Kaigetsudō Dohan

KAIGETSUDÖ DOHAN (active 1716)

There is in existence today a body of art, comprising both paintings and woodblock prints, which is attributed to the Kaigetsudö school (variously translated as "Embrace the Moon Studio" or "Yearning for the Moon Studio"). All of the prints and most of the paintings of this school take for their subject solitary women, who are distinguished equally by their gorgeous attire and by their faces, which are uniformly devoid of expression. Their "kimonos" dominate the compositions and the outlines of their majestic figures are composed of bold swirling strokes.

The Kaigetsudö masters present several puzzling problems. According to the "Kagai Manroku" published in 1825, a Kaigetsudö artist was active in the 1620s but no signed work survives from this period. The traditional founder of the school, Kaigetsudö Andö, was a painter who apparently worked in Edo in the early eighteenth century. What his association was, if one there was, with the shadowy Kaigetsudö of the 1620s is unclear. Andö may have been exiled in 1714 because of his involvement in a political scandal and may have returned to Edo at a later time. None of his paintings carry an inscribed date and he designed no prints. Mention of the political scandal of 1714 is the only documentary basis for determining Ando's working period, other than the style of his paintings.

About the other artists who are believed to have been pupils of Andö there is no mention in contemporary records. Their signatures read Anchi, Doshin, Doshü, Doshu, and Döhan. Döhan is represented in the Academy collection by two black-and-white "kakemono" prints (one a forgery). About nine paintings and twelve prints signed Döhan are extant and these tend to be uneven in artistic merit.

Because the prints of all five artists are stylistically identical and their signatures nearly indistinguishable, the critics Lawrence Binyon and J.J. O'Brien Sexton have proposed that all the artists are one and the same person -- perhaps synonymous with Kaigetsudö Andö who used the pseudonyms in the wake of the 1714 political scandal. These similarities in print styles, however, might be better explained as the result of one engraver imposing his style on the designs of several men or one block-copyist adapting the five artists' respective designs to the woodcut medium.

No satisfactory evidence has been gleaned from the numerous paintings signed Kaigetsudö. Many of these appear to be forgeries. Until the spurious paintings are persuasively identified and the genuine paintings placed in and acceptable chronology, the enigma surrounding the school will remain.

- - - - - - -

DETAILED DISCUSSION:

I. Biography Data:

The man who is cited by most authorities as the leader of the Kaigetsudö school (and according to some its only member) is Kaigetsudö Andö. The biographical information which follows appears in Dr. Richard Lane's "Masters of the Japanese Print," and Binyon and Sexton's "Japanese Colour Prints," and is corroborated by Inoue Kazuo in his "Ukiyo-e Shiden."(24) Kaigetsudö Andö (traditional dates, 1671-1743), the founder of the Kaigetsudö school, was active from some time shortly after 1700 to the year 1714 when he became involved in a court scandal and was exiled to Oshima. Ando's family name is recorded variously as Okazaki and Okazawa, and his given name as Genshichi. An alternate given name of Kan'unshi is also cited but this seems not to have been in general use. From his earliest period as a painter, however, he employed the given name Ando and the studio name Kaigetsudö. Some records have also listed his name as Ankei, but most sources attribute this name to a copyist's error. Ando was an artist who lived in the Suwa-cho district of Asakusa. This location is important in the consideration of Ando's work because it was close by the Yoshiwara district as well as near the great Asakusa Temple, and the Suwa and Kumagata Shrines. Ando's manner of painting with thick outlines and majestic poses owes much to the "ema" which were hung in the shrines, and his special subject was the women of the red-light district.

