Monday, March 30, 2015

Sada Yacco at the Japanese Pavillion

The 1900 Exposition Universelle witnessed a tremendous show of Japanese art.  First of all was the new inclusion of the official school of Japanese oil painting, led by the figure of Kuroda Seiki, in the Beaux-Arts division from which Japanese art had been excluded as “decorative” in 1889. Japanese artists maintained their success in the field of decorative arts, however, with the Kawashima textiles company winning first place for its designs in the textile division and Kamisaka Sekka and Kishi Kokei winning a gold for their lacquered writing desk. [i] Hoping to assert its prominence as a model of culture and civilization outside of the European sphere, the Japanese government published an aggressively historicizing tome, The History of the Arts of Japan (https://archive.org/details/histoiredelartdu00japa). Weighing in at 277 pages, the book began with prehistoric painting and swept through centuries of Japanese artists and their biographies, reflecting recent Japanese efforts to excavate its cultural history and serving as a complement to the thirteen centuries of Japanese culture and lacquer on display at the exposition. [ii] In connection with the Japanese-sponsored display of Japanese woodblock prints and the Bing Pavillion, the imperial representation of Japanese art sought to anchor its popularity in Europe in a careful historical record and teleological narrative of cultural progress. The Japanese Pavilion itself had a close historical referent in the Golden Pavilion, Kinkakuji, in Kyoto. 









This is not to say that popular spectacle had no place at the Japanese exhibition. This role was played by the theatrical performances of Sada Yacco, whose feminine persona and splendid costuming played into the anticipation of the Japanese arts as at once refined and visually impressive in color and pattern, as well as based on natural form mysterious and incomprehensible. Quotes from the onlookers demonstrate this fascinations, and refer to Yacco’s  "supple movements of a reed swaying in the wind," "a lotus flower on the water or a field of long grass in the wind," or the "the swift curve and flicker of a flame."[i]


The troupe accompanying Yacco specialized in three plays: The Geisha and the Knight, the Loyalist, and The Inspired Sculpture. These were performed in the theater on the exhibition grounds, and are reported to have become a major attraction for the exhibition. Although praised for their remarkable display of costumed fabrics, based on kimono designs, and the feminine grace and poise of the central actress’ geisha persona, the plays and dances drew heavily from European sources. For example, the Inspired Sculpture tale was a retelling of the myth of Pygmalion and Galatea in a Japanese setting, complete with a conflict in dance between the ideal woman and the sculptor’s extant wife. The dances themselves were incorporated vivacious elements of flamenco and other European dance, constructing an active spectacle for the viewers presented nonetheless as kabuki dance (one French commentator expressed his enthusiasm for the hara-kiri scene in the Geisha and the Knight and describes it in vivid dramatic detail.) These disparate qualities were kept in check by Yacco’s performance of physical constraint and emotional control, subduing cultural dissonance through the image of her geisha training. Needless to say, these elements differed from Japanese Kabuki, first in the inclusion of women (who had been banned from the art since the early Edo period) and then in her relatively physically and emotionally activated performance. Yacco, herself an adamant and active proponent of women’s rights, voiced her enthusiasm for performance in the West, which demanded the actress to smile, frown, and gesture, while kabuki demanded the stillness of a "doll-like" woman. Yacco and her troupe thus adapted Japanese performance modes to be legible to European audiences, building on the European image of Japanese arts and geisha to result in a successful and widely praised series of performances.

Berg, Shelley. "Sada Yacco in London and Paris, 1900: Le Reve Realise." Dance Chronicle. 1995, Vol. 18 Issue 3, p343-404.


[i] 379


[i] Tsen, Hsuan, Scott Bukatman, Wanda M. Corn, Jim Reichert, and Bryan J. Wolf.Spectacles of Authenticity: The Emergence of Transnational Entertainments in Japan and America, 1880-1906. , 2011. P120
[ii] 370

Monday, March 2, 2015

Bird's Eye View of the 1867 Universal Exposition, Paris

Bird's Eye View Of The Universal Exposition, Paris
This a lithographic print showing a "Bird's Eye View" of the 1867 Exposition Universelle in Paris by Eugene Cicéri (1813-1890). Eugene Cicéri was a prominent French illustrator, lithographer, and sometimes painter who specialized in landscapes and scenes of buildings. He often chose cityscapes and major natural features as his subject matter, and his style is characterized by deep perspective and a clear, privileged level of detail. His citycapes tend to position themselves at one major landmark and gaze out across several others. 
Eugene Cicéri, Cologne, Vue prise de Deutz, 1864
Here, Cicéri offers a massive, closely detailed view of the Exposition grounds, with a focus on the massive oval exhibition hall, the Palais Champ-de-Mars, which took its name from the area of the exposition. Interestingly, the (Mainardi 144) vantage point for the print is positioned above the Trocadero Square, looking Southeast over the Lena bridge towards the Champ de Mars. This was a "symbolic" viewpoint of Paris from which many other views of the Exposition were framed, including another print of the Exposition by Pinot and Sagaire, as well as Edouard Manet's "View of the Universal Exposition of Paris, which has a compressed view of the cityscape.
Cicéri's lithograph was included as the main illustration for ads for the Illustrated Exposition Universelle, a bi-weekly publication of information about the fair planned to run for sixty issues. The flyer advertises that the first thirty issues form an attractive monograph of the fair that and an encyclopedic record. Ciceri's lithograph is closely cropped in this printed version to show the Palais as well as the French lighthouse. While the French lighthouse, the Phare des Roches-Douvres, was built with a typical neoclassical design and gas lighting, the British design used a skeletal structure that caused an uproar for its "fleshless frame" and appearance like an "enormous scaffold." (Mainardi 146) It was, however, lit with an electric light, and served as a symbol of ingenuity and progress in works such as Manet's painting. Its visual unpopularity, and possibly the French distaste for being overshadowed by Britain, led to the British lighthouse being cropped from the flyer in which Cicéri's lithograph was reproduced as well as other lithographs, such as that of L. Dumont. In this sense, Cicéri's lithograph offered a relatively less-adulterated view of the fair. 
The British Lighthouse visible in the lithograph. 
What else can this print tell us about the 1867 exposition? The central Palace shows major revisions to the layout of the exposition following the financial failure of the 1855 Exposition. The 1855 Expo's use of many exhibition buildings was thought to contribute to its deficit, and so Prince Napoleon recommended the use of a single building laid out on the axes of product and nation. This was largely accomplished in the 1867 Exposition, where the outer and largest ring was reserved for industry, the inner ring for fine arts, and the center for a display of currency, thought to represent the exposition's revised priorities. While some representations of the exposition show the Palace in a tranquil and carefully landscaped setting,  Ciceri shows the exposition as incredibly busy, for example in the extended network of fair grounds that ring the Palais as well as the throngs of visitors visible throughout the print. This was in some important ways contrary to state expectations for the exposition's design, but it is a more accurate depiction of reality. French artists protested the new focus on industry, the massive reduction in the number of awards given, and the 67% rejection rate that clearly excluded a younger generation of artists, including Cezanne, Manet, Renoir, and Monet from Exposition display. While a few French works such as sculptures were moved to the inner courtyard, a number of artists as well as several foreign exhibitions moved their displays to the Champ de Mars, the larger grounds of the exhibition. As a result, this extended network of attractions and pavilions formed, thwarting the hope for a coherent centralized plan.