{"id":2260,"date":"2017-05-24T16:10:33","date_gmt":"2017-05-24T07:10:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.waseda.jp\/inst\/sgu\/?p=2260"},"modified":"2017-07-26T16:51:00","modified_gmt":"2017-07-26T07:51:00","slug":"%e3%80%90tgu-global-japanese-studies%e3%80%91an-international-symposium-rethinking-the-author-as-an-agent-of-cultural-productionreport","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.waseda.jp\/inst\/sgu\/news-en\/2017\/05\/24\/2260\/","title":{"rendered":"\u3010TGU Global Japanese Studies\u3011An International Symposium: Rethinking the \u201cAuthor\u201d as an Agent of Cultural Production=Report="},"content":{"rendered":"

Rethinking the \u201cAuthor\u201d as an Agent of Cultural Production<\/strong><\/p>\n

An International Symposium<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

July 26, 2016 (Tue) 2:00pm ~ 6:00pm<\/p>\n

Conference Room 1, Building No. 33<\/p>\n

Waseda University – Toyama Campus , Tokyo, Japan<\/p>\n

Sponsors:<\/p>\n

Global Japanese Studies model unit, Waseda University Top Global University Project, supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology \u2013 Japan<\/p>\n

Ryusaku Tsunoda Center of Japanese Culture, Waseda University<\/p>\n

Co-Host:<\/p>\n

Department of East Asian Languages and Culture, Columbia University<\/p>\n

Organizing Committee:<\/p>\n

Haruo SHIRANE (Professor, Columbia University)<\/p>\n

Tomi SUZUKI (Professor, Columbia University)<\/p>\n

Sungsi LEE (Professor, Waseda University)<\/p>\n

Hirokazu TOEDA (Professor, Waseda University)<\/p>\n

Presenters:<\/p>\n

Shigemi INAGA (Professor, International Research Center for Japanese Studies)<\/p>\n

Masatsugu ONO (Professor, Rikkyo University)<\/p>\n

Ry\u016bichi KODAMA (Professor, Waseda University)<\/p>\n

Kazuaki KOMINE (Professor Emeritus, Rikkyo University, and Visiting Senior Researcher, Waseda University)<\/p>\n

Moderators:<\/p>\n

Tomoyuki MASUDA (Professor, Waseda University)<\/p>\n

Natsuko OZAKI (Guest Researcher, Waseda University)<\/p>\n

Hidenori JINNO (Professor, Waseda University)<\/p>\n

Misa UMETADA (Assistant Professor, Waseda University)<\/p>\n

Discussants:<\/p>\n

Hiroshi ARAKI (Professor, International Research Center for Japanese Studies)<\/p>\n

Toshiyuki SUZUKI (Professor, Chuo University)<\/p>\n

Akira TAKAGISHI (Associate Professor, The University of Tokyo)<\/p>\n

Keiko NAKAMACHI (Professor, Jissen Women\u2019s University)<\/p>\n

Yasuaki WATANABE (Professor, The University of Tokyo)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Nearly half a century has passed since Roland Barthes published his seminal essay, \u201cThe Death of the Author.\u201d To discuss the concept of the \u201cauthor\u201d today, we do not need to travel back in time and revive the conventional, modern notions of the \u201cauthor\u201d that Barthes discussed. Rather, taking the reexamination of the notions and functions of the \u201cauthor\u201d as a starting point, we need to unravel the working of a diverse range of groups, networks, media, and social environments to which producers and recipients of culture belong. We need to rethink how cultural texts, including literary works, have been created and recreated within such dynamics, historically, as well as in the world today.<\/p>\n

The international symposium, \u201cRethinking the \u2018Author\u2019 as an Agent of Cultural Production,\u201d was held on July 26, 2016 at Waseda University. The main purpose of the symposium was to reconsider the basis of research in the humanities and to explore new visions for the past, present, and future of cultural production and reception through comparative analyses of the issue of the \u201cauthor\u201d in Japanese contexts, using concrete examples from various genres and media.<\/p>\n