At about the year 1774, Ando became involved in a court scandal involving Lady Ejima, the principal lady-in-waiting to the Shogun's mother, and the Kabuki actor Ikushima Shingero (depicted in cat. 8 by Torii Kiyomasu I). For his part in the matter Ando was exiled to the island of Oshima.(25)

As to the origins of the "Kaigetsudo" style, we have already mentioned the importance of the early Torii school. Long before the appearance of the Kaigetsudo paintings and prints of the Shotoku era, there appeared the book "Miegi Ju hachi ko" (The Best of Eighteen Courtesans) dated in the colophon, the 6th month of Genroku 14 (1701) published by Choemon Kurihara of Hasegawacho. According to Nakada, many of the portraits in this book served as models for the Kaigetsudo artists. Indeed, even the same compositions and kimono patterns were borrowed. The work is usually attributed to Okumura Masanobu, but since all book art of the day was done in the early Torii style, an attribution to one of the Torii would not be unlikely. This reasoning is enhanced by the fact that two months later Okumura Masanobu published another book of the same subject. It seems rather unlikely, then, that our book would be by the same artist. Here, then, we have a direct link between the Kaigetsudo "bijin" style and an early book, undoubtedly from the hand of one of the Torii.

Of the twenty-two prints of the Kaigetsudo school that survive, twelve published by Igaya signed Dohan were sold as a set, each design representing a month of the year. All were cheaply produced on poor quality paper with an inexpensive grade of ink. Few prints survive, and generally they are by Anchi. The Doshin can be assigned to months of the year as well as the Anchi suggesting that originally all the Kaigetsudo prints were sold in sets of twelve.

There is also some additional question about the dating of the Kaigetsudö school. As we have seen, Dr. Lane gives the traditional dates of 1671-1743. Binyon and Sexton say that Ando lived in Asakusa from 1704 to 1716, but in their outline of the Kaigetsudö problem they refer us to another possible dating, stating that "In 'Kwagai Manroku,' published in 1825, we are told that Kaigetsudö lived in Asakusa, Yedo, during the Genna period (1615-24), and was the first artist of the Ukiyo-e school in Yedo."(29) Chie Hirano suggests 1670-1680, while Japanese sources cite only the era names: Hoei and Shotoku from 1704 to 1716, for Ando's Asakusa residence, and these appear to be as close as scholars have come to dating the Kaigetsudo School.

II. The Arguments:

Turning to the writers of the Kaigetsudö school, we find that most hold to the theory of a "master-pupils" school, with one notable exception, Lawrence Binyon and J.J. O'Brien Sexton. Indeed, the Japanese never seriously considered the theory. Binyon and Sexton argue from biographical evidence (or its lack), similarities in the works, and from customs prevalent among Japanese artists.

Let us take up the argument of Binyon and Sexton, which we will call the "single-artist theory." Their first point of contention is based on existing records, and of these they say: "All these biographers, however much they differ in detail, speak of one man only, namely Kaigetsudö." This is surely a strong point, but merely negative evidence. Moreover, based on the work of Lane and Yamana Kozo, it would appear that there are some specific references to Anchi, although their precise nature cannot be determined at this juncture.

Moreover, an examination of Ando's undisputed paintings (most of which are in the Tokyo National Museum) with those signed by Dohan or Doshi proves beyond question that Ando was the superior painter. His work is always a shade more powerful, the brush line better controlled, etc. Anchi comes closest to matching Ando's brilliance, but even he cannot rank with the first master. There is nothing new in this analysis. The Japanese have noted the difference for several years, and in the 1950s, Dr. Richard Lane brought it to the attention of English reading audiences.

There is some additional information, however, that may help to shed light on the school, some of which was brought to our attention during our Torii study.

For example, one painting, in the Tokyo National Museum, duly signed and sealed Ando may offer a clue to the nature of the Kaigetsudö method. The "Bijin" outlines are complete including the placid face type, but the kimono design and coloring are not. What makes this painting curious is that it is properly signed despite the fact that it is obviously not finished. Normally a painter would never sign and seal his work until the work was complete. This suggests that Kaigetsudo Ando, actually set up a kind of studio factory. He would paint the face and outline while his pupils would fill in the color and textile patterns, and other details, much in the same way as prints were hand-colored by skilled craftsmen. To what extent this method was employed would be difficult to determine without additional evidence, although it obviously provides a ready answer for those who claim to see too marked a similarity in configuration in all paintings and prints of the Kaigetsudö school. At this juncture, I would rather consider the unfinished work in question as a late example of the master's art in which he depended on assistants much as many great masters did in their later years.

