This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The main thing that needs to be done is referencing the top of the article, then making sure all the other sections are well referenced as well. Anyone up to it? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the section called "Modern art in Japan" be better called "Contemporary art in Japan", since its subject is the current art scene in Japan? The section before, on the "Postwar period", obviously would include much "modern" Japanese art, in the sense of "modernist" art. Anyone agree with me on this? MdArtLover ( talk) 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
|
These indigenous characteristics can be seen in early Buddhist art in Japan and some early Japanese Buddhist sculpture is now believed to have originated in Korea, particularly from Baekje, or Korean artisans who immigrated to Yamato Japan.
The source is affixed to this article. buddhapia.com However, the source is being written like this. (This source was written by Hyundai in South Korea. Therefore, this source has a strong bias in Korea. (For instance, This site replaces the Sea of Japan with East Sea.
In this paper I have attempted to illuminate the process by which Buddhist sculpture was transmitted from Korea to Japan. I have argued that various groups, including offi cial envoys, monks and students, as well as Korean settlers, were responsible for bringing Korean icons to Japan. In addition to actual icons, sculptors possessing the knowledge of how to make Buddhist images must have come in large numbers. However, the simple arrival of icons and sculptors would not have inevitably led to the flourishing of Buddhism and Buddhist art that was seen in Asuka Japan. Obviously there had to be a powerful group who felt that it was in their interest to adopt Buddhism.
Therefore, I delete this part. Please rewrite the Korean art if you hope for the re-publishing. This source is being written.
One must stress the obvious point that since Korean Buddhist art is directly based on developments in China, ultimately a study of Korean influence on Japan must be rooted in an understanding of the Chinese impact on Korea.
-- Eichikiyama ( talk) 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The flourishing of Buddhist art, especially sculpture, in Japan during the sixth and seventh centuries was a direct result of the transmission of Buddhism from Korea. Naturally, most of the early Japanese statues have been lost through the centuries, although a surprisingly large number are still in existence. This contrasts strikingly with the situation in China and Korea, where a very large percentage of the icons, particularly those made of wood and bronze, have been destroyed in persecutions of Buddhism, as well as through natural causes. Consequently, while Japan was not a center for the creation of new artistic styles in the early period....... In this paper I would like to emphasize the process by which Buddhism and Buddhist art were transmitted from Korea to Japan...This sixth century map shows the two basic routes by which Buddhism spread from Korea to Japan: 1) from Paekche across the strait to Kyushu, then up the Inland Sea to the Nara basin; and 2) from Silla across the East Sea to the island of Honshu. All scholars recognize that the Koryu-ji Maitreya is based on a Korean prototype...Virtually all the important early Korean icons have been lost, but that should not obscure the fact that the styles of Buddhist sculpture were transmitted from Korea to Japan. It is inconceivable that small, quite simple icons made in Korea led to the pro duction of the magnificent images of Asuka sculpture; rather, there must have been numerous impressive icons in Koguryo, Paekche and Silla which formed the basis for the sculpture of the Asuka period.
You should've fixed the content regarding the Korean influence to Japanese sculpture came not only from Baekje, but also from Goguryo, and Silla, rather blanked out the whole citation and content. That practice seems like you don't want the mention of Korean influence on Japan to be included.-- Caspian blue 18:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I deleted only These indigenous characteristics can be seen in early Buddhist art in Japan and some early Japanese Buddhist sculpture is now believed to have originated in Korea, particularly from Baekje, or Korean artisans who immigrated to Yamato Japan..
I have not deleted "Particularly, the semi-seated Maitreya form was adapted into a highly developed Korean style which was transmitted to Japan as evidenced by the Koryu-ji Miroku Bosatsu and the Chugu-ji Siddhartha statues. Although many historians portray Korea as a mere transmitter of Buddhism, the Three Kingdoms, and particularly Baekje, were instrumental as active agents in the introduction and formation of a Buddhist tradition in Japan in 538 or 552.".
Evidence: [1]
What you are saying is far off the mark.
I question you again.
The source is being written.
In this paper I have attempted to illuminate the process by which Buddhist sculpture was transmitted from Korea to Japan. I have argued that various groups, including offi cial envoys, monks and students, as well as Korean settlers, were responsible for bringing Korean icons to Japan. In addition to actual icons, sculptors possessing the knowledge of how to make Buddhist images must have come in large numbers. However, the simple arrival of icons and sculptors would not have inevitably led to the flourishing of Buddhism and Buddhist art that was seen in Asuka Japan. Obviously there had to be a powerful group who felt that it was in their interest to adopt Buddhism.
You must explain the reason to delete the latter half part.
And, how do you treat this part?
