Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Peer review/Japanese architecture

Japanese architecture

I've rewritten the pre-Meiji eras to include in-line references. I've expanded the Meiji, Taisho and Early Showa periods, added the Late Showa and Early Heisei periods and expanded the lead. For the earlier periods I removed some of the text related to Buddhist rituals as I felt it was over-specific. I've tried to keep the content broad with particular reference to traditional architectural elements. The Heisei period is probably the most contentious period as it is could be a quite subjective topic regarding who is actually included; again I've kept it relatively broad and introduced both well-known and unusual architects. I haven't covered everyone - but I think to do so would be beyond the scope of this article.

I'm keen to nominate this article as a GA. As such I'd welcome feedback from editors about the balance of the article. Also, what is your feeling about the number of pictures in the galleries? I have tried where possible to use the images in the gallery to illustrate those examples in the text that do not have wikilinks to other articles, as I feel this is important. I'd like to know what you think. I'm happy to go with consensus. All help appreciated. Kenchikuben (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A great article, overall. Very extensive, lots of pictures, and a definite improvement over what it was before.

Some comments:

I think the first few sentences of the article should be more all-encompassing. Perhaps, something like, "Japanese architecture has traditionally been typified by wooden structures, elevated slightly off the ground, with tiled roofs. Sliding doors (fusuma) were used in place of walls, allowing the internal configuration of a space to be customized to different occasions. People usually sat on cushions or otherwise on the floor, traditionally; chairs and high tables were, with some exceptions, not widely used until the 19th century. Since the 19th century, however, Japan has incorporated much of Western, modern, and post-modern architecture into its own designs, and is today a leader in cutting-edge architectural design and technology." And then you can start going into the brief historical summary you've already got.

(Let me come back in a little bit to comment on the main sections. BRB.) LordAmeth (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Sorry for that delay. Thank you again for taking on such a project - someone's gotta do it, and you've made a good effort. I notice, however, that the overall style of the writing doesn't sound properly formal or scholarly. I know this is certainly subjective, but, to take just one example, the sentence "During the Yayoi period the Japanese people began to interact with the Chinese Han Dynasty whose knowledge and technical skills began to influence them" might be alternatively phrased as, "The Yayoi period saw increased contact with Han dynasty China. Significant Chinese influence is thus seen in both architectural style and technology in this period" or something to that effect.

It can be difficult to describe architectural styles purely in words, and it can be difficult to extensively describe a single style without the list of details seeming dry and boring, but both of these things, I think should be main focuses of this article. .. I guess bamse's question "What do we want this article to be?" comes to mind again. Is this article meant to touch upon styles briefly, providing an overview (such as it does in the currently two-sentence description of shinden-zukuri in the Heian pd section)? Or should it go into more extensive detail, describing styles such as shinden-zukuri in enough detail that we can really understand the concept more fully, and can see how the Phoenix Hall, for example, not just in its use of "symmetrical buildings placed as arms that defined an inner garden," but in a great many of its features, typifies the style?
Taking care with italics and capitalization also helps a text look better. Japanese words such as kofun and haniwa should be italicized, and not capitalized (except, of course, at the start of a sentence). Similarly, grammar and sentence structure could afford to be cleaned up in a lot of places. For example (from the Meiji section): "A good example of which is..." should never start a sentence, but should be a continuation of the previous sentence. Or, you can say "A good example of this is...". The same sort of thing can be seen in the Azuchi section, in the sentences "Matsumoto, Kumamoto and Himeji ... are excellent examples of the castles of the period. Whilst Nijo Castle in Kyōto..." - Comparisons using "whilst" can only be made within the same sentence, e.g. "A, B, and C are excellent examples of this, whilst D is something else." ... Or at least that's how "while" is used in US English; it might be different in Commonwealth English, but I doubt it.
I agree with User:bamse on the idea that the article should try to focus on architectural (stylistic) trends, and not too much on individual buildings. This can be difficult, as so many textbooks and other sources do focus on individual buildings, and because for some periods or styles all we have left to go on is one or two famous extant examples, and because, of course, we do need to use examples. (In the Heian period section, where we discuss Kukai and the Shingon temples, it would be good I think to at least mention by name a few examples of temples in that style or mode.) But, still, difficult though it may be, it might be good if the article could try to focus more on stylistic trends, omitting for the most part details about the history of individual buildings, the sculptures within them, etc. ... Though, that said, discussion of individual buildings can be used to describe specific developments or innovations - a sentence or two couldn't hurt discussing the unique azekura-zukuri construction of the Shôsôin, whose log-cabin-like structure keeps humidity out during the summer (when the logs swell, shutting out gaps between them) and allow in cold, dry air during the winter (when the logs constrict and open up gaps between them), contributing to the conservation of the treasures contained within.
In the Kamakura-Muromachi section, it might be good to expand further on Zen style, including the key feature that Zen temples shared many features with Chinese buildings, and contrasted with most other Japanese buildings, for example, in the use of stone floors (not elevated wooden floors) where one did not remove one's shoes, as well as chairs.
The Azuchi-Momoyama section needs a lot of work, if you don't mind my saying so. One, it mentions changes from the shoin style, though this was not mentioned in any detail earlier (read: shoin-zukuri should be described in more detail in the Muromachi section). Two, it says that the Onin War led to the rise in castle architecture, and I'm not entirely sure this is true. The article on Japanese castles which I wrote (though it has been considerably edited since I last touched it), discusses various kinds of fortresses & castles dating as far back as the Yamato period, and describes castles of the Kamakura period as well. It was not, so far as I know, and I could be wrong, the Onin War or the early Sengoku that really saw any major innovations in castle architecture, but rather the Azuchi-Momoyama period itself. Third, the period is itself named after Azuchi castle and Fushimi-Momoyama castle. These should probably be discussed in greater detail as examples of the great shifts and innovations of the time - Azuchi as a model of the archetypal type of castle that was to come, with stone foundations and tall tenshu and a half dozen other features that don't immediately come to mind; Fushimi-Momoyama, and Hideyoshi's Jûrakudai, as examples of the incredible levels of opulence that were seen in some of the mansions/palaces/castles of this period, a predecessor also to the Edo period castle, more opulent residence (read: mansion or daimyo's palace) than truly a defensive fortress. Himeji, Kumamoto, Matsumoto, and Nijô are all Edo period castles - the focus should be on Azuchi & Momoyama in this section, I think.
The statement about one castle per domain belongs, I am almost positive, to the Edo period and not to the Azuchi-Momoyama period. Similarly, rather than the one sentence at the end of the Edo period section about the end of sankin kotai, there should be more discussion of the effects of sankin kotai during the period, before it was abolished. Daimyo mansions in Edo, the limit of one castle per domain; expansion of travel both for daimyo & their entourages, and for commoners, leading to the greater rise of post towns, inns, and all that. .. The discussion of machiya is excellent, though this is also the period when geisha and courtesans ("teahouses"; the Yoshiwara) arise, not to mention Kabuki theatre, all things that could also be discussed in this section.
I can't really speak to the more modern sections, but they look good. A lot better, I think, than the earlier sections. One question, though: Is it true that, as it says here in the Meiji section, "Early Meiji Architecture was initially influenced by colonial architecture in Chinese treaty ports"? Or was it simply that early Meiji architecture closely resembled treaty port architecture because it came about in a very similar way? That is to say, was it a matter of architects in Japan (especially Japanese architects) consciously emulating what they saw in the treaty ports of China? Or was it that Western architects, some of whom happen to have been based in, or born & raised in, the treaty ports, brought their Western architectural styles to Japan, and, combining these with Japanese styles or tastes, ended up creating something that ended up closely resembling what the same process had created in China?