The symposium was sponsored by the Global Japanese Studies model unit of Waseda University\u2019s Top Global University Project, supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology \u2013 Japan, as well as Ryusaku Tsunoda Center of Japanese Culture, Waseda University, and was co-hosted by the Department of East Asian Languages and Culture, Columbia University. More than a hundred participants, including researchers, faculty members, and students, attended the event.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Opening Remarks<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"T01_9222\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Following the opening remarks by Hirokazu Toeda, the leader of the Global Japanese Studies model unit at Waseda University, Tomi Suzuki from Columbia University described the main objectives of the symposium. First, Suzuki summarized the development of \u201cauthor\u201d theory from the 1960s. Roland Barthes argued that the meaning of texts depend on interpretation of the readers, problematizing the notion of the \u201cauthor\u201d as the origin of meaning in literary works. Michel Foucault unraveled the historical process in which the modern notion of the \u201cauthor\u201d was constructed in the West, as well as the social, political, and economic functions of the \u201cauthor.\u201d These discussions led to the development of theories concerning the text and the reader. Suzuki pointed out that, today, half a century after Barthes and Foucault presented their essays, the boundary between the author and the audience has become even more blurred due to developments in media and technology, including the Internet, which multiply the forms and agents of cultural production. At the same time, Suzuki emphasized that it is important to recognize the vibrant histories of replication and recreation through collaboration found and developed in the cultural production process in Japan and in other areas of East Asia, a phenomenon that has continued into the twentieth century. She called for a reconsideration of various eras, genres, and areas of research through new perspectives, linking a wide range of research, including historical analyses, with past and present. She expressed her hope that the examples raised in today\u2019s presentations by leading scholars in their fields would generate dynamic discussion and fruitful ideas for future research.<\/p>\n

\"T01_9228(\u9234\u6728\u5148\u751f\uff09\u2605\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Session 1 <\/strong><\/p>\n

Seals and Repetitions: Representations of World Art and Artists in the Works of Yasumasa Morimura and Handwriting and History in <\/strong>Ky<\/strong>\u016b<\/strong>y<\/strong>\u014d Ishikawa\u2019s History of Chinese Calligraphy<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Shigemi INAGA (Professor, International Research Center for Japanese Studies)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0The Powerless Author<\/strong><\/p>\n

Masatsugu ONO (Professor, Rikkyo University)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Moderators:<\/p>\n

Tomoyuki MASUDA (Professor, Waseda University)<\/p>\n

Natsuko OZAKI (Guest Researcher, Waseda University)<\/p>\n

Discussants:<\/p>\n

Akira TAKAGISHI (Associate Professor, The University of Tokyo)<\/p>\n

Keiko NAKAMACHI (Professor, Jissen Women\u2019s University)<\/p>\n

Yasuaki WATANABE (Professor, The University of Tokyo)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Shigemi Inaga, a scholar of comparative culture, comparative literature, and art, discussed the notions of repetitions, the \u201cauthor,\u201d and the \u201crecipient,\u201d through consideration of works by the artist, Yasumasa Morimura, as well as the discussion of calligraphy by Ky\u016by\u014d Ishikawa in his History of Chinese Calligraphy<\/em>. Morimura replicates visual experiences of the works by renowned artists in the West by using his own body as a medium. Inaga argued that Morimura\u2019s works could be described as a type of \u201cpossession,\u201d in which artists of the past possess the living body of the contemporary artist, blurring the boundary between the author\/creator and the recipient of the artwork. Using examples of Morimura\u2019s works, such as \u201cThe Last Supper\u201d based on the famous work by Leonard Da Vinci, Inaga noted that in the parallel universe intentionally created by the double vision of the original work and its appropriation, the past possesses Morimura\u2019s body, much like the way in which people experience the past.<\/p>\n

Inaga also pointed out the similarities between the ear-cutting self-mutilation of Vincent Van Gogh and a famous Kamakura-period Buddhist monk, My\u014de, as well as the story of \u201cH\u014dichi the Earless (Mimi nashi H<\/em>\u014dichi<\/em>)\u201d included in Kwaidan: Stories and Studies of Strange Things<\/em> by Koizumi Yakumo\u00a0 (Lafcadio Hearn). Inaga conjectured that severing of the ear was a way for them to salvage themselves from their personal crises and avoid falling into the world of madness. Quoting Morimura\u2019s notion that causing injuries to oneself and trying to assume someone else\u2019s personality are similar acts, Inaga argued that Morimura was putting such acts into practice through art.<\/p>\n

To expand on the discussion of repetition and creation, Inaga also quoted writings by Lafcadio Hearn, as well as analyses of Hearn\u2019s writings by Kitar\u014d Nishida. Hearn wrote: \u201cInside every ultimate, microscopic atom are gazillions of experiences of the limitless, eternal universe that have already been lost.\u201d On this point, Nishida wrote: \u201cOur bodies are merely at a distant tip of the pillar of boundless spirit that connects the limitless past and the present. They are physical symbols of the clusters of infinite spirit.\u201d<\/p>\n