One must stress the obvious point that since Korean Buddhist art is directly based on developments in China, ultimately a study of Korean influence on Japan must be rooted in an understanding of the Chinese impact on Korea.
-- Eichikiyama ( talk) 19:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the part of the bold-faced type.
These indigenous characteristics can be seen in early Buddhist art in Japan and some early Japanese Buddhist sculpture is now believed to have originated in Korea, particularly from Baekje, or Korean artisans who immigrated to Yamato Japan. Particularly, the semi-seated Maitreya form was adapted into a highly developed Korean style which was transmitted to Japan as evidenced by the Koryu-ji Miroku Bosatsu and the Chugu-ji Siddhartha statues. Although many historians portray Korea as a mere transmitter of Buddhism, the Three Kingdoms, and particularly Baekje, were instrumental as active agents in the introduction and formation of a Buddhist tradition in Japan in 538 or 552.
The description of "Particularly… in Japan in 538 or 552." is faithful to the source. Therefore, I did not correct it at all.
However, "These indigenous characteristics…immigrated to Yamato Japan." is a description of the source and the contrary. The source is being written like this.
In this paper I have attempted to illuminate the process by which Buddhist sculpture was transmitted from Korea to Japan. I have argued that various groups, including offi cial envoys, monks and students, as well as Korean settlers, were responsible for bringing Korean icons to Japan. In addition to actual icons, sculptors possessing the knowledge of how to make Buddhist images must have come in large numbers. However, the simple arrival of icons and sculptors would not have inevitably led to the flourishing of Buddhism and Buddhist art that was seen in Asuka Japan. Obviously there had to be a powerful group who felt that it was in their interest to adopt Buddhism.
And, this source affixes the disclaimer.
One must stress the obvious point that since Korean Buddhist art is directly based on developments in China, ultimately a study of Korean influence on Japan must be rooted in an understanding of the Chinese impact on Korea.
I think the source to have been falsified so that this description may undervalue "Influence of a Chinese art on a Japanese art". Therefore, I deleted only this part.
However, Caspian blue insisted, "This description was sincere in the source", and wrote this description again.
Caspian blue and I became edit battles. Caspian blue was not able to be persuaded in my unskilled English.
In this problem, " Korean influence on Japanese Culture" is not a cause. It does because of the difference between the editorial policy of Caspian blue and the editorial policy of EichiKiyama.
Therefore, I will persuade him again later. -- Eichikiyama ( talk) 11:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The main thing that needs to be done is referencing the top of the article, then making sure all the other sections are well referenced as well. Anyone up to it? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the section called "Modern art in Japan" be better called "Contemporary art in Japan", since its subject is the current art scene in Japan? The section before, on the "Postwar period", obviously would include much "modern" Japanese art, in the sense of "modernist" art. Anyone agree with me on this? MdArtLover ( talk) 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
|
These indigenous characteristics can be seen in early Buddhist art in Japan and some early Japanese Buddhist sculpture is now believed to have originated in Korea, particularly from Baekje, or Korean artisans who immigrated to Yamato Japan.
The source is affixed to this article. buddhapia.com However, the source is being written like this. (This source was written by Hyundai in South Korea. Therefore, this source has a strong bias in Korea. (For instance, This site replaces the Sea of Japan with East Sea.
In this paper I have attempted to illuminate the process by which Buddhist sculpture was transmitted from Korea to Japan. I have argued that various groups, including offi cial envoys, monks and students, as well as Korean settlers, were responsible for bringing Korean icons to Japan. In addition to actual icons, sculptors possessing the knowledge of how to make Buddhist images must have come in large numbers. However, the simple arrival of icons and sculptors would not have inevitably led to the flourishing of Buddhism and Buddhist art that was seen in Asuka Japan. Obviously there had to be a powerful group who felt that it was in their interest to adopt Buddhism.
Therefore, I delete this part. Please rewrite the Korean art if you hope for the re-publishing. This source is being written.
One must stress the obvious point that since Korean Buddhist art is directly based on developments in China, ultimately a study of Korean influence on Japan must be rooted in an understanding of the Chinese impact on Korea.
-- Eichikiyama ( talk) 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The flourishing of Buddhist art, especially sculpture, in Japan during the sixth and seventh centuries was a direct result of the transmission of Buddhism from Korea. Naturally, most of the early Japanese statues have been lost through the centuries, although a surprisingly large number are still in existence. This contrasts strikingly with the situation in China and Korea, where a very large percentage of the icons, particularly those made of wood and bronze, have been destroyed in persecutions of Buddhism, as well as through natural causes. Consequently, while Japan was not a center for the creation of new artistic styles in the early period....... In this paper I would like to emphasize the process by which Buddhism and Buddhist art were transmitted from Korea to Japan...This sixth century map shows the two basic routes by which Buddhism spread from Korea to Japan: 1) from Paekche across the strait to Kyushu, then up the Inland Sea to the Nara basin; and 2) from Silla across the East Sea to the island of Honshu. All scholars recognize that the Koryu-ji Maitreya is based on a Korean prototype...Virtually all the important early Korean icons have been lost, but that should not obscure the fact that the styles of Buddhist sculpture were transmitted from Korea to Japan. It is inconceivable that small, quite simple icons made in Korea led to the pro duction of the magnificent images of Asuka sculpture; rather, there must have been numerous impressive icons in Koguryo, Paekche and Silla which formed the basis for the sculpture of the Asuka period.
