Passion

CC ALIFORNIAALIFORNIA A A ISEKIISEKI K K AIAI Volume 35, Issue 7 July 2017

Over the years it has become clear that as a club, we are a passionate group of stone collectors. We are curious, we are enthusiastic, we are motivated, we are creative and imaginative, we are diverse and we are somewhat quirky but above all else, we are passionate. We hold strong opinions, not always in agreement with one another. Our visions are particular as are our life experiences. The one thing we share is our passion, not just for stones but also for our hobby in general and our desire to share it with others. Phil Chang said he will be presenting a program to a rock and gem club in Pasadena and if that goes well, he may make 3 more presentations to other rock and mineral clubs. Another member, Frank Kelly from Canberra, Australia, is spreading the word on suiseki by introducing it to bonsai club members who have little knowledge of our art. No doubt, many of our members from all over are doing the same. We are pleased to know that our members are eagerly sharing their passion with the uninitiated. Speaking of passion, surely our readers have a passionate response to Wil’s paper on ‘The Nature of Suiseki in Japan’. Once you have had the opportunity to digest it, we hope you will share your thoughts with us. California transplant, Sam Edge, an Aiseki Kai member living in Tennessee, will share his views in next month’s newsletter. His text is an excerpt from a book he is writing, In Search of a Stone. On the ‘Nature of’ topic, a few of us primary collectors had a lively conversation during the break at our June meeting. Everyone has a strong opinion. We are grateful to Wil for providing us with an informative and yet controversial topic that has us all rethinking what we believe we knew about suiseki.

~Larry Ragle

July Program The July 26th program should be fascinating. The subject will be, “Our Stones Our Selves”. Richard Turner will speculate about what our preferences in viewing stones tell us about the connoisseurship of viewing stones in North America. Following up on Wil’s article, special attention will be given to the debate over natural and worked stones. This maybe a hot topic but no worries, we are cool and we will remain cool.

Richard Turner suggested our stone of the month. He said, “I would ask people to bring their ‘worst’ stone this time. By ‘worst’ I mean a stone that they have found and kept in their collection but about which they have reservations. This might be a roundabout way of getting people to talk about their collecting standards. What is the bottom line for them when it comes to a keeper or a leaverite.” This was a challenge. I found my stone on the Eel River and cradled it in my hands all the way home. It has lots of character and patina galore BUT the proportions are wrong for a doha or a distant mountain scene and it just doesn’t suggest anything for me. I have

kept it all these years and never shown it. I have tried “willing” it to be “something”. Clearly I have reservations so although it certainly is not “junk”, I think it may be my worst stone. ~Nina

Stone of the Month

Don’t miss the conclusion of Wil’s paper, pages 4-10.

June Program Notes Larry and Nina showed slides of the 100 stones on exhibit at the WBFF convention in Japan, April 28-30. This was an extraordinary display of masterpiece suiseki. Perhaps we can share some of those pictures in future newsletters since we ran out of space in this issue.

Last month, on page 5, Wil wrote that he understood that “at least one European club now refuses to accept Japanese stones in their exhibitions.” In fact, Wil has since heard that they are “considering an outright ban”; there was no official ban YET, but it has been proposed and is being discussed.

5.5 x 4.5 x 4

ANNOUNCEMENTS: We welcomed long time member but rarely seen, Cheryl Manning and possible future member, Tony Peredo. We brought up the possibility of a Kern River trip in the late fall. We have to wait and see how much the river drops...stay tuned.

The 1 inch wide inner m

argins are designed for use with a 3 hole punch.

VOLUME 35, ISSUE 7 CALIFORNIA AISEKI KAI

STONE of the MONTH: best stones Measurements are in inches, w x h x d In some cases the member said that their stone may not be their ‘best’ but was their favorite. In one case, the member said their stone had a story behind it, making it worthy of being called a ‘best stone’.

