A number of articles have been written on worked vs. unworked stones. If you haven’t read Wil’s article, you can find it on the Aiseki Kai web site, as it is one of the most important historical articles on the subject that I have read. In addition, Tom Elias and Hiromi Nakaoji wrote two articles for BCI that received worldwide coverage for the exposé they wrote on worked stones in Japan.
Do we need another article? Perhaps not, but I hope you will take the time to read another viewpoint from a collector of stones. As a photographer, I think there is value in observing similarities from other art forms when faced with difficult topics. Herein lies my attempt to do so. This is an except from a book I’m working on entitled In Search of a Stone.
A manufactured stone (Copyright 2017, http://www.bonsai-s-cube-shop)
Let’s use the above stone as an example for our discussion. This stone is currently available at the S-Cube shop. It is priced at ¥180,000 or roughly $1,600 USD. A beautiful shape, nice patina and lovely daiza. This is a completely worked stone, manufactured by an incredible stone worker. Is it suiseki or not?
Click here to read our perspective on this subject. Excerpt from In Search of a Stone by Sam Edge
We look forward to hearing your views on the subject.
Sam & KJ's Suiseki Blog (水石) 
Is it a misery, suiseiki worked, printed?
Un “suiseki” completamente trabajado no es un suiseki, es una escultura.
De lo contrario, la venus de Milo, sería un suiseki( Figura humana).?
La escultura nada tiene que ver con el suiseki.
Los intereses comerciales-económicos nada debieran tener que ver con el suiseki.
For our American readers let me translate your comment: “A fully worked “suiseki” is not a suiseki, it is a sculpture. Otherwise, the Venus de Milo, would be a suiseki (human figure).? The sculpture has nothing to do with the suiseki.
The commercial-economic interests should have nothing to do with the suiseki.”
You speak to the heart of the issue – for yourself. The difficulty with your statement is that the Japanese do not agree that a fully worked suiseki is not suiseki. There are numerous stones that are not only suiseki but highly treasured suiseki that are almost completely worked. Please go here and download the June and July issues of Aiseki Kai’s newsletter and read Wil’s analysis. http://www.aisekikai.com/1.html
In regards to Venus de Milo, this doesn’t fit into the Japanese view of aesthetic for stones, neither in size nor context. It would take much too long to describe that here, but let me just say that I appreciate your views that worked stones is not suiseki for you. I understand that viewpoint and can well appreciate it.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Sam
Thanks Sam for your insightful article. I commenced collecting viewing stones during a bonsai convention trip to Taiwan in 2004. I was inspired by mountain forms and still have this personal preference today. However, I also am attracted to other stones that have an artistic affect on me. I have been to Japan several times, including to attend the recent 8th WBC in Saitama where I was fortunate to be escorted through the magnificent suiseki exhibition by David Sampson who spent the morning explaining much about the aesthetics of suiseki to me. We also attended Wil’s lecture that afternoon. I now have a better appreciation for other forms and am adding figure stones to my collection after seeing David’s exhibited stone there. I originally sought to only obtain “natural’ stones but I now accept ‘cut bottom’ stones into my collection as my “mountain form’ fetish is readily satisfied with such offerings. I am pleased that your article aligns with my choice to accept my stones for their artistic beauty despite being manipulated by cutting to form flat bases which assists daiza carving. As a corollary, bonsai here in Australia has strong Japanese roots but we are now utilising more native Australian species and these do not readily suit the Japanese bonsai development aesthetic of triangles,alternate left and right branch structure etc. So the theme of your article is so appropriate – whether we accept worked stones or not should be at the discretion of the collector. For me the enjoyment I get from my stones is provided by what each stone says to me and what image it provides.
Look forward to seeing your foreshadowed publication..
Un suiseki es una piedra “trabajada” -exclusivamente por la naturaleza, no por el hombre.
Es cierto que en Japón hay gente que opina que un suiseki puede estar fabricado. Es la gente que vende suiseki o la que colecciona suisekis como si fueran…netsukes. o la gente que no busca suisekis, que no tiene paciencia para buscar. Si buscas suisekis, encuentras suisekis( figuras humanas, cabañas, montañas…) Hay que preguntar a los que buscan suisekis, a los que se hacen las daizas. En Japón , en las exposiciones locales se ven los verdaderos Suisekis. Suisekis naturales. No debemos cegarnos por la opinión de “maestros?. que no lo son.
Una cosa es retocar(tampoco estoy de acuerdo) y otra hacer suisekis, casi siempre comerciales(montañitas perfectas, cabañitas, cascaditas…). eso es un timo.
