4c もの派 Mono-ha

4c
もの派
Mono-ha

【本文確定】

１９６８年１０月、関根伸夫は第一回神戸須磨離宮公園現代彫刻展に「位相-大地」という作品を出品しました。これは大地に巨大な円筒形の穴を掘り、その傍らに穴から出た土砂を同形同大の円筒状に固めて配置したものです。関根伸夫の当初の意図はトリック・アート的なものでしたが、李禹煥はこれを見て「そのままの世界のあざやかさ、とでもいうべき感動的な表情を見せ伝える一つの物体と化している」と高く評価しました。すなわち物質や視覚に対する不信ではなく、物質の直接性が開く「あるがままの世界」を肯定したのです。この解釈の出現から、「もの派」が生まれました。すなわち関根伸夫らのグループに、西洋近代の超克を意図していた李禹煥が接近し、反主知主義の運動が起きたのです。関根伸夫らのグループとは、多摩美術大学の斎藤義重教室の門下生たちで、人気のあった高松次郎のゼミの受講生たちでした。

１９６９年、関根は２．５トンの油土（油粘土）を画廊内に不定形に配置し（「空相－油土」）、李禹煥はガラス板の上に重い石を置いてひびを入れました（「現象と知覚Ｂ」、のちに改題「Ｒｅｌａｔｕｍ」）。そして本田眞吾はテント布の中央に石を置き（「Ｎｏ．１６」）、小清水漸は大きな紙の袋に石を入れ（「作品」）、成田克彦は角材を焼いて炭の塊とし（「ＳＵＭＩ　１」）、菅木志雄はパラフィンの板を多数積み上げそれをパラフィンの塀で囲み（「並列層」）、吉田克朗はロープの一端で角材を半吊りにし他端は床上の石に巻きつけました（「Ｃｕｔ－Ｏｆｆ（ｈａｎｇ）」）。評論家の峯村敏明によれば、「『モノ派』とは、１９７０年代前後の日本で、芸術表現の舞台に未加工の自然的な物質・物体 (いか『モノ』と記す) を、素材としてでなく主役として登場させ、モノの在りようやものの働きから直かに何らかの芸術言語を引き出そうと試みた一群の作家たちを指す」とされています（鎌倉画廊「モノ派」展カタログ、１９８６）*4c1。

ここで用語の整理をしておきます。「物体」は物理学の対象、「物質」は化学の対象で、「椅子という物体は、木という物質からできている」というふうに使います*4c2。しかし日本語の「物」は、「物体」と「物質」の両者を区別しないまま指し示す概念で、さらにそれを漢字で表記せずに「もの」と発音した場合、形式名詞や抽象的な強意語さえ含みます。「もの派」における「もの」には、これらすべてが含意されていると考えてもよいでしょう。しかしながら、たとえば椅子でなく原木が多用されたように、「物体」よりも「物質」に重点があったと指摘することも可能です。

「もの派」という呼称は、このような動向に対する揶揄として登場しました。造形行為の不在、すなわち創造性や理念の不在が言い当てられています。また、「概念性や名詞性のホコリをはらってものを見る」という関根伸夫の理解や、「ものが無名のまま在るという状況を放置する」という菅木志雄の主張とも、さほど矛盾しない呼称となっています*4c3。

松澤宥を筆頭とする日本概念派と対比すれば、もの派がもう一つの還元主義だったということが明らかです。ともに反芸術を受け継いで、絵画や彫刻という既成形式を捨て去ったまま、日本概念派は物質を捨象し概念性への還元を果たし、もの派は概念を捨象し物質性への還元を果たしたのだといえます。１９７０年、中原佑介が単独コミッショナーを務めた「人間と物質」展（東京ビエンナーレ ’７０　第１０回日本国際美術展、東京都美術館）は、これらの両傾向が際立ちを見せたことで記憶されています。同じ１９７０年には、日本概念派の作家が集結した「ニルヴァーナ　最終美術のために」（展と集会、京都市美術館）、もの派の作家が集められた「１９７０年８月　現代美術の一断面」展（東京国立近代美術館）も開催され、還元主義の二極化の図式が鮮明となりました。さらに、万博会場では万博芸術が大挙展覧されていたため、単なる進歩思想としてのモダニズムと、これら還元主義としての二つのモダニズムが*4c4、１９７０年には共存していたということになります。

もの派は、日本の固有性の呈示に初めて成功した美術運動であると言われることがあります。作家としては関根伸夫らのグループ（多摩美術大学系）以外に、物質よりは物体を呈示した原口典之ら（日本大学美術学科系）や、染みや滲みを呈示した榎倉康二、枕木を呪物化した高山登ほか（東京藝術大学系）を含めることもあります。さらに、共鳴者や追随者も含めると、一世を風靡した観のある大きなうねりでした*4c5。

In October of 1968, Sekine Nobuo exhibited a work called "Phase - Mother Earth" at the First Kobe Sumarikyu Park Contemporary Sculpture Exhibition. This work involved digging a huge cylindrical hole in the ground and placed a same sized cylinder made out of dirt which was dug out from the hole next to it. Sekine's initial intent was that of Trick Art, but seeing it, Lee U-Fan gave a high praise for the work by remarking that "It has become a singular object which shows an impressive expression which can be described as a vividness of the world as it is." He made an affirmation of the directness of the physical materials which results in the "world as it is," and not his suspicion towards the materials and visuals. Thus "Mono-ha" was born from the emergence of this interpretation. Lee, who has been challenging the influences of Western modernism, approached Sekine and his group and this has resulted in the founding of the anti-intellectualism movement. Sekine and his group were disciples of Saito Yoshishige at Tama Art University, and studied at a popular seminar headed by Takamatsu Jiro.

