context: painting > general comments

Masters and pupils

Clearly the world of art is full of master-pupil relationships. The Japanese case is rather extreme, however. Pupils are generally bonded more tightly to their masters, often from a younger age. The discipline can be extreme - there are any number of accounts of pupils being permitted to draw nothing but circles for years. They were not expected simply to learn painting, but to learn to paint just like the master - this has caused many problems of attribution, especially when a mark of the pupil having got the hang of it to the master's satisfaction could be the master signing the pupil's work. It was only when the artist graduated - and this might often be when the master died - that they could show their own individuality. Even then, they were often committed to fitting within a lineage, within a school style.

I've seen arguments made that this was a benefit, something about having to show your personality within such tight bounds being more of a test of creativity, a spur to genius, but I don't see much virtue in that line. On the other hand, it's why so many Japanese artists are inclined to scarper to the US or Europe at the first opportunity, to escape the constriction.

backwards: criteria