There seems to be a general consensus among collectors and dealers not to upset the netsuke market or criticise anything. Everything continues on without change and errors are repeated while the money goes round, without debate. Lazarnick and Meinertzhagen are considered gods, but their books and records are full of mistakes! Nobody has bothered to update or revise their knowledge. When I wrote my books there was no thought of imposing a 'rule of taste'. None the less, an important consideration in any choice of a work of art involves an appreciation of its spirit which is essential to the elaboration of these objects. For a great number of people they were talisman and it is this magical side that I have studied and shown in my last book "Promenade dans l'Art Japonais" which is in French, English and Japanese as well there are some subjects which were never discussed before.

With the economic invasion by the West, Japanese artists forgot the precept of their masters and abandoned all rationality to rely more on their skills than on the emotion expressed through the subject. The carvings became insipid and not aesthetic since they were a response to a demand which was far from the magic and of a plastic consideration only. This led to the disaffection of collectors who had bought forgeries which, while they were finely carved, were none the less cold and soulless. The problem was that the collectors were buying purely for investment without trying to learn anything. And, it must be said, the books available often did not give much information and for the most part were just trying to increase the value of the pieces owned through publication.

For example, in her articles, the well known Hull Grumpy  tried to prove the relationship of a piece with the Iwami school. As a result of the research I have conducted, it turns out to be from far away, i.e. Tatekawa from Suwa. However, this woman would not allow any discussion. Since she had an ox and boy signed Nanyo she tried to prove than the wood used by this artist was the same than the one used by the Iwami artists, she thought it was kaki but in fact it was shitan. Nanyo is from Izumi near Osaka and not Izumo near Iwami.

Another case is of the netsuke artist Shoko, who died in 1915, reported in books as a pupil of Sukenaga, which is wrong. He is actually from the Eguro line and was the pupil of his father who had been a student of Suketomo.

In some books there is a skeleton carrying a lantern signed Tametaka (fig.1 and 2). When you look through Meinertzhagen’s Card Index you are puzzled by a strange netsuke called Botan Toro, a skeleton wearing a lotus leaf and carrying a dragon mask and a lantern. Meinertzhagen says the signature appears genuine. As far as I am concerned I agree but it does not look like an 18th century piece and it is not a very functional netsuke. Moreover, it has a martial attitude which does not fit with Tametaka's character where there is usually a certain backward movement which reveals the complex personality of this master. All those I have seen were late 19th and made at the time of a very popular theatre play on the subject in Tokyo. The famous rakugo ka Sanyuteï Encho put on its Kaïdan Botan Doro in 1865 . It was so popular that it came to print in 1884 (over 100.000 copies). This Chinese Ming tale (story of the cut paper lantern) had first been adapted in 1666 by Asai Ryoi and a second time partly by Santo Kyoden in 1809, but to my knowledge there are no illustrations before this date. However, Tametaka died in 1794. So how to explain this? Of course, there were some sketches of skeletons prior to this. The first translation of a western book on anatomy (Kai Tai Shinsho) was published in 1774, and even before that there was a drawing of a skeleton in a manuscript dated 1724.  Also, a doctor wrote about how he took bones from the Kyoto gallows to make a skeleton in 1715.

This subject is unique among Edo netsuke and it was not a talisman. Why would some one wear such a gruesome subject if it was not when this play was so fashionable? Had it not been in wood, I would suspect it to have been made for the foreign market, westerners being fond of vanity. We should keep in mind that Erwin Baelz who was the doctor of Emperor Meïji collected netsuke and was fond of skeletons. That might have accounted for a number of them. Skeletons as ghosts are rare in Japan. The most famous is the Kuniyoshi’s in Soma no Furudairi, but it does not suggest a death allegory as in Europe. Generally ghosts are shown degradating but not to the skeleton state. They are skinny, without feet and with flowing untidy hair and showing a debilitated person. There are a number of books on wandering souls (gaki, ghosts looking like little naked figures) and on hell, but we are far from the European model and the Japanese do not have the fascination for death such as the Mexicans have.

No matter what's its function, everything which has a hole or two is called a netsuke! The magic word which brings in the money!! In a recent auction this miniature tanzaku (fig.3) was described as a netsuke of a Kakemono with a poem and was sold for 300 Euros plus tax. I doubt very much that if it had been properly described it would have sold for so much. More like 50 Euros!!!

Due to the fact that nobody wants to publish my criticisms, I have decided to open my own website.......even if it does upset the market.