Difícilmente favoreceremos la aparición de nuevos aficionados diciendo que un suiseki se puede fabricar. Un aficionado al suiseki es sobretodo un buscador en la naturaleza. Con su ropa de monte y su piolet. No con un cincel un trozo de piedra y en un taller.
El que hace suisekis, no sabe buscar suisekis. Quiere llegar a tener una colección bonita en 4 días y eso en el mundo del suiseki es imposible
I’m truly glad you enjoy unworked Stones. There is tremendous beauty in coming upon a stone in nature, untouched by human hands yet still moves us with its shape, texture, color and patina.
In regards to worked stones and the commercialization of stones. I’m sorry but this isn’t something new in the last few years, worked stones. Some of the finest and most recognized stones in Japan that ha e been in collections for more than 100 years have been worked.
The difficulty we face is that the definition is not yours or mine. It’s not the small stone club or the large. Suiseki is larger than that. What should matter is how you and those that gather together feel.
If your club celebrates only unworked stones that is wonderful. But sorry you don’t get the right to say that a stone in my collection, improved by an artist over 100 years ago isn’t Suiseki for me. I respect that it isn’t for you so shouldn’t you allow me the same choice?
As always thanks for your passionate response.
Hi Sam ! I really think the various points that both you and Wil make are very important. Most of the intense arguments over this subject that I hear seem to boil down to one of two things: 1) Semantic arguments over the meaning of words (e.g. suiseki vs aiseki vs viewing stone) and/or 2) attempts to dictate other people’s artistic taste and judgement. There is also a little bit of argument-from-authority: (This stone is not suiseki, or cannot be enjoyed by anyone, because so-and-so said so).
The Paris Salon could not ultimately dictate what kind of paintings people liked, and Monet and his cohort were quite able to exhibit and sell their paintings outside the Salon. So neither can one person’s or group’s preferences regarding viewing stones dictate what kind of viewing stones other people collect, buy, and, enjoy.
Our groups here in San Francisco Bay Area generally hold a common set of preferences, with variations among our 3 different groups, and among individuals. The origins of these preferences are historical. These preferences match those of some suiseki hobby groups in Japan, and do not match those of some other groups in Japan. So what?
I should point out that the arguments over semantics are usually ahistorical, and ultimately really boring. Wil in his article did some interesting work in tracing the usage and development of the word. However, it’s use and etymology as a word in the Japanese language is a bit beside the point for those of us outside Japan. As a “borrowed” word in the English, Spanish, and Italian languages the meaning will develop in the way that words always do, based on actual usage. There is no Académie that can control this.
What a suiseki, or any other art object, “means” to you – aesthetically, spiritually, conceptually – is so personal. It is colored by everything that made you and influenced you. I do not experience any piece of art the same way that any other human being does. We don’t always enjoy the same things. In fact, we change over the course of our own lives.
When I was 16 my parents took me to Paris. I told my mother about my passion for the Italian Renaissance painters – and most especially Titian. I could not wait to spend a day at the Louvre just soaking up his colors. She paused, then said “well, you’ll grow out of it”.
Yes, I did grow out of it and left it behind with other passions of adolescence. I still intellectually appreciate Titian’s composition and use of color – but as an adult, I no longer respond emotionally to his paintings – my preferences are quite different.
I will leave this with two thoughts that have been passed down to me:
When I was a child, anytime I tried to argue whether this food was or was not “good”, whether this painting or sculpture was or was not “good”, my father always would remind me that “de gustibus non disputandum est” – there is no arguing about taste.
Mr. Hirotsu was the person who introduced suiseki to Northern California and was the 1st teacher from whom our local understanding of the art is derived. Once he was asked for a magazine article what he wanted to tell people and his answer was: “Just Enjoy”.
It is always wise to pay heed to one’s parents and teachers. If we all just stopped trying to tell other people what to do, and just concentrated on our own artistic experience and development, we’d all be better off and definitely much happier!
Forgive me, I can and I want to express, if I succeed, just my artistic experience, which has joined me in this long life; dominant in all that I have undertaken differently; for which I also created rips in the people I care about.
I am not interested in giving us unusual views on the elasticity of views about the suiseki argument and not even about the Fines and / or Philosophical Thoughts that may have guided through this centuries this flow and reflex of opinions.
You have asked for personal opinions and this, though with a bit of shame, I answer.
