Author talk:James Lord Bowes

Nonexistent work "Japanese Decorative Art"

According to Brinkley's Japan (v. 7 p. 331),

One thing, however, is certain; namely, that until the nineteenth century enamels were employed by the Japanese decorators for accessory purposes only. No such things were manufactured as vases, plaques, censers, or bowls having their surface covered with enamels applied either in the champlevé or the cloisonné style. In other words, none of the objects to which European and American collectors give the term "enamels" was produced by a Japanese artist prior to the year 1838. It is necessary to insist upon this fact because one of the most notable exponents of Japanese art, the late Mr. J. L. Bowes, who alone has hitherto undertaken to discuss Japanese enamels at any length, fell into the serious error of imagining that numerous enamelled vessels which began to be exported to Europe from the year 1865, were the outcome of industry commencing in the sixteenth century and reaching its point of culmination at the beginning of the eighteenth. In his work "Japanese Decorative Art," Mr. Bowes divided these objects into three classes, "early, middle-period, and modern," and he subsequently supported his views in an elaborately reasoned thesis called "Notes on Shippō." There is not the slenderest ground for such a theory.

along with a footnote that links to note 53 in the appendix:

Note 53.—Mr. Bowes maintained his views with remarkable firmness. No Japanese collection, public or private, contained any specimen of the wares which he supposed to have been produced and preserved in temples and noblemen's residence during nearly three centuries. No Japanese connoisseur had any knowledge of such objects having been manufactured previously to 1837. All the circumstances under which their production had commenced at the latter date, were well known and had been officially recorded. The artisan who had originated the work was living and had received a reward from the Government for his invention. Some of the specimens which Mr. Bowes attributed to the seventeenth century were unhesitatingly identified by artisans of the present time as their own work, and the signatures which certain of these specimens bore were claimed by the men who had actually signed them. But none of these things shook Mr. Bowes' faith. He thought that he could detect in the wares themselves technical evidence, or signs of wear and tear, justifying his theory, and he clung to that theory with a tenacity which, considering the testimony on the other side, is probably unique.

I could not verify the existence of a work by Bowes with that title being mentioned in anything other than this book, and in fact a separate work titled "Japanese Decorative Art" (1962) by Martin Feddersen, translation of Japanisches Kunstgewerbe, cites several works by Bowes but not one titled Japanese Decorative Art. The closest I came is [1] which mentions "Japanese Decorative Art, see under Arts and Crafts" in the second column on page 26, but doesn't have it listed in that section on the second column of page 28.

The claim itself is made in "Japanese Enamels" ([2]), though (to which "Notes on Shippo" is the sequel). So my guess here is that Brinkley just used the wrong title and Bowes did not write anything titled "Japanese Decorative Art". --Pokechu22 (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

A similar reference also appears on page 339:

The reader will perceive at once what great strides Japanese workers in cloisonné enamels have made since the days when they sent to Europe specimens such as those carefully classified and illustrated in "The Decorative Arts of Japan."

I couldn't find a matching book for this either. I did find a reference to it in "Notes on the history of lacquer: a paper read before the Japan Society of London" ([3] [4]) along with a footnote saying "In the Society's Library" and it being cited to Audsley. The closest work to that title I can find by Audsley is "The ornamental arts of Japan" ([5] [6]), which doesn't make the claim about various periods but still may be the one referenced in this more positive context. Audsley did co-author a book with Bowes, but that doesn't seem to be the referenced one. --Pokechu22 (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)