PAGE 2

June Meeting Notes

Al Nelson 6.5 x 2.5 x 4 Buzz Barry 6 x 1.5 x 2.5

Don Kruger 5 x 7 x 4.5 Jim Greaves 7 x 2 x 4.5

Tony Peredo 5.5 x 4.5 x 5 (from Guam) Mika Breyfogle 6 x 2.5 x 3

VOLUME 35, ISSUE 7 CALIFORNIA AISEKI KAI

PAGE 3

Janet Shimizu 4.5 x 3.5 x 2 Phil Chang 9 x 7 x 4

Paul Vasina 12.5 x 2.5 x 5

Richard Aguirre 3.5 x 1.5 x 2

Janet Shimizu 6 x 6.5 x 5

Peter Bloomer 5.5 x 3 x 2.5

Peter Bloomer 7 x 2 x 5.5

Mary Mulcahy-Bloomer 10 x 4 x 8

continued on page 11

Just over 100 years after Enshu’s time, in the fourth month of 1772, the two-volume Bonsan higon, or “Secret Transmissions on Bonsan”, was published in Kyoto, offering guidelines and instructions to bonseki enthusiasts. It is said to contain information passed down by Hasegawa Genzaburo (dates unknown), who was

close to the powerful military leaders of the Muromachi and Azuchi/Momoyama periods who cherished bonseki as part of their meibutsu collections. It states that stones in the shape of Mount Fuji are considered best, and gives specific dimensions for stones, stressing that they should ideally be natural, referring to stones that have been altered as “dead stones”. This is one of the first

known mentions in Japanese literature that explicitly states that bonseki should be natural. However, there remain countless bonseki from the Edo period with perfectly smoothed shapes that resemble mountains and seem nothing less than sculptural. Some are formed in such a way that they take advantage of natural mineral striations in the stone to resemble clouds or snow remaining on peaks.

PAGE 4 CALIFORNIA AISEKI KAI VOLUME 35, ISSUE 7 JULY 2017

PAGE 4 CALIFORNIA AISEKI KAI VOLUME 35, ISSUE 7

The Nature of Suiseki in Japan (Part 2) by Wil while some show only partial signs of being altered, such as the bonseki displayed in the World Convention exhibition, Koharu Fuji, or “Little Spring Fuji” (bottom left). The accompanying handscroll (below) features a painting of the stone by haiku poet and follower of the Matsuo Basho style, Yoshida Hakuma (1720 –1786), and it is dated the second year of the Tenmei era (1782).

This stone and handscroll are important pieces of evidence that illustrate the culture of the time. A number of poems describing the stone are featured in the scroll, some using the word bonseki, some bonsan, and others Fuji ishi. We can see here that the words were used more or less interchangeably at this time, and a look at the bottom of the stone clearly reveals that it has been slightly worked in places so that it can sit appropriately. The physical evidence from this period shows clearly that at even the highest levels of practice, the question of whether a stone was natural was not first and foremost. It is clear that in this period, what is most important is the allusive power of the stone – its beauty and resemblance to an idealized mountain, its ability to call forth poetry in the viewers and provoke a certain cultural memory. Bonseki were not appreciated at this time for being naturally formed stones. The fascination was not with the stones themselves as natural wonders, but rather in their ability to allude to natural scenes and even specific places, like Mount Fuji or sacred mountains in China that people would have only known from imported poetry or painting. The Bonsan higon’s mention of worked stones being “dead”, however, clearly does not reflect actual practice, but rather the ideas of the author (whose claim to be transmitting information from the Muromachi period is immediately questionable because of statements such as “stones in the shape of Mount Fuji are best” – an idea that certainly was not in the minds of those who admired imported Chinese stones, or named them after mountains in China). Rather, this idea seems to reflect a newly emerging interest in stones as natural objects.