In History of Chinese Calligraphy, <\/em>Ky\u016by\u014d Ishikawa argues that the history of East Asian calligraphy has been built upon the concealment of the fact that it derives itself from repeating the history of engraved seals that were created by the combination of stones, shadows, and chisels. In the history of writing, Wang Xizhi is a representative figure for the period of transition from wood-strips to paper. What are claimed to be \u201coriginal writings\u201d of Wang Xizhi today are in fact an accumulation of imitative carvings and transcriptions from multiple historical periods \u2500 mere glimpses of illusion that exist in the absence of the original. Inaga noted that Ishikawa sought the truth of historical understanding in such an example.<\/p>\n

Inaga argued that both Morimura\u2019s works and Ishikawa\u2019s discussion represent the pursuit of the origin of history that lie behind the traces of the original works that have already been lost, and that such an understanding can provide clues for examining the idea of the \u201cauthor.\u201d<\/p>\n

A researcher and an author of award-winning novels, Masatsugu Ono, began his analysis of the relationship between authors and texts by citing the \u201csullen\u201d responses that Shigehiko Hasumi, the oldest recipient of the Mishima Yukio Prize, gave to the reporters attending the press conference for the prize. Ono noted that the discord between Hasumi and the reporters arose out the differences between the two parties\u2019 approaches for understanding the text; one sought to understand the text through examining only the text itself, and the other tried to interpret the text based on the information concerning the intentions of the author. Hasumi has been known as a literary critic who seeks to understand the effects of the meanings that emerge out of the surface of the text itself. It is therefore understandable for him to feel uncomfortable about the reporters\u2019 questions that assumed correlations between the meanings of the text and matters that are external to the text, such as definitive events in the author\u2019s life, literary works that had an impact on the author, or the author\u2019s interactions with other writers, that may have left some traces on his work. Having made these points, Ono quoted Antoine Compagnon\u2019s notion that the text and the author are not in opposition with each other, and that the \u201cconsistency\u201d of the author\u2019s intention surfaces as a \u201cnet\u201d of interwoven small characteristics, a system of details that exhibit signs, or varied repetitions, differences, and comparisons.<\/p>\n

Ono also elaborated on the background of one scene in his Akutagawa-Prize-wining novel, \u201cA Prayer Nine Years Ago (Ky<\/em>\u016b<\/em> nen mae no inori<\/em>),\u201d to argue that the act of writing a novel is an act of weaving a \u201cnet\u201d that captures the novel that \u201ccomes on its own\u201d to the author through numerous, intricately intersecting impetuses. Some of the threads that are woven into such a \u201cnet\u201d may be unconscious or forgotten memories of events, and all that the writer can do, he noted, is to simply wait for the novel\u2019s arrival. Ono described how his encounter with Akhil Sharma, the author of the novel Family Life<\/em>, and his reading of Sharma\u2019s semi-biographic novel had an impact on the precursor of \u201cA Prayer Nine Years Ago\u201d that he was working on at the time. Ono noted that revealing the background of just one scene of a novel would not change the readers\u2019 understanding of a literary work as a whole, and that the author is also \u201cpowerless\u201d in this respect as well. Nonetheless, Ono stressed that etched into such textual details are memories of encounters that are precious to the author.<\/p>\n

Following the presentations by Inaga and Ono, three discussants gave their comments. Akira Takagishi, a specialist in medieval art history, noted that he had also noticed the similarities between van Gogh and My\u014de\u2019s cutting of their ears. It is intriguing, he pointed out, that My\u014de\u2019s severed ear is clearly depicted in a picture-scroll painted after he died and became a legendary figure, whereas such depiction is absent in the picture of meditating My\u014de created while he was still alive. Takagishi argued that Morimura\u2019s works and Ishikawa\u2019s discussion on calligraphy are both linked to movements between two-dimensional and three-dimensional fields, connecting Morimura\u2019s world and the world of the painter of the original work, and linking the techniques employed by those who created stone engravings and those who created rubbed copies of such engravings later on. Takagishi also found it curious that Morimura\u2019s recent works do not seem to be concerned with replicating the originals as closely as his earlier works did.\u00a0 To this comment, Inaga responded that resemblance with the original works is a secondary matter, and that the act of replication has many meanings, similar to how the Japanese word \u201cutsusu<\/em>\u201d has many meanings, such as \u201cto move,\u201d \u201cto copy,\u201d \u201cto reflect,\u201d as well as sprits\u2019 entrance into living bodies. Inaga also noted that the harder one tries to replicate, the further the end product diverges from the original, which describes a significant part of authors\u2019 writing process. Ono concurred on this point, noting that writers should not shy away from imitating other writers\u2019 works, as the \u201cnet\u201d woven in the process of writing becomes tighter through numerous acts of replication, leading the authors to their own unique destinations.<\/p>\n

