Re: Kakihan ("written seal, signature")

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Chats on Japanese Prints ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Hans Olof Johansson on December 13, 1998 at 12:25:51:

In Reply to: Re: Kakihan ("written seal, signature") posted by Hans Olof Johansson on December 13, 1998 at 12:14:14:

Sorry for the extreme use of italics in my last message. This (hopefully) is what it should have looked like:

John,

I know my English isn´t very good, but I didn´t realise that it is completely unintelligible. :-) I´ll try to make myself a little clearer.

1. Kakihan or kaô are personal marks used by Japanese artists and artisans in conjunction with their names. I believe we agree on this.

2. With the typical ambiguity of the Japanese language, kakihan can be written in at least two different ways. Koop & Inada, and also Japanese web sites illustrating this kind of marks, use the two characters KA, hana (Nelson 3909) and Ô (Nelson 1885), literally meaning something like 'flower seal'. Don´t ask me how this combination of characters can be pronounced kakihan; Nelson (Andrew Nathaniel Nelson: The Modern Reader´s Japanese-English Character Dictionary) only suggests one pronunciation, kaô, but other sources, including my faithful A New Japanese-English Dictionary Based on the Current Japanese Literature (by K Wadagaki, Tokyo 1902), give kakihan as the only or primary pronunciation.

3. The 20 examples of kakihan given by Koop & Inada don´t look much like Japanese or Chinese characters, and they certainly don´t seem to be depictions of anything. As I stated earlier, they don´t appear to have much in common with Shôkôsai´s pine needles or Utaemon´s eye, though these are also referred to as kakihan, perhaps in a more general sense.

4. Most of my sources, including Nelson, seem to emphasise that these marks were handmade by definition, as opposed to being impressed with a stamp or printed. The significance of a kakihan on a sword or a bowl appears to be somewhat similar to the signature of a Western artist

5. On a small number of Japanese prints from the 18th and 19th century there are various marks, that have been characterised as kakihan. Some of these are attached to the artists´ signatures. The only kakihan resembling the ones illustrated by Koop & Inada, that I have seen so far, are the marks attached to Toyokuni´s signature on two prints. Like all the others, these appear to be printed - not individually applied by hand. I have never tried to suggest that they were not printed.

6. Assuming that such kakihan, as illustrated by Koop & Inada, by definition are handmade, why did Toyokuni attach this mark (in a printed version) to his signature on a number of prints? Did this mark have a special meaning in this context?

If there isn´t any evidence suggesting otherwise, I´m perfectly happy to accept that this mark could simply be a substitute for the kind of seal that Hiroshige often used in conjunction with his signature.

Your Utaemon eye, however, is in my opinion only likely to confuse the issue, and so are - for different reasons - most of the other Osaka examples (some of them brought into the discussion by myself, I regret to say). Having seen your image of Utaemon´s mark, I am certain that this is indeed a reproduction of Utaemon´s own calligraphy, where the woodcarver has made a beautiful job of imitating the brush strokes (cf an earlier, very interesting discussion in "Chats", Individualism and Ukiyo-e). In this context, the mark has a perfectly natural place, as it has in the case, where Utaemon himself contributed one design to series of role portraits, the others being designed by Ashikuni. This was, of course, a rather special event, and one may imagine that the publisher wanted to emphasise that it was a self portrait, by including also the kakihan part of the signature.

Apart from the fact that none of these Osaka examples of kakihan seems to belong to the same category as the ones illustrated by Koop & Inada, I could also speculate in the reasons for reproducing the kakihan in the other cases. But I really think that this discussion would benefit from concentrating on the Toyokuni kakihan.

However, unless you or somebody else can come up with any source material, pointing in one or the other direction, I don´t believe that it´s very meaningful to continue discussing the issue.

Best regards,

Hans Olof

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
Subject:

Comments:
: Sorry for the extreme use of italics in my last message. This (hopefully) is what it should have looked like: : : John, : I know my English isn´t very good, but I didn´t realise that it is completely unintelligible. :-) I´ll try to make myself a little clearer. : 1. Kakihan or kaô are personal marks used by Japanese artists and artisans in conjunction with their names. I believe we agree on this. : 2. With the typical ambiguity of the Japanese language, kakihan can be written in at least two different ways. Koop & Inada, and also Japanese web sites illustrating this kind of marks, use the two characters KA, hana (Nelson 3909) and Ô (Nelson 1885), literally meaning something like 'flower seal'. Don´t ask me how this combination of characters can be pronounced kakihan; Nelson (Andrew Nathaniel Nelson: The Modern Reader´s Japanese-English Character Dictionary) only suggests one pronunciation, kaô, but other sources, including my faithful A New Japanese-English Dictionary Based on the Current Japanese Literature (by K Wadagaki, Tokyo 1902), give kakihan as the only or primary pronunciation. : 3. The 20 examples of kakihan given by Koop & Inada don´t look much like Japanese or Chinese characters, and they certainly don´t seem to be depictions of anything. As I stated earlier, they don´t appear to have much in common with Shôkôsai´s pine needles or Utaemon´s eye, though these are also referred to as kakihan, perhaps in a more general sense. : 4. Most of my sources, including Nelson, seem to emphasise that these marks were handmade by definition, as opposed to being impressed with a stamp or printed. The significance of a kakihan on a sword or a bowl appears to be somewhat similar to the signature of a Western artist : 5. On a small number of Japanese prints from the 18th and 19th century there are various marks, that have been characterised as kakihan. Some of these are attached to the artists´ signatures. The only kakihan resembling the ones illustrated by Koop & Inada, that I have seen so far, are the marks attached to Toyokuni´s signature on two prints. Like all the others, these appear to be printed - not individually applied by hand. I have never tried to suggest that they were not printed. : 6. Assuming that such kakihan, as illustrated by Koop & Inada, by definition are handmade, why did Toyokuni attach this mark (in a printed version) to his signature on a number of prints? Did this mark have a special meaning in this context? : If there isn´t any evidence suggesting otherwise, I´m perfectly happy to accept that this mark could simply be a substitute for the kind of seal that Hiroshige often used in conjunction with his signature. : Your Utaemon eye, however, is in my opinion only likely to confuse the issue, and so are - for different reasons - most of the other Osaka examples (some of them brought into the discussion by myself, I regret to say). Having seen your image of Utaemon´s mark, I am certain that this is indeed a reproduction of Utaemon´s own calligraphy, where the woodcarver has made a beautiful job of imitating the brush strokes (cf an earlier, very interesting discussion in "Chats", Individualism and Ukiyo-e). In this context, the mark has a perfectly natural place, as it has in the case, where Utaemon himself contributed one design to series of role portraits, the others being designed by Ashikuni. This was, of course, a rather special event, and one may imagine that the publisher wanted to emphasise that it was a self portrait, by including also the kakihan part of the signature. : Apart from the fact that none of these Osaka examples of kakihan seems to belong to the same category as the ones illustrated by Koop & Inada, I could also speculate in the reasons for reproducing the kakihan in the other cases. But I really think that this discussion would benefit from concentrating on the Toyokuni kakihan. : However, unless you or somebody else can come up with any source material, pointing in one or the other direction, I don´t believe that it´s very meaningful to continue discussing the issue. : Best regards, : Hans Olof

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Chats on Japanese Prints ] [ FAQ ]