Some seem completely made, such as the examples owned by Kobori Enshu (see our June newsletter, pg 9, “Mount Luofu”) and the stone above,

CALIFORNIA AISEKI KAI PAGE 5 VOLUME 35, ISSUE 7

This new perspective on stones as natural curiosities emerged in the late 18th century, and would go on to change stone appreciation in many ways. In 1773, only one year after the Bonsan higon was published, this new perspective found expression in the Unkon shi, or “Stone Manual” (below).

Though there were Chinese precedents, this was Japan’s first stone catalogue, and it is clear that its author, Kinouchi Sekitei (1724 -1808), was interested in a variety of stones, but not particularly traditional bonseki. (Portrait of “Stone Master” Sekitei below)

The book is almost entirely text based, and documents stones that Sekitei had either seen or collected over many years of traveling the country. His commentary consistently begins with descriptions of the geographic origins of each specimen, and includes details on the shapes, colors, textures, and hardness of the stones, at times even taking a utilitarian approach, discussing the stones’ usefulness in tool making or building. He occasionally even mentions people he met along the way in his travels who should be consulted if the reader wanted to

visit these places and investigate the rocks themselves. There is only a very short passage on bonseki, stating that they were treasured in ancient times, though in the middle ages they had fallen out of fashion and had only in recent years begun to be revisited. He mentions a few well-known examples, but for our purposes the following comments are of interest: “The size of the stones are fixed, and those with snow on the peaks, or with valleys, waterfalls, caves, foothills, cliffs, and walkways naturally occurring, are considered the best. In the temple

Raigoji in Sakamoto, Omi province, there is a stone called Kusen hakkai, or “Nine mountains, eight seas”. It is bigger than most bonsan. […] There is no specific place from which bonseki are collected.” At the end of his definition and description, he acknowledges the need for a separate discourse on bonseki and its display, but does not expand further (note he uses both the words bonsan and bonseki in the above passage). His comment that stones with “naturally occurring” features are best is consistent both with his own practice and the Bonsan higon, but it is clear from his brief treatment of the subject that it was not of particular interest to him. Sekitei was interested in natural stones in a number of ways, but was his lack of interest in bonseki due to the fact that many were indeed NOT natural? His interest was in kiseki, which could be thought of as “strange”, “odd”, or “unique” stones. This was a new development in Japan at the time. The illustrations in his book are at times like those you would expect to find in natural science studies: detailed, realistic representations. But they also reveal influence from Chinese book Suyuan shipu, which was first published in 1613, and is known to have been in the collection of bibliophile Kimura Kenkadō (1736 -1802), who was a close friend of Sekitei’s. Here we have for the first time in the Japanese record examples of naturally occurring figure stones, such as the so-called “Buddhist figure stone” that could be seen in a valley near Mount Fuji, which is remarkably similar in its execution to the Suyuan shipu’s “Bodhisattva stone”.

Sketch of a chalcedony specimen from Sekitei’s collection

“Boshisattva Stone” from Unkon shi (at left)

“Buddhist Figure

Stone” from Suyuan shipu

(at right)

VOLUME 35, ISSUE 7 CALIFORNIA AISEKI KAI PAGE 6

Pattern stones also appear here, perhaps for the first time in the Japanese record. The Suyuan shipu illustrated numerous small stones with interesting patterns, and Sekitei did the same in his book as well, following a very similar format.

Figure stones and pattern stones are now commonly appreciated in the suiseki world, but that was not always the case. Sekitei’s late 18th century work is where they first seem to appear, and his interest in naturally occurring stones would go on to have a profound impact on the way stones were to be appreciated in Japan. Kiseki had at this point emerged as a separate phenomenon from bonseki, and the way the terms were defined would continue to evolve, long before the word “suiseki” would even appear in the world of Japanese stone appreciation. In Meiji 43 (1910) the first issue of “Koseki shi” was published. This was Japan’s first periodical dedicated to the appreciation of stones, and its focus was heavily on the type of kiseki that Sekitei admired. In the first issue, it clearly defined six different types of kiseki: Kaiseki: Literati-inspired stones such as Lingbi, Taihu, and Ying stones that are displayed in tokonoma. (What we would today call Chinese scholars rocks.) Tenseki: Stones used for bonsai rock plantings. Suiseki: Stones that can be placed in suiban. Bonseki: Stones used with patterns or shapes made in pebbles and sand on lacquer trays. Ten’nen kiseki: Unique, natural stones that resemble landscapes, figures, Buddhist sculptures, animals, and so on. Kaseki: Natural things that have turned to stone. (Fossils) This is interesting for a number of reasons.