An art historian, Keiko Nakamachi, noted that East Asian calligraphy is an art not only of shapes, but also of meanings and the flow of time. They are products of single acts, and are linked to East Asian spirituality. Nakamachi also pointed out that imitating pioneering artists\u2019 works is a well-recognized practice in East Asian painting and calligraphy. Those who imitate a famous artist\u2019s work or style would mark their piece with the character \u201ch<\/em>\u014d<\/em>\u201d (\u5023), followed by the name of the artist whose style the work claims to imitate. She added that many works with the \u201ch<\/em>\u014d<\/em>\u201d <\/em>notation in fact do not exhibit even a shred of resemblance to the techniques or the unique characteristics of the artist\u2019s works they claim to imitate. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the practice of noting \u201ch<\/em>\u014d<\/em>\u201d <\/em>in an attempt to carry on the legacies of past artists has a long history. This tradition, she noted, may have a connection to the works by Morimura, who creates something that resembles but diverts from the original artwork, and who appears to self-deprecatingly project himself onto his artwork while pursuing the phantom of what has been lost.<\/p>\n

Yasuaki Watanabe recalled that one of Ono\u2019s novels, \u201cThe Ship Shouldered by the Jolly Bay (Nigiyaka na wan ni seowareta fune<\/em>),\u201d had a scene in which a soldier rips off a character\u2019s ear, and conjectured that losing an ear might lead a person to \u201cstrain his or her [lost] ear (mimi o sumasu<\/em>)\u201d and pay more attention to the inner sounds, rather than the sounds that come from outside. Watanabe praised Ono\u2019s notion of the interwoven \u201cnet\u201d of memories, and noted that the uniqueness of the moment when various and fluid pasts interconnect to shape one form may provide opportunities for experiencing things that are out of the ordinary.\u00a0 \u201cHow does a \u2018powerless author\u2019 attempt to hear something that comes toward him?\u201d Watanabe asked, positing the notion that there may be something that fortuitously bridges what people sense concretely and intuitively with something that transcends the worldly realm. Building on Watanabe\u2019s statement regarding the act of \u201cstraining one\u2019s ear\u201d to listen attentively to the inner sounds, Inaga cited a psychologist\u2019s notion that \u201cstraining one\u2019s body (karada o sumasu<\/em>)\u201d allows a person to recognize what is best for him or her to do, and noted that the interwoven \u201cnet\u201d of memories is akin to such a network that transcends intentions, and that \u201cstraining one\u2019s body\u201d is an important part of a writer\u2019s work. Ono cited Jorge Luis Borges\u2019s idea that reading poems turns readers into the authors of the poems at the time when they were written, and noted that just like writing is an uncontrollable act that opens up the writer to others, reading also opens up the reader to others and transforms him or her into another being.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Session 2<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ry<\/strong>\u016bichi<\/strong> KODAMA (Professor, Waseda University)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWho Creates Theater? Kabuki as a Theatrical Art in which the Actors are the Directors\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0Kazuaki KOMINE (Professor Emeritus, Rikkyo University and Visiting Senior Researcher, Waseda University)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cForgeries and Traditions Concerning Authors in Medieval Japan\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Moderators:<\/p>\n

Hidenori JINNO (Professor, Waseda University)<\/p>\n

Misa UMETADA (Assistant Professor, Waseda University)<\/p>\n

Discussants:<\/p>\n

Hiroshi ARAKI (Professor, International Research Center for Japanese Studies)<\/p>\n

Toshiyuki SUZUKI (Professor, Chuo University)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Ry\u016bichi Kodama, who specializes in Japanese theater, discussed the \u201cauthor\u201d in the world of theater, especially in relation to kabuki. Kodama noted that theater is a difficult genre for academic research due to the ephemeral nature of theatrical performances and the characteristics of available textual resources. The \u201cauthor\u201d in the world of theater arts, Kodama argued, sways between individuality and anonymity.<\/p>\n

