Posted by John Fiorillo on December 19, 1998 at 22:59:14:
In Reply to: Re: Kakihan ( posted by Bickford on December 18, 1998 at 09:02:34:
: There is a theory, by the way, proposed by Lawrence Bickford (a sumo print specialist) that Kunisada used the name "nidai Ichiyôsai Toyokuni" (that is, "the second Ichiyôsai Toyokuni") as early as 1828, but that theory and its circumstantial evidence is not widely accepted.
:
: Actually, John, I believe Bickford's argument is that Kunisada signed some of his work simply "Toyokuni" before making the official change to "Toyokuni II". Bickford is trying to explain the incredible stylistic similarity between 1820's prints signed simply "Toyokuni" (as opposed to "Gosotei Toyokuni")and those signed "Kunisada"
: I think it's a very strong argument, based on pictorial evidence, though otherwise, as you say, hard to prove.
Follow-up from JF:
I did not mean to imply that Bickford claims there are prints before 1844 literally signed by Kunisada as "nidai Ichiyôsai Toyokuni" (my quotes around the name, meant only to highlight it, were misleading). It was just as you have indicated, that Bickford claims Kunisada used the Toyokuni signature as early as 1828 and that any specimen with what he calls the "zig-zag" Toyokuni signature unaccompanied by the name Kôsotei belongs to Kunisada whereas those combined with Kôsotei belonged to Toyoshige. Various critics have rejected Bickford’s conclusions, among them Richard Lane (Andon, no. 11, 1983), Ellis Tinios (Andon, no. 24, 1986), and Hendrick Lûhl (Andon, no. 55, 1996).