Bonseki, which was once used interchangeably with bonsan to refer to largely mountain shaped stones displayed in ceramic or bronze trays, now clearly only referred to stones used on black lacquer trays with designs drawn out in white sand, such as we see today.

Suiseki is here found in print for one of the first times in its modern usage, and it is clearly an abbreviation for “suiban seki”, or stones displayed in suiban. This would have likely included the historical bonseki Yume no ukihashi and Sue no Matsuyama that were discussed earlier. Published examples from around the time labeled “suiseki” show that the meaning of the word may not have been universally agreed upon, as today certainly we would consider this particular display closer to bonkei. The requirement for a stone being natural is emphasized only in the definition of kiseki, which is strongly reinforced by calling them ten’nen kiseki, or “natural kiseki”. This definition sounds very much like the definition we hear for suiseki today. At this time, however, one of the strongest points of contrast is that kiseki were largely displayed on daiza, as opposed to suiseki, which were displayed in suiban. Another point is that figure stones are included and singled out as particular types of kiseki, but they do not feature in the definition or any of the illustrations of suiseki. While the definitions are clearly distinct here, they would go on to merge in various ways moving forward. The groundwork for a new definition of suiseki was laid in 1934, with the publication of “A Discussion of Suiseki” by Chubachi Yoshiaki.

Pattern stones from Unkon shi Pattern stones from Suyuan shipu

Modern Hosokawa school bonseki display

“Suiseki” from Kenshun’en Bonsai Picture Album, by Yamaoka Sentaro, 1918

VOLUME 35, ISSUE 7 CALIFORNIA AISEKI KAI PAGE 7

He was considered the greatest authority on the subject in the early 20th century, and published often in the magazine “Bonsai”, which was published by the great bonsai master who founded the Kokufu exhibition series, Kobayashi Norio. As part of his discourse, Chubachi compares and contrasts bonseki and suiseki, in an effort to clarify how they differ from one another. He says clearly that they are difficult to completely separate, as both are displayed in tokonoma or zashiki as arts that recreate the beauty of nature. In his discussion of bonseki, he notes that it has a long and venerable history, with various different schools that have clearly established rules. He says that when faced with a bonseki display the viewer will certainly feel that it is beautiful, but gazing for long will certainly lead one away from the true beauty of nature, into more of an idealized beauty. It is more literal and explicit, an attempt at a “true” representation of the desired scene, and stones are often fabricated to represent this idealized scenery. He likens bonseki to richly colored landscape paintings, which may be beautiful, but lack a certain depth in terms of revealing the true beauty of nature. In contrast, for Chubachi suiseki are more like monochrome ink paintings. They are figurative and implicit, and have an “emptiness” about them that is more open to interpretation, and therefore they have greater depth in terms of representing the true beauty of nature. He also notes that it has a very young history, with no established schools or fixed rules, but that was NOT to say that it was a completely open ended pastime to do however one pleased. He states: “Bonseki is a realistic expression of natural landscape scenery that approaches idealism, whereas suiseki uses a part of nature itself (an unworked, natural stone) to express natural landscape scenery.” He states repeatedly and in many different ways that suiseki MUST be all natural stones, and that no manmade alterations were acceptable. If the bottom or back of a stone were altered, or if an ideally shaped part of a larger stone were removed for appreciation on its own, then it could not be suiseki in his view. He was trying to create something new, and distinguish it from the bonseki of the past. Written only 25 years after the Koseki shi gave basic definitions for many types of viewing stones, Chubachi released views that went much further. While the Koseki shi focused primarily on ten’nen kiseki being all natural stones, Chubachi all but removes the word kiseki from his discussion, using the word in only one paragraph to describe the Chinese