All in all, an excellent start, and I thank User:Kenchikuben for the personal invitation to offer my humble thoughts, such as they are. I wish you (and everyone / anyone else working on this article) luck as you proceed forward! LordAmeth (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (mainly on the old pre-Meiji part as I don't know much about modern architecture. Writing this from memory, so there might well be mistakes.) First of all, I am happy that you are improving this not-easy and very broad article. Thanks! All of the following are suggestions in view of GA

I don't mind image galleries, but as far as I understand they are discouraged in wikipedia at least for GA/FA/FL. In any case the current galleries often show similar buildings (2 pagodas, several raised floor buildings,...) and should be shortened. It would be good to have images of interior (fusuma, tatami,...) and details (e.g. tokyō) for variety.
Just a question for understanding, what is the scope of the article? Architecture in Japan or architecture by Japanese architects or both?
Not too fond of the lead. I think it goes a bit too much into detail at times (e.g. Nara street layout) and lacks breadth. I'd focus on the main directions and mention that there were Chinese (and Korean?) influences for some periods but that Chinese architecture was adapted to local (Japanese) customs. LordAmeth's suggestion above sounds good as well.
I've seen many starting dates for the Jōmon period in literature, not sure whether 5000 BCE was among them.
"Later in the period, a colder climate with greater rainfall led to a decline in population which contributed to an interest in ritual." Not sure how a decline in population resulted in interest in ritual. In any case needs a ref.
For GA, you probably need some more inline citations, i.e. not only at the end of paragraphs.
Very short paragraphs should be merged or expanded.
"Asuka and Nara architecture" is too detailed (why explaining the content of the Shosoin, etc) and drifting a bit away in my opinion (why mention a sculpture?). I think the start is good, saying that temple building is characteristic for this period. I'd then go on to describe roughly what these temples looked like: modelled after Chinese temples, strict layout (straight lines, ordered,...) with chumon, corridor, pagoda and worship hall. Examples of Horyu-ji and Todaiji is also very good. I'd mention shichidō garan as well.
Some references need publisher information.

To be continued. From reading up to the Nara period, in my opinion the main issue is that the prose sometimes drifts away from the main topic. We can't aim for covering all structures in detail here. Instead the main trends in architecture should be presented. Answering the following questions for each period should be a good starting point: What type of buildings (temples/residences/...) are characteristic for the period? Are there new trends emerging during this period? What do they look like? Are they imported or modifications of existing styles? Provide examples for these styles. bamse (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) continued...[reply]

In "Heian period", I'd mention "Wayō" and contrast the architecture mountain temples of Shingon/Tendai with those in Nara. Also give more details on what this new style entailed. There should be more about architecture than about Shingon in general.
Not sure about correctness of: "At this time the architectural style of Buddhist temples began to influence that of the Shintō shrines." Possibly it happened earlier!?
In Kamakura/Muromachi period, I'd mention "sōan"-style for teahouses.