According to Kodama, names of the author for specific theatrical works began appearing around the time of Kan\u2019ami and Zeami, but it is doubtful that the audience at the time recognized specific performances they attended as works \u201cwritten by Zeami\u201d and so forth. It was around the time of Chikamatsu Monzaemon when playwrights\u2019 names began to be recognized by the public. Kodama noted that promoting the title \u201cChikamatsu, the author\u201d was criticized at the time, but that it arose out of the socio-economic context of early-modern Japan in which commercial performances aiming to attract large audiences became viable. Many of Chikamatsu\u2019s works were handed down with modifications, and joint production became the mainstream after Chikamatsu\u2019s death. Kodama pointed out that in many cases the allotment of specific parts among joint authors was not recorded, and the scholarly attempts made in the 1950s and 1960s to determine such details can be understood as an effort to retrieve individuality of the authors out of anonymity. Many kabuki scripts and programs did not list the names of the authors of the works being performed, which indicates, Kodama argued, that the authors\u2019 names were erased through the process of repeated performances that made such theatrical pieces anonymous, shared legacies that continued to transform. Kodama also noted that the selection of \u201ckata<\/em>\u201d (form) for specific kabuki performances began to precede the selection of suitable scripts, and that the selection of the kata<\/em> and the script came to be in the hand of the \u201cactor-cum-director,\u201d casting away the \u201cauthor\u201d of the piece into obscurity. In other words, in the process of transmission of kabuki and j\u014druri works, the \u201cauthor\u201d was already dead long before Barthes penned \u201cThe Death of the Author.\u201d Kodama argued that while many authors are buried in anonymity, authors with strong individual characters \u201cdraw\u201d anonymity toward themselves, or, in the opposite direction, are pulled out of anonymity. In the end, Kodama noted, the ultimate power to let the performance live or die lies in the hands of the audience, and some theatrical works are written in ways that make audience participation an indispensable part of the performance.<\/p>\n

Kazuaki Komine discussed the topic of \u201cgisho<\/em>\u201d(forgery, \u507d\u66f8), which has received positive reassessment since the 2000s. Considering issues such as why certain authors were disguised, and what that meant, he explored methodologies for author theories. Komine noted that recent discussions in Japan regarding the meanings of what gisho<\/em> works create have transcended the binary theories of \u201ctruth\u201d versus \u201cfalsity\u201d based on the modern positivist approach. He also pointed out that circumstances that gave rise to gisho<\/em> were linked to the presence and the conditions of canonical works. According to Komine, whereas the word \u201ctsukuru<\/em>\u201d (to create) now has a positive connotation indicating \u201ccreativity,\u201d the term had negative meanings in pre-modern Japan, such as \u201coverly indulgent with techniques.\u201d Describing the idea of \u201cmiraiki<\/em>\u201d (\u201cfuture-writing,\u201d or prophecy) in the medieval period, he argued that the world that existed in medieval Japan could not be explained by the simple notion of \u201ctruth\u201d versus \u201cfalsity.\u201d<\/p>\n

Komine discussed the importance of the term \u201cutsusu<\/em>\u201d (also discussed in the earlier panel by Inaga), pointing out the necessity to discuss gisho<\/em> not only as forgery (\u507d\u66f8) but also as works expressed by borrowing something from other works (\u64ec\u66f8), or works that were written as entertainment (\u622f\u66f8), and to analyze the notion of \u201cgisakusha<\/em>\u201d (\u64ec\u4f5c\u8005), or \u201cauthor by pretense.\u201d \u00a0Komine also argued for the need to recognize and analyze various types of gisho<\/em>, which can be sorted into three general categories: (1) works that have been written by someone pretending to be a specific writer, (2) works that are based on a specific text, supplementing what was perceived as missing in the original, and (3) works that are constructed as authoritative sources from the past\u00a0 (creating what did not exist and legitimizing it). He also called for comparative analyses, pointing out that current approaches regarding \u201cforgeries\u201d in China and Korea are quite different from those in Japan, and are based entirely on modern-day notions of canonical works.<\/p>\n