stones admired by literati in the pre-modern era. It is apparent from the illustrations in his book that he co-opted natural kiseki into his definition of suiseki, and now, for the first time in print that would be accessible to a wide audience, he stressed repeatedly and without compromise that stones MUST be all natural to be considered suiseki. It is interesting too to note that, while his definition of “suiseki” is still “stones displayed in suiban”, his illustrations include many stones on daiza that would have previously been thought of as kiseki, but are now, unaware of the linguistic contradiction, included in a discussion of suiseki. Murata Kenji, who helped pioneer the stone boom of the 1960s and 70s, repeated this definition in his 1959 publication “Bonsai Pots and Suiseki” (at right). In fact, as a relatively new author he quotes Chubachi directly in many passages to lend the definition authority, as if it were being handed down by an old master. He repeats Chubachi’s insistent claim that suiseki must be natural stones, but he goes even further in expanding on Chubachi’s definition. Murata is the first to include the idea of appreciating suiseki for their patterns or colors, and specifically makes the case for chrysanthemum stones from the Neo Valley in Gifu Prefecture, and the akadama stones of Sado Island. He also includes what had been previously labeled kiseki as a sub-category of suiseki, and brings stones displayed on daiza under the suiseki umbrella as well. (See chart, page 8) This book was re-issued at least six times, and the section on suiseki was not only expanded in later editions, but it was also published separately as an individual pamphlet for even broader distribution. This publication served as one of the catalysts for the stone boom of the 1960s and 70s, and it influenced future publications for many years to come. However, there was a certain reality that could no longer be denied. Both Chubachi and Murata insisted that suiseki be all natural stones, more than anything perhaps as a way of differentiating the new

PAGE 8 VOLUME 35, ISSUE 7 CALIFORNIA AISEKI KAI

pastime from traditional bonseki. But in truth, Japan already had a culture hundreds of years old of enhancing stones to bring out their natural qualities, or even completely shape their contours. Examples of all types of stones remain from before their time - both completely natural, and completely made, and the vast spectrum of partially worked stones in between. No 20th century invention of new rules could eliminate this, despite efforts to ignore it. Instead, stone carvers became more conscious of “naturalism” in their work, and efforts were made to eliminate traces of man’s hand. Careful examination of early bonseki reveals that this was not such a concern in the past, as chisel and grinding marks are often clearly visible, but now the rules had changed. Because of this new mentality, speaking openly about whether stones had been worked or not became taboo, and the subject was all but ignored. It is now rude to discuss, and an unofficial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy took form. Big money was now involved, and worked stones were deemed less valuable than natural stones under this newly invented set of rules. As the stone boom picked up momentum, countless guides were published detailing where stones could be collected, and people flocked to the rivers and mountains in search of stones that could be admired as suiseki. It should go without saying, however, that as demand increased, the supply of quality stones was only bound to decrease. It was during this time that full-fledged suiseki dealers emerged. Throughout the Meiji, Taisho, and early Showa periods, suiseki were handled primarily by bonsai gardens, and as we know, bonsai professionals make and create things for a living. As they are in the business of creating beautiful objects, it should come as no surprise that there was little objection on their part if a stone was worked to improve its beauty. Bonsai gardens had always sold both natural and worked stones, though now with these new rules in place, it was impossible to speak about openly. If you look at exhibition catalogues from the time, you can see that there are plenty of natural stones