In the following year of 1969, Sekine freely placed 2.5 tons of oil clay in a gallery ("Phase of Nothingness - Oil Clay") and Lee placed heavy rocks on glass panels, cracking them as a result ("Phenomena and Perception B," later renamed "Relatum"). Honda Shingo placed a rock in the middle of a tent cloth ("No.16"), Koshimizu Susumu placed a rock inside a large paper bag ("Work"), Narita Katsuhiko burned wood beams and made charcoal masses out of them ("SUMI 1"), Suga Kishio stacked large numbers of paraffin plates and surrounded them with fences also made out of paraffin plates ("Parallel Strata") and Yoshida Katsuro hung a wood beam halfway down with one end of the rope and tied a rock on the floor with the other end ("Cut-Off (Hang)"). According to art critic Minemura Toshiaki, "Mono-ha was a group of artists who introduced unprocessed natural objects and matters (herein described as "Mono (things)") as the main theme and not as in raw materials, and attempted to draw out some type of art language directly from the state and function of Mono" (Kamakura Gallery "Mono-ha" exhibition catalog 1986)*4c1.

The word "objects" is used as it is in physics, and the word "matter" is used as it is in chemistry, and an example of the use of these words in such context would be: "The chair, which is an object, is made out of a matter called wood"*4c2. But the Japanese word "Mono (thing)" refers to both "object" and "matter" without distinguishing them, and when this word is not written in Kanji (Chinese characters) and written in Hiragana, it would embody formal noun and abstract intensifier. It can be said that the word "Mono (thing)" in "Mono-ha (School of Mono)" connote both meanings. But as unprocessed woods have been used lot more than the chair, it can be pointed out that there was more focus on the "matter" rather than the "object."

The word "Mono-ha" was introduced as a banter towards the trends of the emergence of these artists. The absence of the act of molding or the absence of creativity and principles aptly describes the word and thus the banter is superb. The word is not too far from Sekine's interpretation of "seeing Mono (things) by brushing the dust off of conceptualism or nominalization" or "leave the situation in which a nameless Mono (thing) exists as it is" as argued by Suga*4c3.

If it contrasts with the Japanese Conceptualists headed by Matsuzawa Yutaka, it is clear that the Mono-ha, with its aforementioned discourse, is yet another reductionism towards other direction. In line with the post-anti-art tradition, both have rejected the ready-made style of paintings and sculptures, but the Japanese conceptualists abstracted materials and reduced it down to conceptualism whereas Mono-ha abstracted concepts and reduced it down to materiality. The exhibition commissioned exclusively by Nakahara Yusuke, "Between Man and Matter" [訳変20090124]held as part of "Tokyo Biennale '70: 10th Japan International Art Exhibitions," is remembered for its demonstration of how both tendencies stood out from each other. In the same year, the exhibition and the meeting "Nirvana - For the Final Art" held at the Kyoto City Art Museum in which Japanese conceptualist artists gathered to exhibit their works and the exhibition "August 1970 - A Cross Section of Modern Art" held at the National Museum of Modern of Art in Tokyo in which Mono-ha artists gathered to exhibit their works made the polarization of reductionism clear. Because the Expo-Art works at the World Exposition venues were exhibited en masse, 1970 saw the two modernisms based on reductionism coexisting with modernism based on mere progressive ideology*4c4.

It is said that Mono-ha was the first art movement which succeeded in presenting art with inherent Japanese characteristics. The artists, aside from Sekine and his group from Tama Art University, include Haraguchi Noriyuki and others from the Fine Arts Department of Nihon University who presented objects rather than matters, Enokura Koji with his use of stains and oozes in his works and Takayama Noboru and others from the Tokyo University of Fine Arts and Music who fetishized railroad ties. If sympathizers and followers are to be included, it was a huge swell of all the rage at that time*4c5.

【註確定】

*4c1
峯村敏明は片仮名で「モノ」と表記していますが本書では平仮名の「もの」に統一します。
【和文も英文も初版ママ】Minemura writes "Mono" in katakana characters, but in this book, it will be written in hiragana characters.