Komine examined the myths and accounts regarding the authors of classical works such as The Tale of Genji<\/em> and The Tales of the Heike<\/em>, and argued that traditions concerning authors are linked to formations of canons, as well as to the issue of gisho<\/em>. \u00a0He also discussed the notions of \u201cisshin soku sanjin\u201d<\/em> (\u4e00\u8eab\u5373\u4e09\u8eab, a single Buddha possesses all three bodies) and \u201csanjin soku isshin<\/em>\u201d (\u4e09\u8eab\u5373\u4e00\u8eab, all three bodies are found within a single Buddha), which counter the \u201cdaij<\/em>\u014d<\/em> hi bussetsuron<\/em>\u201d (\u5927\u4e57\u975e\u4ecf\u8aac\u8ad6, a theory that the scripture of Mahayana Buddhism is not directly derived from the teachings of Gautama Buddha) and consider the reality of Buddha\u2019s existence to be irrelevant in Buddhist thought that is concerned with Buddha as something that transcends the real-life existence of Gautama Buddha. According to Komine, Gensh\u014d Imanari had argued that these notions resonate with the literary theory that considers the \u201ctrue author\u201d to be \u201cinduced from literary work.\u201d In this respect, Komine pointed out, the notions of \u201cisshin soku sanjin<\/em>\u201d and \u201csanjin soku isshin<\/em>\u201d precede the ideas presented in \u201cThe Death of the Author.\u201d Komine ended his presentation by noting that the modern \u201cfantasy of the original\u201d reflects a modern insistence on individuality, loss of communal production, and an inability to accept parodies, and that it is in contrast with \u201cthe power of creating through succession\u201d that has continued to exist in Japan for centuries.<\/p>\n

One of the two discussants, Hiroshi Araki, cited the argument presented by T\u014dru Funayama, that giky<\/em>\u014d<\/em> (pseudo sutras, or apocryphal texts) emerge in the process of translation. Araki held that this observation could be applied to considerations of medieval setsuwa<\/em> (anecdotes, or narratives), which developed through translations. Setsuwa<\/em> recreated what had been told in new forms, Araki noted, and share some aspects with the world of theater that Kodama discussed. Araki also noted that setsuwa<\/em> were anonymous stories, and recipients of setsuwa<\/em> were not concerned about their authorship. However, he continued, when tsukuri-monogatari<\/em> (fictional tales) such as The Tale of Genji<\/em> emerged, readers began to yearn to know about the authors. Araki described Genji kuy\u014d<\/em> as an act through which the spirit of the author of The Tale of Genji<\/em> was believed to come down and possess the body of a third-party individual. He argued that the author came down not to a reader as an individual, but to the society, creating the \u201cauthor\u201d as a cultural phenomenon.<\/p>\n

Toshiyuki Suzuki, an Edo literature specialist, described \u201cryaku-engi<\/em>\u201d in the early modern period as texts written deliberately \u201cnot to show the intentions\u201d behind their existence. Such texts did not note the names of their authors, and accommodated ambiguity between fiction and reality, echoing texts written in the medieval period. Suzuki asked Komine if any continuity could be observed among texts written in the medieval and the early modern periods, and if there are differences between gisho<\/em> written in the two periods. In response, Komine noted there certainly are elements that are shared and are distinct among texts written in the medieval and the early modern periods. \u201cMiraiki<\/em>,\u201d for example, became a target of criticism as rationalism and objectivism strengthened in the early modern period, leading to the unraveling of deceptions found in such texts. On the other hand, along with the burgeoning publishing culture, decoding \u201cyogensho<\/em>\u201d (book of prophesy) as a type of light-hearted \u201crekishi-mono<\/em>\u201d (history-based story) became popular as a form of entertainment. Komine also noted that \u201chigi<\/em>\u201d (secret ritual), \u201chih\u014d<\/em>\u201d (secret method), and \u201czuh\u014d\/shuh\u014d<\/em>\u201d (esoteric practice), created in the medieval period by fabricating authoritative sources, continued its existence into the early modern period, just as K\u014db\u014d Daishi\u2019s \u201cGoyuigon<\/em>\u201d (Last Words), though clearly a forgery, formed an important discourse in the Shingon Sect of Buddhism. Kodama noted that the call for compiling works by unknown writers already existed decades ago in the field of theater research. On the other hand, he continued, materials whose creators are difficult to determine, such as flyers and photographs of popular actors and artists, have not been treated as research subjects. He also argued for the importance of \u201cnise-h\u014dmotsu<\/em>\u201d (fake treasures) as materials that reflect histories created by people\u2019s imaginations.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Summary of Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"T01_9364(\u5168\u666f\u5165\u53e3\u306a\u306a\u3081_\u5c3e\u5d0e\u5148\u751f\uff09\"<\/p>\n