in suiban (Chubachi’s definition of suiseki), but you also find stones that are most likely not completely natural. Yet all of these things were now being labeled as suiseki, whether they were natural or not (Chubachi would have considered worked stones bonseki, not suiseki). As it became clear that there was no way of denying the fact that cut and even worked stones were being displayed in Japan’s premier suiseki exhibitions, the issue had to be addressed. In fact, Juseki magazine, the leading publisher on suiseki at the time (owned and managed by the Murata family), openly advertised and endorsed “suiseki finishing machines”, which came with both grinding and polishing wheels for working the surface of stones (right). In light of the reality of exhibition standards, market demands, and the content of their own publications, it was impossible to pretend any longer that suiseki were only all-natural stones. In an attempt to address and allow room for the acceptance of the age-old practice of working stones in Japan, in 1969, some ten years after declaring suiseki must be natural, Murata Keiji (Murata Kenji’s son) wrote the following in Juseki’s latest book, Encyclopedia for the Hobby of Suiseki: “Ideally suiseki are natural stones, but there are cases where a certain amount of work is permitted. […] One should not manipulate the shape of the stone itself, but one could cut the bottom, or grind and polish in places. Depending on the extent of work done, such stones should be appreciated as

Bonseki (stones used for bonkei) (concrete/representational form of expression)

Suiseki (Gaseki) (non-concrete/non-representational form of expression)

Viewing Stones (natural art)

Suiseki (stones primarily viewed in suiban) Daiseki (stones primarily viewed on daiza) Kiseki (stones primarily resembling human

figures, birds, and animals)

Chart classifying viewing stones by Murata Kenji (1959). This marks the earliest published use of the word “suiseki” to take on the broader meaning of “elegant stones” (gaseki), which included suiban stones, daiza stones, and kiseki (here defined primarily as figure stones).

suiseki. No matter how I think of it, however, I do not believe that stones with completely manufactured shapes are suiseki.” The tone here is far more forgiving of non-natural stones than it was ten years earlier. He also defines suiseki in a very different way, broadening its scope even further.

By this time, however, a rift had already emerged. Suiseki enthusiasts were now largely split into two groups: those who adhered to teaching that suiseki must be natural, and those who accepted that many were not. The former group is made up of enthusiasts who collect in rivers and mountains themselves, who would likely never buy a stone unless from a trusted friend. The latter group is made of up enthusiasts who buy stones from dealers, and often approach it the way one would approach art and antiques, by placing value on the history and provenance of a stone, rather than its natural qualities. Rather than following the centralized authority of the NSA, clubs were created in all parts of Japan with their own leadership. They often created their own rules- some insisting on natural stones only, collecting together in their local area and staging exhibitions of their finds, while others did not focus on field collecting or natural stones, instead focusing their interests on the broader cultural aspects of display and aesthetics, using worked stones or what would historically have been defined as bonseki. In fact, these

separate tendencies long existed in Japanese stone appreciation, but now they were all forced under the same name of “suiseki”, and people still debate today what is the correct and incorrect approach. One of the earliest and most honest discussions of modern Japanese stone appreciation was published in 1962 by Ito Shunji, in his book The Hobby of Stones: How to Find and Create Suiseki and Daiseki (at left).

VOLUME 35, ISSUE 7 CALIFORNIA AISEKI KAI

Ito was involved in organizing two of the most important stone exhibitions some 20 years before the NSA was even created, which were held at the temple Kan’eiji in Ueno in 1940 and 1941. He maintained the definition of suiseki as “stones displayed in suiban”, and was openly opposed to Murata including daiza stones and kiseki under the suiseki classification. He states that his personal preference is for natural stones, but offers this as a retort to Murata Kenji’s publication three years earlier that suiseki MUST be natural: “ […] However, as the expression, ‘A thousand people, a thousand faces’ goes, people’s tastes and preferences are extremely varied and wide ranging, and there is no shortage of people who like stones that have been made even more than natural stones, and simply cannot get enough of them. A hobby is not something to force on people, and even if you try to force it in a particular way, in the end you cannot succeed. This is only my personal opinion, but even if you say, revere natural stones and do away with those manmade, you can find goodness in manmade stones, and feel in them a pleasure that cannot be had through natural stones. I do not think there is anything wrong with that.” The underlined section is a direct quote of Murata’s text, and he is clearly voicing his disagreement. For better or worse, however, Ito’s book was published by Tokuma shoten, a publishing house that for a short time had a rivalry with Murata’s publishing company, Jusekisha. Both publishers released a number of books about stone appreciation, and an overview of their content reveals that they attracted people with very different ideas. The Muratas, however, were more deeply entrenched in the bonsai and suiseki worlds, and their message won out (Tokuma shoten’s window of publishing on stones would only last four years, whereas Juseki continues to publish even today). They would go on to define the conventional standards that eventually spread around the world, and dissenting opinions would fall by the wayside. Despite being a prominent leader at the time, Ito’s name is all but unknown in Japan today.

