Should this print really be included in a series entitled 'The Mystique of the Japanese Print'? It is a reproduction of a single page from a large collection of prints made in China in the early 17th century, 'A Treatise on the Paintings of the Ten Bamboo Studio'.

In many spheres of Japanese art and culture, we can point to roots in mainland Asian societies, either Chinese or Korean. The written language is of course the most obvious of these, and the influence is also clear in such areas as religion and agriculture.

I have learned that most people assume printmaking technology also came to Japan from China, but interestingly, this was not the case. There is no disagreement about priority - both China and Korea produced woodblock prints earlier than Japan - but in an interesting twist, the Japanese techniques are utterly and totally different from the mainland methods. It is clear that people here came up with their own unique process, based on the unique Japanese washi, the use of a baren, and the kento registration technique, none of which are found in the Chinese system.

Why include a Chinese example then? Well partly just to show you a typical example of what they were like, and partly to demonstrate a very interesting capability of the Japanese methods - they can be used to replicate almost any other type of print, even those originally made with a very different technology. I have seen a Japanese print reproduction of a Cezanne painting, which is so similar it can be distinguished from the original only by microscopic examination.

I am probably biased about this, but it seems to me that there is nothing that the Japanese print technology cannot do. It contains within itself such a wide range of expressive techniques, that I cannot imagine any artist, of any culture, being unsatisfied with its capabilities. Some of the old Chinese prints are attractive, that cannot be denied, but I know where my heart lies!

David

September 2011