The two sessions led by invited presenters and discussants were followed by a discussion period, in which various opinions were exchanged among the presenters, moderators, discussants, and the audience.<\/p>\n

One of the moderators, Natsuko Ozaki, opened the discussion by pointing out that the reason \u201cthe author\u201d still \u201ccannot die,\u201d even after having been \u201creleased from the spells\u201d of the modern notions of \u201cthe author,\u201d may be linked to the practicality and rationality that are convenient for publishing and marketing literary works. Ono cited Barthes in noting that people desire the \u201cauthor\u201d because it provides an easy-to-understand explanation for the texts. Referring to Komine\u2019s presentation, Ono also noted that the question of why people have the desire to create forgeries is quite stimulating. In response, Komine pointed out the importance of comprehensively examining \u201cgenuine\u201d and \u201cforged\u201d texts on a case-by-case basis, with the understanding that there are forgeries that were created with the intention of producing something genuine, and played a role as genuine texts, as well as forgeries that were intended to be fabrications from the beginning. Kodama concurred by noting that gikeizu<\/em> (forged family genealogy), for example, were \u201cgenuine\u201d to those who needed them. The practice of enjoying forgeries for what they are emerged only in the early modern period, and gisho<\/em> written in the pre-modern period must have been received as \u201ctruth\u201d by the majority of their readers at the time. Araki added that there are theories of what is \u201ccorrect\u201d and \u201cfalse\u201d that emerge out of commentaries.<\/p>\n

Ono provided the historical background for Barthes and Foucault\u2019s writings on the \u201cauthor,\u201d pointing out that author-focused research on literary history was the mainstream at the Sorbonne at the time, and that thematically-focused research was virtually prohibited. He also noted that the development of teaching and research methodologies focused solely on the text corresponded with the demand for new approaches in an era when people from wider social backgrounds began attending universities. He added that, in Japan, the \u201cauthor\u201d may still be lingering like a ghost precisely because the \u201cauthor\u201d had long been \u201cdead\u201d already. Toshiyuki Suzuki pointed out that being a prose writer was looked down upon in early-modern Japan, and such an activity was not recognized as a real occupation. He noted that examining the \u201cauthor\u201d allows us to recognize intriguing aspects of specific eras and the positioning of certain literary works in particular social contexts, revealing the characteristics of the \u201cauthor\u201d in different time periods.<\/p>\n

A participant noted the lack of discussion concerning political authorities\u2019 power to deem certain texts \u201cgisho<\/em>,\u201d and others pondered on the future direction of the \u201cauthor,\u201d and the possibility of examining the reasons for and the effect of the lingering presence of author-centric discourses.<\/p>\n

A core member of the symposium\u2019s organizing committee, Tomi Suzuki, emphasized that the main purpose of the symposium was not to discuss the validity of the discourses found in \u201cThe Death of the Author,\u201d but to conduct detailed analyses of differences and overlaps of the functions and conditions of the \u201cauthor\u201d in various historical periods and genres. Even half a century after \u201cThe Death of the Author,\u201d cultural producers do exist, and collaborative production is very vibrant, with much fluidity between individuality and anonymity. On the other hand, copyright and censorship, relating to the economy and the notion of responsibility respectively, have been important issues from the early modern period to the present day. Suzuki stressed the importance of considering various actors, such as editors, vendors, distributors, and critics, as a part of the inquires into the issue of the \u201cauthor,\u201d and argued that examining them in historical context would reveal the links between the pre-modern and modern works, as well as differences and similarities among genres and geographical regions. Analyzing the \u201cauthor,\u201d she noted, also means examining the recipients of cultural products and various forms of media through which the act of cultural production takes place. She also pointed out that individual property rights and responsibilities are pressing issues today, when intellectual property rights have become a global matter. As the patterns of production and reception of culture change with the transformation of media and technology, it is critical to examine various ways in which culture is produced and received, and to collaboratively analyze and compare concrete examples in order to consider historical, regional, and cultural connections and distinctions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Closing Remarks <\/strong><\/p>\n