PAGE 9

1. Bonseki Bonsan Bonkei…….. (Historical stones) 2. Roseki Kiseki ………………………………..Chinseki

4. Gem stones Semi-precious stones……...…...Biseki 3. Bonsai Nejime ishi Landscape stones….Suiseki

(mutual influence) = Contemporary Suiseki

Chart illustrating various stone practices that have influenced one another and merged to become “Contemporary Suiseki”, by Murata Keiji (1969)

PAGE 10 VOLUME 35, ISSUE 7 CALIFORNIA AISEKI KAI

Many more pages would be required to fully flesh out the evolution of the terminology used in Japan and the many different schools of thought that emerged in the 20th century, but let us return to the original question: Must a stone be natural to be considered suiseki? We have seen that throughout history both natural and manmade stones have long been appreciated and revered in Japan, and it was not until the 18th century that a clear appreciation of natural stones emerged. Even so, this was very different from suiseki as we know it today. The medieval world of manipulated bonseki and bonsan combined with the pre-modern world of natural kiseki in the mid-20th century, and eventually all came under the same blanket term, suiseki. However, these worlds had very different approaches to stones, and their ways of viewing them could not so easily be reconciled. By the time Chubachi declared suiseki must be natural in the 1930s, there was already a long tradition of manipulating stones that had endured in Japan for hundreds of years. The Muratas tried to maintain Chubachi’s position, but in light of the reality of the situation, had to tone down their rhetoric and allow for a certain amount of manipulation. They could not ignore or deny hundreds of years of bonseki history, nor should we ignore or deny this tradition today. When we look at a stone displayed in a daiza or suiban, are we appreciating the natural features of the stone in-and-of themselves, admiring the forces of nature that brought them into existence? Or are we appreciating the grander, natural scene that those features suggest, allowing our minds to wander and our imaginations explore, whether the stone is completely natural or not? Does there have to be one and only one single way? Certainly, as we have seen, there has not been only one consistent school of thought on the subject in Japan. Stone appreciation has been, from its earliest recorded days in Japan, an exercise of allusion. Suiseki is, in its ultimate form, an appreciation of nature, and it is there and only there IN nature that one can learn its ways. We can learn nothing of this by reading books, surfing the internet, or listening to “experts” tell us what is right and wrong. Go to the mountains, go to the seaside, seek out waterfalls and mountain streams. Spend time there and learn the sound of wind blowing through trees, learn the ways of the tide, the crashing of water, and the refreshing feeling of mists washing over you. It is only by spending time in nature that you can make these things your own, and it is not until you have internalized the beauty of nature itself that you will look upon a stone and experience these sensations.

Questioning whether a stone has been worked or not is a fine exercise for beginners looking at exhibition displays, or considering buying a stone, but it is not until you allow your mind to move beyond this that the true beauty of suiseki can reveal itself. Go into nature and make yourself the tenkei. Revere the mountains and the ways that the seasons and light can transform them. Then, whether a stone has been cut or worked or not, you can find yourself transported to any number of places in the natural world, even when you are not otherwise free to venture far from home.