*4c2
あるいは、物体（オブジェクト、オブジェ）はアリストテレス哲学における形相（エイドス／フォルム）すなわちイデア論的な彫造美学の対象、物質（マター、マテリアル）は質料（ヒューレー／マテリア）すなわち原子論的な塑造美学の対象と整理できます。さらに、前者は西洋絵画史における形態画派やコンピューター画像のベクター方式（オブジェクト図形方式）と対応関係をもち、後者は色彩画派やビットマップ方式（ラスター方式）と対応関係をもちます。しかし日本語で物体と物質の語が明確に使い分けられることは少なく、美術論文の英訳や和訳においても混同が散見されます。なお、この図式で考えると物体が主知主義的、物質が反主知主義的なので、もの派は物質派ということとなりそうです。そして具体美術宣言における物質の語の用法が、もの派に近しいことも指摘できます。*2a2、*6b12、*7c7、*7c8、*8a6参照。
【和文軽度改変・英文初版ママ】Or it can be said that an "object" is the subject of "eidos" or form, in other words the subject of carving aesthetics in the sense of "idea" theory in Aristotelian philosophy, and "matter" can be said to be the subject of "hyle" or material, in other words the subject of modeling aesthetics in the sense of atomism. Furthermore, the former has a corresponding relationship to vector method used in computer images (object diagram method) and dessinateurs in the history of Western paintings and drawings, whereas the latter has a corresponding relationship to colorists and raster method (bitmap method). But the use of the words "object" and "matter" are often not distinguished clearly in the Japanese language, and confusion of the two words can be seen sporadically in English and Japanese translations of essays on art. In this sense, the "object" is intellectualistic and "matter" anti-intellectualistic, so "Mono-ha" can be categorized as being materialist. Furthermore, it can be pointed out that the use of the word "matter" in the Gutai Art Manifesto is very close to how Mono-ha uses it. See *6b9, *7c17, *7c18, *8a6.

*4c3
複数の研究者が「もの派はものではない」「もの派を物質派として考えるのはあやまちである」と指摘しています。李禹煥や菅木志雄が強調したのは「もの」そのものではなく、李禹煥においては「出会い」、菅木志雄においては「状況」だったからです。また吉田克朗も、もの派の語に当時違和感を覚えたそうです。こういった、揶揄から生まれた「もの派」の語を不適切と指摘する議論は、１９世紀のフランスで揶揄から生まれた「印象派」という語を不適切と指摘する議論と、同型性があるように私は思います。ところで峯村敏明は、もの派における反主知主義を、印象派の感覚主義になぞらえました。印象派のクロード・モネには「その物が何であるかを知らずに光だけを追いたい」という言葉がありますが、ここに紹介した関根伸夫の現象学的な言葉と、確かに同型性があります。なお峯村敏明は、印象派に対するポスト印象派（後期印象派）という図式を意識して、もの派に対する「ポストもの派」の語を後に定立しました。*4d3参照。
【和文改変・英文初版時ママ】Some researchers are pointing out that "Mono-ha is not on Mono" and "It is wrong to think of Mono-ha as materialists." What Lee and Suga were emphasizing was not the "Mono (thing)" itself, but for Lee, it was "encounter" and for Suga, it was "situation." Yoshida also felt something was not right with the word "Mono-ha" at that time. These statements recall a debate about the inappropriateness of the word "Impressionism" which was meant as a banter in France in the 19th century. Minemura compared the anti-intellectualism of Mono-ha with the sensationism of the Impressionists. The phenomenological statement by Sekine which was introduced in this chapter is similar to Claude Monet's statement "I just want to chase the light not knowing what it actually is." The word "Post Mono-ha," which will be touched upon later, was developed with the awareness of Post-Impressionist reaction towards Impressionists. See *4d3.

*4c4
さらには反博芸術という反モダニズムも同居していました。*4a3、*4b3参照。
【和文改変・英文2009年時点ママ】Refer to *4a3 regarding the wording of modernisms based on reductionism. At the same time, there was also an anti-modernism movement called Anti-Expo Art.

*4c5
原口典之、榎倉康二、高山登ら、あるいは共鳴者や追随者の美術は、「物質性の使用」であり、物質性への還元ではないという考え方があります。しかし外見上、もともとあまり区別がつかないという問題もあります。関根伸夫の「位相-大地」はトリック・アートの作品であり、もの派の作品であり、あるいは女陰と男根という前近代的な陰陽フェティッシュとも解釈できます。また、未加工の物質は必ずしも概念性を剥ぎ取られたニュートラルな物質に見えるとは限らず、むしろその裸形性が土俗的にも見えかねません。実際、万博芸術等の進歩史観に対する拒否の姿勢もあったようです。
【和文軽度改変・英文初版時ママ】There is an argument that artworks by Haraguchi, Enokura and Takayama or by sympathizers and followers are, as will be touched upon later, "use of matters" and are not reducing down to matters. But there is also a problem where it is difficult to distinguish the two just by the way it looks. Sekine's "Phase - Mother Earth" can be interpreted as being a Trick Art, Mono-ha or a pre-modernistic Ying and Yang male and female genitalia fetish. Also, an unprocessed matter does not mean that it is a neutral matter which has its conceptualism stripped off of it. Rather, its bareness may look prehistoric and actually had a rejectionist side towards progressive view of history as represented by Expo-Art.