The Japanese aesthetics

The Japanese aesthetics

The Japanese aesthetics comprise the Wabi Sabi, Mono no Aware and Ma. These three aspects are deeply rooted in Japanese culture throughout history. Prusinski and Kubota (2016) concur that these aesthetics rely on the perception of the observer in relation to their experience of the surroundings. In this regard, the Japanese aesthetics can be understood based on the context of their being. In the light of these aspects and in the context of modernism, these aesthetics are deeply embedded in ancient Japan and are widespread in the contemporary Japan.

Kubota (2016) observes that culture and identity are lost to global trends and that with each passing of a worldwide invention, some base culture is lost leading to the emergence of architectural designs that conform more to the common pattern. Japan architectural designs and identity have stood the test of time and thrived the effects of global trends. He notes that it has maintained its aesthetics elements during the modernist era. Prusinski and Kubota (2016) concur that the contemporary world order is moving towards a more homogenized culture. On the contrary and regarding the box form which was of western modernism and international aspect, it was adapted in Japan and conformed to the culture and design of the Japanese environment (Prusinski; Kubota 2016).

Prusinski alludes this resistance to the Japanese culture that acknowledges the coexistence of nature and humanity. They embrace what they cannot overpower and create a harmonious atmosphere (Prusinski). As a result, modern inventions have minimized Japanese reliance on nature, but it still appreciates the role of nature in an industrial setting, arguing that technology cannot eliminate nature (Kubota 2016). Besides, Japanese aesthetics have combined modern advancement to highlight their natural roots as opposed to diminishing their presence in society. Prusinski notes that Japan has undergone a complete metamorphosis throughout history. Its ancient aesthetics have distinctively and brilliantly portrayed the Japanese culture and continues to do so in the face of evolution that the future holds.

The ideas and judgment of Bruno Taut on Katsura Imperial Villa has met with both admiration and criticism in equal measure. Yet, his work left historical footprints in highlighting this piece from a modernist perspective. According to Kaji-O’Grady (2001), Taut accuses Japanese architects of abandoning modernism and consequently turning away from national architectural traditions. He views Japanese architecture as a civilization in decay based on his own experience in the countryside. Besides, he installed new rationalism based on creative rather than analytical thought (Kaji-O’Grady, 2001).

Further, Taut viewed architecture as the highest art whose role was to unify other techniques for the good future of the masses. He used simplicity, purity, rationality, form, continuity and Japanese history to refer to the originality of the architect’s vision. In this view, modern Japanese architects find themselves equidistant between historical Japanese architecture and western architecture (Prusinski).

On the other hand, his views on the Katsura Imperial Villa as a bold and original piece that is not imitative. The architect had authority on taste and had a remarkable quality of invention and liberty from convention and vast artistic horizon. In his opinion, Katsura Imperial Villa met the grid of modern Japanese architecture. In his analysis, beauty comes to being through unified standard utility with dignified representation and philosophical spirituality. He notes the mastery of garden art, flower arrangement and tea culture as entirely modern architecture (Kaji-O’Grady, 2001).

Kubota (2016) and Kaji-O’Grady (2001) assert that Taut was a mouthpiece for Japanese who supported international modernism. They observe that he had the most significant influence on Japanese perception on the relevance of their traditions in the present and how the world understood Japanese architecture as well as the role of the architect in the society. They also viewed him as an intellectual and liberal bourgeoisie hiding as the objective truth of aesthetic delight, good taste appreciation of beauty and respect for the creative genius (Kubota 2016; Kaji-O’Grady 2001). Taut also concurs with other scholars on nature in terms of its cleanliness, simplicity, clarity, faithfulness and cheerfulness.

About the western gaze, Taut observed that the European would find pictures of architecture picturesque because the camera cannot capture the freeze, smell. Their understanding comes from images alone hence dismissed the spiritual connection that the Japanese claim to have with nature (Kubota 2016). He observed that their houses are nothing more than tents; thus, he doubt the closeness to nature on which they are emphatic. On the other hand, the western critics do not hail architects who do not synthesize modern architecture but instead favour those who work within the rules of the game of modernism (Kaji-O’Grady 2001).

The solution to Japanese architecture is the eclecticism and not historicism. It serves as a strategy to negotiate the impossibility of the authenticity to time, self and nation. Along this line of thought, eclecticism is not a derivative of American and European postmodernism but strategically directive against a complex history of exchange and negotiation between Japan, modernity and the west. Western critics of modern Japanese architecture note that it conforms to western ideas of Japanese style and acknowledge a seamless meshing of modernism and Japanese architecture. Bruno Taut’s activities in Japan were complex and continue to operate in attitudes to subsequent developments both amongst Japanese and Western critics.