Wil becomes the tenkei

Postscript: Despite grand statements made both in Japan and abroad, there is not now, nor has there ever been, one single, universally accepted definition of suiseki that has remained unchanged over time. The above has been an attempt to articulate the complex reality of stone appreciation in Japan, where many different practices and schools of thought remain to this day. It is not a call for adherence, but for understanding. The West need not set out to replicate any single set of Japanese “truths”, however they are understood, as already a certain culture of stone appreciation has firmly taken root in many places around the world. One can only hope that now this culture continues to grow and flourish abroad in its own unique ways, as suits the desires and aspirations of those who find inspiration in the nature that surrounds them.

ED Note: We are immensely grateful to Wil for all his time and effort to inform and educate us and thus help us better understand and enjoy our passion for stones. We look forward to hearing from you with your reactions and comments.

July Contributors: Wil from Japan, Larry Ragle. Mailing: Flash Partch Editor: Nina Ragle

Contact People

PAGE 11 CALIFORNIA AISEKI KAI VOLUME 35, ISSUE 7

Newsletter Committee

We hope you will participate. Please send any submissions to ragle@cox.net no more than 10 days following our monthly meeting. Thank you!

California Aiseki Kai meets on the 4th Wednesday of each month at 7:30 pm at the Nakaoka Community Center located at 1670 W. 162nd St, Gardena, CA. Second floor. We do not meet in Nov-Dec.

Programs: Larry Ragle 949.497.5626 crimescene@cox.net Treasury/Membership: Nina Ragle 949.497.5626 ragle@cox.net Annual Exhibit: Jim Greaves 310.452.3680 jimgreaves@avsrc.org Exhibit Set Up: Marge Blasingame 626.579.0420 margeblasingame@att.net Refreshments: Janet Shimizu 310.822.6012 janet.shimizu46@gmail.com Beverages: Phil Hogan 626.256.4609 pkhinkalif@gmail.com Historian: Ray Yeager 760.365.7897 ryeager890@aol.com Webmail: Chris Cochrane 804.918.4636 sashaichris@gmail.com

Larry Ragle 4.5 x 3 x 4

Chung Kruger 13 x 3.5 x 5 (front and back)

Jesse Krong 3.5 x 4 x 2 (front and back)

Nina Ragle 6.5 x 3.5 x 5

Stone of the Month continued from page 3

Ragle P.O. Box 4975 Laguna Beach CA 92652

Coming Events

Leaves no stone unturned

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED

aisekikai.com

Thank you to Mika Breyfogle, Naomi Yoshida and Angelina Casas for the June snack break! Yum!! July jubilations will be provided by Buzz Barry, Kyra Haussler, and Janet Shimizu.

Refreshments

NANPU KAI SHOW Annual Nisei Week Bonsai Exhibit, August 26-27, JACCC, 244 S. San Pedro St., LA. 10-5 both days

KOFU BONSAI KAI Bonsai exhibit at the Bowers Museum, August 30-Sept 3, 2002 N. Main St., Santa Ana.

REDWOOD EMPIRE BONSAI SOCIETY 33rd Annual show, August 19-20, Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Bldg, 1351 Maple Ave., Santa Rosa. Demos both days at 1:00 by Kathy Shaner. Sat 10-5, Sun 10-4. Sales, raffle, silent auction. More info: Bob Shimon at 707.884.4126 or

Always check Golden Statements Magazine Calendar section for additional coming events

GOLDEN STATE BONSAI FEDERATION 40th Convention, “Bonsai New Horizon”. October 26-29, Riverside, Convention Center. Registration open. See gsbfconvention.org

Stone Sales Ken McLeod 209-605-9386 or 209 586-2881 or suisekistones.com

Freeman Wang 626-524-5021 stores.ebay.com/thestoneking

SAN DIEGO BONSAI CLUB 52nd Annual Fall Bonsai Show, Sept 23-24, Balboa Park, Casa del Prado, Room 101, San Diego. 10-5. Sales Area Info: sandiegobonsaiclub.com