\"T01_9385\u2605\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In his closing remarks for the symposium, Haruo Shirane from Columbia University described some of the discussions found in English-language publications on author theory, and how they connect to the examples seen in Japan. Almost always cited in such publications is Saint Bonaventure, who was a priest and a philosopher in thirteenth-century Italy. Bonaventure noted that there were four types of writers. A person who copied the works of others was a \u201cscribe [scriptor<\/em>]\u201d; a person who gathered and edited the works of others was a \u201ccompiler [compilator<\/em>]\u201d; a person who added commentaries to the works of others was a \u201ccommentator\u201d; and a person who wrote his own thoughts along with writing down the works of others was an \u201cauthor [auctor<\/em>].\u201d Shirane pointed out that the act of copying in fact usually involved rewriting of the original text, rather than creating an exact copy, in a manner similar to the creation of ihon<\/em> (variants) in medieval Japan. As for the act of compiling and editing, being a compiler in medieval Europe was possible only when there were patrons who commissioned the gathering of certain types of texts, echoing the historical background of works such as Kokin-wakash\u016b<\/em> in Japan. Whereas the primary condition for the \u201cauthor\u201d in the modern period is to \u201cwrite his\/her own thoughts,\u201d Shirane pointed out that in medieval Europe, where texts were believed to emerge only because of the will of God, the \u201cauthor\u201d was considered a medium between God and texts, and thus only \u201coccasionally\u201d wrote down their own thoughts. According to Shirane, another important role of writers in Europe at the time was translating Latin texts into vernacular languages, similar to how Chinese texts were translated into Japanese in the medieval period. As these examples show, an analysis of the \u201cauthor\u201d should always take into account the genres and the ways in which communities existed in the period under consideration. Shirane noted that Japan has had a long tradition of \u201cborrowing something to create one\u2019s own work,\u201d and that Morimura\u2019s contemporary works share certain elements with the mitate<\/em> method of early modern Japanese art, as well as waka\u2019s honkadori<\/em> tradition. The teacher-student relationship and the link between the \u201cauthor\u201d and the ie<\/em>\/schools have played important roles in cultural production in Japan since the late Heian period. It is also necessary, Shirane noted, to consider the act of compiling and editing, seen in examples such as waka anthologies and collections of setsuwa<\/em>, from the regional perspective of East Asia. Shirane called for research on the collaborative, communal forms of cultural production that have long exited in Japan, such as uta-awase<\/em>, renga<\/em>, and haikai<\/em>. The act of sharing, adding, transforming, and then sharing again that have taken place in such traditional practices are linked to contemporary practices of cultural production seen on the Internet and online blogs.<\/p>\n

\"T01_9403(\u674e\u5148\u751f\u2460\uff09\"<\/p>\n

Lee Sungsi, who is the director of Waseda University\u2019s Ryusaku Tsunoda Center of Japanese Culture, suggested that the comments provided by Tomi Suzuki during the discussion period indicate that the topics discussed during this symposium point to the epistemological shift from the substantial model to the relational model, and the need for examining texts from the relational perspective. In relation to the discussion of gisho<\/em>, Lee also discussed \u201cHwarang Seigi<\/em>\u201d (\u82b1\u90ce\u4e16\u7d00), a Korean literary work allegedly written in the ninth century that was \u201cfound\u201d unexpectedly in 1989. According to Lee, Hwarang Seigi<\/em> was determined to be a \u201cforgery\u201d by the Korean Historical Association, and has since been treated as something academics should not discuss. Lee argues that this is a typical case of \u201can imitation overwhelming the genuine work,\u201d and that it was thoroughly criticized precisely because it overwhelmed the modern Korean understanding of ancient history based on the existing canonical works. He noted that it is problematic to ignore such works simply as \u201cforgeries,\u201d and that they need to be examined more cautiously, using innovative methodologies such as those suggested by Komine. \u00a0Lee concluded his closing remarks by noting that the symposium offered a wide range of inspiration, and that he hopes for further research on the issues raised during the event.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Rethinking the \u201cAuthor\u201d as an Agent of Cultural Production An International Symposium   July 26, 2016 (Tu […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":2240,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[83,97,111,74],"class_list":["post-2260","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news-en","tag-events-en","tag-en-gj","tag-report-en","tag-research-en"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waseda.jp\/inst\/sgu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2260","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waseda.jp\/inst\/sgu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waseda.jp\/inst\/sgu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waseda.jp\/inst\/sgu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waseda.jp\/inst\/sgu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2260"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.waseda.jp\/inst\/sgu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2260\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waseda.jp\/inst\/sgu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.waseda.jp\/inst\/sgu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waseda.jp\/inst\/sgu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2260"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.waseda.jp\/inst\/sgu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}