I’m an Art Teacher and I practiced both in painting and sculpture in the years of youth. I then discovered, before talking about suiseki, the jobs unconsciously produced by Mother Nature. I gave myself up to them: it is pointless to make efforts to try to reach that Naturalness, to that Harmony, or to that Roughness of surfaces that the work of millennia has impressed upon Matter; no artist can recreate that soul, home to a Kami.
It is not a preconception: the problem is that the artifact should not be shown as such; even if of good quality, to see it instinctively I’m sad, I’m off, I feel unknowingly in unwanted discomfort, denying me to enjoy a Naturalness that my “inside” does not recognize.
I have observed the first planes of the stone that you bring for example, so enjoyable view as a whole. The clear artwork of human hands + equipment makes me feel almost as bad as I was forced to examine the body of an animal that suffered torture.
Forgive my intervention.
I do not allow myself to say what it is and what is not suiseki. I’m just telling of myself.
Luciana, thank you for your thoughtful comments. They are appreciated.
Totalmente de acuerdo!
Suiseki ; Piedra modelada por la NATURALEZA..Esta es la definición que se puede leer en todos los sitios. EN TODOS!!!
Dear Antonio,
It is true, even in Japan you can find fans and clubs that defend the stone totally natural …
but not because it exists, by definition, in all sites or publications; is not on this that is based my certainty, but on my (our) personal feel. 🙂
Por favor, envíame una sola definición de suiseki que NO empiece por: ” piedra….modelada(creada) únicamente por la Naturaleza. (Matsura, Kashahara…Covello…Yoshimura…) ó envíame TU definición de suiseki.
There is no single definition of suiseki. There is no arbitrator of that definition or single entity that defines it anymore than there is a single arbitrator of what is defined as impressionist art. No matter what we desire it is in the mind of the beholder.
Sam, tú si que eres impresionante! Los americanos sois impresionantes!
Un suiseki es…. lo que vosotros quereis ! Cojo una piedra hago una monañita con un cincel. La hago tan bonita que me quedo yo mismo impresionado y digo; ¡ Eureka acabo de hacer un suiseki! Después lo llevo a muchas exposiciones y se hace famosa mi montañita porque además la llevo a alguna exposición en Japón.
Esto no es ni suiseki, ni impresionismo. ES IMPRESIONANTE!
No copies la parte mala del suiseki en Japón.Porque al final ocurrirá como en China. Cientos de suisekis identicos.hechos todos por un mismo artesano con el único fin de satisfacer intereses comerciales.
Con todo lo grande que es AMERICA y que no seais capaces de buscar suisekis, de encontrar suisekis…..
Yo animo desde aquí a todos los aficionados a salir a buscar piedras bonitas, suisekis. A disfrutar de la búsqueda y luego de la contemplación.
Hi Sam,
I truly enjoy your blog. would you be able to share the address of the kyoto suiseki shop that you mentioned in a few of your posts? Thanks!
Here you go: http://kosoen-shop.com/?mode=cate&cbid=424479&csid=0&sort=n
Good luck!
Thank you!
Sam,
The section you’ve published is very enjoyable, well researched and thoughtfully reasoned. As a photographer and printmaker who has worked for a long time in the fine art publishing world, I have of course encountered the same rigid thinking that you describe regarding aesthetic value systems. I suppose that it is a characteristic of most people involved in the arts to define themselves by the rules that they keep or flaunt and practitioners of the art of suiseki seem to be no different. When I was younger, distinctions such as you describe mattered much more to me than they do now. The instincts and feelings that compel us to invest time and energy in the practice of suiseki are most difficult to reduce to written systemic description. Linguistically describing and proscribing what we imagine suiseki to be acts as much to wring the vitality out of the art as it does to enlighten and educate I’m afraid. The comedian Martin Mull is famously described as having said “writing about painting is like dancing about architecture” and the same could be said about suiseki. We have to start some place in our quest for understanding an art and the sort of rules and categorization Covello and Yoshimura describe in their book is a necessary beginning. However, as one grows in understanding of an art you have to be willing to consider new options and alternatives otherwise practice of an art becomes an ossified ritual.
By the way, what is the publication schedule for your upcoming book?
Will, thank you for your feedback. Of interest, in reading a 1992 publication on netsuke it seems similar discussions were held then on the same topic. Many collectors were so enthralled in the signature of a netsuke and if it was a copy, or fraud, they were losing sight on whether the object was beautiful or not. This seems to be a systemic issue throughout many art forms.
The book is still in the research phase. It has as much to do on this subject of aesthetic and beauty as it does stones, but the two are inextricably linked together, as so it seems it should.
Best wishes, Sam