You should've fixed the content regarding the Korean influence to Japanese sculpture came not only from Baekje, but also from Goguryo, and Silla, rather blanked out the whole citation and content. That practice seems like you don't want the mention of Korean influence on Japan to be included.-- Caspian blue 18:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I deleted only These indigenous characteristics can be seen in early Buddhist art in Japan and some early Japanese Buddhist sculpture is now believed to have originated in Korea, particularly from Baekje, or Korean artisans who immigrated to Yamato Japan..
I have not deleted "Particularly, the semi-seated Maitreya form was adapted into a highly developed Korean style which was transmitted to Japan as evidenced by the Koryu-ji Miroku Bosatsu and the Chugu-ji Siddhartha statues. Although many historians portray Korea as a mere transmitter of Buddhism, the Three Kingdoms, and particularly Baekje, were instrumental as active agents in the introduction and formation of a Buddhist tradition in Japan in 538 or 552.".
Evidence: [1]
What you are saying is far off the mark.
I question you again.
The source is being written.
In this paper I have attempted to illuminate the process by which Buddhist sculpture was transmitted from Korea to Japan. I have argued that various groups, including offi cial envoys, monks and students, as well as Korean settlers, were responsible for bringing Korean icons to Japan. In addition to actual icons, sculptors possessing the knowledge of how to make Buddhist images must have come in large numbers. However, the simple arrival of icons and sculptors would not have inevitably led to the flourishing of Buddhism and Buddhist art that was seen in Asuka Japan. Obviously there had to be a powerful group who felt that it was in their interest to adopt Buddhism.
You must explain the reason to delete the latter half part.
And, how do you treat this part?
One must stress the obvious point that since Korean Buddhist art is directly based on developments in China, ultimately a study of Korean influence on Japan must be rooted in an understanding of the Chinese impact on Korea.
-- Eichikiyama ( talk) 19:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the part of the bold-faced type.
These indigenous characteristics can be seen in early Buddhist art in Japan and some early Japanese Buddhist sculpture is now believed to have originated in Korea, particularly from Baekje, or Korean artisans who immigrated to Yamato Japan. Particularly, the semi-seated Maitreya form was adapted into a highly developed Korean style which was transmitted to Japan as evidenced by the Koryu-ji Miroku Bosatsu and the Chugu-ji Siddhartha statues. Although many historians portray Korea as a mere transmitter of Buddhism, the Three Kingdoms, and particularly Baekje, were instrumental as active agents in the introduction and formation of a Buddhist tradition in Japan in 538 or 552.
The description of "Particularly… in Japan in 538 or 552." is faithful to the source. Therefore, I did not correct it at all.
However, "These indigenous characteristics…immigrated to Yamato Japan." is a description of the source and the contrary. The source is being written like this.
In this paper I have attempted to illuminate the process by which Buddhist sculpture was transmitted from Korea to Japan. I have argued that various groups, including offi cial envoys, monks and students, as well as Korean settlers, were responsible for bringing Korean icons to Japan. In addition to actual icons, sculptors possessing the knowledge of how to make Buddhist images must have come in large numbers. However, the simple arrival of icons and sculptors would not have inevitably led to the flourishing of Buddhism and Buddhist art that was seen in Asuka Japan. Obviously there had to be a powerful group who felt that it was in their interest to adopt Buddhism.
And, this source affixes the disclaimer.
One must stress the obvious point that since Korean Buddhist art is directly based on developments in China, ultimately a study of Korean influence on Japan must be rooted in an understanding of the Chinese impact on Korea.
I think the source to have been falsified so that this description may undervalue "Influence of a Chinese art on a Japanese art". Therefore, I deleted only this part.
However, Caspian blue insisted, "This description was sincere in the source", and wrote this description again.
Caspian blue and I became edit battles. Caspian blue was not able to be persuaded in my unskilled English.
In this problem, " Korean influence on Japanese Culture" is not a cause. It does because of the difference between the editorial policy of Caspian blue and the editorial policy of EichiKiyama.
Therefore, I will persuade him again later. -- Eichikiyama ( talk) 11:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)