|
One of the notorious incidents during the early days of ukiyo-e collecting occurred in 1919, when an unscrupulous Japanese dealer (Hayashi Kyûgo; died 1947) sold revamped originals to the famous architect and print collector/dealer Frank Lloyd Wright. Revamping involved printing colors from recut wood blocks onto faded but otherwise genuine prints. Hayashi devised his scam with a Japanese collector named Takamizawa Enji (1870-1927, 高見澤), who employed highly skilled artisans to make facsimiles and fakes. Many connoisseurs of the period were fooled by his prints. The revamped impressions were soon identified, however, among a hoard of 1,500 prints that Wright had brought back from Japan that same year, some of which he had already sold to American collectors. The early connoisseur Judson Metzger, 1869-1956, was instrumental in recognizing the fraud, and thus the scandal was exposed. Takamizawa's copies still surface occasionally, including prints made from both recut key blocks and color blocks. The two impressions shown below of a design by Katsukawa Shunshô (c. 1723 - 1793) have been attributed to Takamizawa (also see the article by Roger Keyes cited in references). When making reproductions with the intention to deceive, copies are printed with colorants and techniques meant to imitate the appearance of aged originals. In this case, the figure of the actor Nakamura Noshio was copied from an original design circa 1773 (see figure at right; original impressions exist in the Art Institute of Chicago; the Sackler Museum, Harvard University; and the Musée Guimet, Paris). The background with a round lattice window was omitted from the copies. In judging whether an impression is a copy, first compare the key block lines. Other factors may also provide corroborating evidence for the impression being a later copy. (Another possibility is that an impression might be an alternate state contemporaneous with the original; these were uncommon but are occasionally encountered). In the present case, the key block lines differ from the original. The commentary below summarizes the main points supporting the thesis that these impressions were not only copies but were also made to imitate aged original prints. As neither impression bears the seal of Takamizawa (whose firm also produced legitimate copies of old originals), it is uncertain whether they were sold as "originals" with the intent to deceive buyers, but clearly they were made in imitation of 18th-century prints.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
|
||||||||||||||
|