Their next and strongest argument revolves about the use of the term "matsu-yo" which occurs in the signatures of the Kaigetsudö pupils. They insist this term cannot refer to descendant in the sense of pupil and that the term has two meanings: a. descendant in the sense of posterity, e.g. children and grandchildren, and b. last age or phase of life. They therefore translate the signature on our print by Dohan (Cat. 23) as "Japanese amusement-picture" ("Nippon gi-gwa"); Kaigetsu, in his last phase, Dohan, etc., drew this ("kore wo zusu").

Binyon and Sexton's argument, emphasizing as it does the lack of precedent for the use of "matsu-yo" as "pupil" is a good point, nevertheless, the fact that this precedent does not exist in other schools is only negative evidence, and does not preclude that usage in the Kaigetsudö school. Indeed, the present writer believes that the signature-seal occurrences on certain paintings proves that the "matsu-yo" refers, in this particular case to descendent in the pupil sense.

III. Signatures and Seals:

Another point which Binyon and Sexton bring up is that of the signatures on the Kaigetsudö work. Of these they say, "Not only is the hand peculiar and sprawling, but it is precisely similar in each case."(32) Other critics note subtle variations in the writing style.

Although there are no prints carrying Ando's signature, there are in existence several Kaigetsudö paintings which bear the signatures of either Doshin, Dohan, or Doshü, and which have impressed on them the seal of Ando.

Binyon and Sexton mention three instances of this double marking. In way of explication, Binyon and Sexton suppose that Ando may have thought it prudent to adopt these alternate names, while still on some occasions retaining that of Ando.

Dr. Richard Land, whose argument we believe to be a valid one, says "The artist probably worked in the actual atelier of the master and the presence of his seal on their paintings doubtless indicates, in the Japanese tradition, that Ando thought them worthy of representing his school."(33) Yoshida Hiji, excluding the "single-artist theory" notes only that, "The opinion that the students used Ando's seal is more acceptable than that Ando sealed their works."(34) Yaman Kozo, skimming over the same problem, simply states: "Sometimes these pupils signed themselves either 'Nihon giga Kaigetsudö Matsu-yo' or simply 'Kaigetsudö.' Sometimes they used the master's seal just as they thought fit."(35)

None of the writers quoted offer any more than mere supposition and we must turn to the art itself for a convincing answer.

IV. Paintings and Prints:

Initially, we find that there is, along with some variation of treatment, a strong resemblance among all the prints. It is in the variations, however, particularly those variations found in the face of the "bijin" that we may distinguish the style of several artists. There are subtle differences in the eyes, the tilt of the chin, and in the general expression of the face. Dr. Richard Lane, in a highly perceptive analysis, notes that each of the pupils gave his model an entirely different mood; to one a look of "cunning," to another, "coyness," to a third, "eroticism," and to still another, "psychological insight."

There is no record that Ando ever returned from Oshima, although Dr. Richard Lane, the chief writer on this school in recent years, cautiously advances the theory that "One of two of his paintings exist that may possibly date from a period a decade or two after the scandal."(26) Lane goes on to say that "It is clear, however, that Ando never again returned to the active exercise of his profession, that his several pupils continued carrying on the master's profession in such a faithful manner that the uninitiated viewer is likely to conclude that the paintings of the Kaigetsudö school are all the work of the same man."(27)

About the other artists who are believed to have been the pupils of Ando, there is even less biographical data available. Dr. Lane mentions only that Anchi was also known by the studio name of Chövödö, and that he was the only one of Ando's pupils to have a studio name of his own. Lane further surmises that Anchi may have been Ando's own son, and calls our attention to the fact that he is the only pupil to derive his given name from the first syllable of Ando's name. Beyond this, Lane tells only that "It is clear that Ando and his immediate pupils must have flourished about the years 1700-1725 and their imitators in style about 1720-1750."(28) The only other piece of biographical information that we were able to locate was a brief reference by Yamana Kozo in his "Nihon Ukiyo-e Shi" wherein he states: "In the 'Hayashi Mokoroku,' Kaigetsudö Anchi is named as the first person of this group to be active in the production of woodblock prints." He goes on to say that this information is generally accepted. Unfortunately, however, we cannot check this document in question at the time of this writing.

Research by: Howard A. Link.