Don't really know much about Edo period and beyond, so stop here. Ah, and feel free to copy from or be inspired by texts in here, here, here, here or here or here. bamse (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Personally I would favour an article structure as in Chinese architecture focusing on key elements and ordered by type of structure (Commoner, Imperial, Religious) rather than the chronological treatment. On the other hand, some elements of Japanese architecture appeared in more than one type of buildings, so I am not sure whether this idea is a good one. bamse (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: First of all let me say I know something only of Japanese religious architecture, but not much about the rest. I will therefore comment only the first few sections until the Edo period. After Lord Ameth and Bamse, I don't find much to say, however.

Bamse doesn't favor a chronological approach, but I find it inevitable. Perhaps I am wrong, but it's impossible for example to forget that the immensely influential Zen architecture was the last to arrive, several centuries after the others.
I think that, early in the article, two things should be made clear. First, that because much of what was best in the country in terms of skills was poured into the building of temples and because Buddhism was the vehicle that brought large-scale change to Japan, Buddhist architecture is absolutely fundamental to the understanding of Japanese traditional architecture, Shinto architecture included. This is mentioned in passing, but should be made explicit and exemplified to explain why most of the article is actually about Buddhist architecture. BTW, the relationship between Buddhist and Shinto architectures is not completely outside the scope of the article, because the clear separation between the two is recent. Perhaps you could mention that the relevance of Buddhist architecture to Japanese architecture is further increased by the fact that, structurally, most Shinto shrines are really Buddhist temples. But I may be overestimating the issue, one I am fond of.

Second, the article should have near its beginning a section which explains what are the common elements of Japanese architecture. I already did the job in the article Buddhist temples in Japan. See the "Common features" section. Those I mention there are all points valid for Japanese architecture in general. The intro of the following book:

Nishi, Kazuo; Hozumi, Kazuo (1996) [1983]. What is Japanese architecture? (illustrated ed.). Kodansha International. ISBN 4770019920.

which is where the material comes from, deals specifically with this, and is highly recommended. I can send the relevant text via mail, if need be.

About when temples started to influence shrines: immediately. The very existence of permanent shrines is due to the influence of Buddhism. See the Shinto shrine article.

Last but not least, a section about Shinto architecture is essential, as there are a few, rare styles (shinmei-zukuri, taisha-zukuri, and sumiyoshi-zukuri) which are believed to predate Buddhism and are considered by some the pinnacle of Japanese architecture. Bruno Taut famously compared Ise Shrine (shinmei-zukuri) to the Parthenon. I will be available again starting next week.

Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments: First of all thanks for the comprehensive feedback, it has given me lots of food for thought. As you will know by reading my user page my field of interest primarily lies in post-Meiji architecture, I knew that my pre-Meiji knowledge would be weak which is why I asked the three of you for some help. What is clear is that I need to go away and do some reading and improve my source material for this longer historical period (which I'm looking forward to)!

Rather than respond to each point that you've made, my overall thoughts are:

LordAmeth: I agree with your idea for the lead and I will rewrite it to make it more encompassing. It bothers me that the existing lead doesn't really cover this at all.
Similar to the lead I might write a General features section before delving into the architecture by period.
I think that chronologically is the best way to set out the article, like Urashimataro suggests it will allow the religious influences to permeate through into each period. It also gives a more logical progression for the post-Meiji architecture. I note that Chinese architecture gets around this by not including a contemporary section.
I agree that there is a lot of information that needs to be included to give a fuller explanation, but I'm keen to keep it succinct and not too detailed. I will follow Bamse's "five questions idea" to give more shape to the text.
My initial feeling was that the article should be about architecture in Japan and I managed to keep to this until the Heisei period went I gave some foreign examples in order to better explain the architects' work. Architecture of Denmark was recently promoted to GA and it has a similar approach with foreign work only mentioned in the contemporary section. I guess that for now I'll keep it as it is.
I definitely need better coverage of entertainment architecture like teahouses, kabuki and noh.
I'll try and get rid of the period-by-period galleries. This should be easier once I've added more content to the earlier periods as this will create more space within the body text in which to nestle photos. The problem with the galleries was that they were always in danger of getting longer as other editors added their favourite buildings!

My final question is really about something that you've all touched upon: how much is too much? Should the article be a succinct explanation of the topic that acts as a springboard to other, more detailed articles; or should it be an all-encompassing one-stop solution?? For example would LordAmeth's azekuri be with Japanese architecture or would it be added to my currently short article about Kura (storehouse)? Maybe this question is rhetorical and I need to answer it as I re-write the sections!! Thanks again for all of your help. Kenchikuben (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A springboard, definitely. It can't cover everything,Frank (Urashima Tarō) (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]