially disdained much of the art produced
during the industrial age since he felt the artistic community had
become slaves of consumerism, creating mere decoration that
served as a vulgar display of wealth, rather than real art. He identified
the modern West with industrialization and the mass production
of goods. Instead of creating hand crafted goods that carried
the spirit and personality of the artisan who made them, the West
had given itself over to a world where goods were created by the
cold and unfeeling claws of machines, and therefore, lacked the
originality, creativity, and individuality found in handmade items.
RACEL: “OKAKURA KAKUZŌ’S ART HISTORY” | 45
For Okakura, Western art and society had become a poor substitute
for the spirit and individualism found in the East, having traded
creativity and freedom for realism and sameness.
Okakura Kakuzō lived through a period when many Japanese
were rejecting or abandoning their cultural traditions in favor of
Western civilization. In such an environment, not only were many
valuable cultural artifacts destroyed but the core spirit of the people
and their culture appeared to be in danger of extinction. Okakura
was one of the cultural conservatives who mourned the loss of
Eastern heritage, but he was not an ultraconservative who sought
to preserve traditions in their purest form. Indeed, he perceived the
art histories of the East and West to be a history of evolution,
where encounters between societies with different traditions were
one of the most powerful agents of cultural change. For Okakura,
the two halves of civilization developed separately in parallel and
he believed that these two civilizations could each be elevated to
an even higher level by incorporating good elements from each
other while still maintaining their distinct identities. For him,
Eastern and Western civilizations were thesis and antithesis, being
equal in their stature and magnificence. In the area of aesthetics,
Okakura perceived the East to possess higher quality than the
West. What Okakura Kakuzō tried to accomplish was the elevation
of Eastern civilization to the same level, if not higher than, Western
civilization in the eyes of his fellow countrymen, his Asian
friends, and Westerners.