#seas2015

Located in an island country known for its modernity, Kyoto is a lively city known for its illustrious history and former status as the imperial capital of Japan. Its plethora of restored Buddhist temples, still-standing imperial structures and other notable Japanese sites shows the respect and reverence the city has for its past. Though this concept of Kyoto has existed for centuries, Kyoto was not excluded from the wave of transformation that the rest of Japan experienced. In particular, the Meiji Restoration period denoted a time where much of the historical “pieces” of Kyoto, such as the grand imperial palaces, were left without much use or appreciation (Stavros 184). As is common in most urban areas, more traditional buildings such as the machiya (townhouses) were torn down in favor of establishing modern architecture such as Kyoto Station, a hub for train and underground travel in present-day Kyoto. However, I would argue that Kyoto has absorbed these changes and utilized this modernization as means to further maintain their heritage. In Kyoto: An Urban History of Japan’s Premodern Capital, Matthew Stavros writes about this idea in the following quote:

"Despite all these changes, it is still possible to argue that modernity-with it's relative political and economic stability, technologies, and robust preservation regimes-has, on balance, actually enhanced Kyoto's cultural legacy." (Stavros 184)

While Kyoto has suffered from loss of some cultural artifacts, modernization was part of an inevitable evolution for the city and ultimately made Kyoto a thriving, historic city rather than a static place where tourists and locals alike come to visit “old” Japan. Kyoto’s legacy has been reinforced by the living, breathing atmosphere of a city whose multiple UNESCO World Heritage sites exist alongside its urban development. Today, an individual can access Tokugawa Ieyasu’s Nijo Castle by taking one of the many bus or subway routes. Teramachi, a temple cluster enclave established by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, is still recognized as an area populated by Buddhist temples but also has a reputation as being an arcade for great shopping and dining (Stavros 162). These examples show the ease of access one has when trying to experience Kyoto both as a place of heritage and everyday life while also highlighting how these two identities are integrate Kyoto’s past with its present. 

Japan is without a doubt a modern country. Osaka, for example, is an intensely consumer-oriented city. A walk down the people-jammed streets surrounding its arcade is full of huge screens advertising everything from clothing to mouthwash, and vendors yelling out deals from shop doorways. Even Osaka’s river has become a commodity; the city government is developing plans to turn it into a swimming pool.

An arcade in Osaka. Source.

While Osaka embodies the hyper-modern consumer culture of Japan, Kyoto exemplifies something else entirely. Though Kyoto’s crowded Teramachi lane and many department stores undoubtedly pander to shoppers, the city is much more steeped in its tradition and history than cities like Osaka. A walk down Teramachi will take you past not only a McDonalds, but also a Shinto shrine, and the loudspeakers in this city play recordings of temple bells rather than blare advertisements at passerby.

Teramachi Arcade in Kyoto.

Furthermore, the city’s tourism is also focused largely on its rich history. The many temples that “thrived as the result of generous shogunal patronage,” have become “popular destinations for pilgrims and tourists” and books about the city have “extolled the area’s many wonders” (Stavros 182). Tourism in Kyoto is what eventually connected the “disparate network” of towns and temples into a “contiguous tapestry of urbanization” and this is to a certain extent reflected in the tourism culture seen in Kyoto today, however this culture is not as noticeable in Kyoto as it is in cities such as Osaka or Nara, which was preserved solely as a tourist site (Stavros 182).

The tourism culture that helped Kyoto to modernize has led to a loss in some of the city’s history. Stavros describes how newly paved roads were “bathed in neon” as structures like the Imperial Palace were left unused and many machiya have been destroyed (Stavros 184). Furthermore, much of the imperial pageantry that characterized the Heian period was lost even before modernization, in the Age of the Warring States, during which “the classical city and all it was meant to represent were finally and truly wiped away” (Stavros XXIII). Despite these losses of culture, as well as the fires and civil strife that “frequently wiped out large portions of the cityscape,” much of Kyoto’s history has been preserved. Today, Kyoto contains “gleaming” temples and shrines as well as seventeen UNESCO world heritage sites that attract both domestic and international tourism, and “aggressive preservation campaigns” have led to modern commercial areas taking on more ‘traditional appearances” as the city continues to grow (Stavros 184). Though the Kyoto of today is very different from the city its founders envisioned, it remains permeated by its own history, and was a truly amazing place to study as a student of Asia.

Kyoto’s modern day cityscape. Source.

                                                       Works Cited

Stavros, Matthew. “Kyoto: An Urban History of Japan’s Pre-Modern Capital”. Honolulu: Univeristy of Hawai’i Press, 2014. Print.

Kyoto

Singapore 

            When one compares Kyoto to Singapore – which has only had its independent idenity for about 50 years – one finds that Singapore doesn’t have that much tangible history.  It lacks unified traditions and large amounts of historically significant places and monuments.  Kyoto, on the other hand, has held great historic significance in Japan for many years, as it served as the Imperial capital of the state with a concrete shared idenity.  

           History is embedded into the very fiber of Kyoto – kept alive with the kimonos worn, with the music played, and structures persevered.  In Singapore, though it obviously had history before colonization, none of that history was kept alive in the present.  The people and the city were deconstructed and rebuilt to promote the ideal of the western colonist.  Kyoto, on the other hand, had to trade some of their history in order to become a “beacon of progress” so that the city would be more than a museum of ancient places (182). Therefore, as Stravors states “modernity…has on balance, actually enhanced Kyoto’s cultural legacy” (184).  So while both cities are rich with cultural experiences, Singapore is not as rich in history as Kyoto.  Singapore’s newness and sometimes brutal pragmatism makes the city too untouched for comfort. Contrastingly, Kyoto is so rich in historic prevalence one is likely to be in awe of the presence of the tradition within.  

           Personally, I’m so thankful – while on this trip – to have seen both a city striving to create its own history and a city striving to preserve their history.  To have seen both and experience both, I was able to appreciate the struggles each city faces as it searches and maintains their idenity.

 - Caroline Bartlett

Following its 1336 establishment in Kyoto, the Ashikaga Shogunate was characterized by its warrior ideals and its promotion of traditional architectural styles such as shinden-style (Stavros 115). The following quote from Kyoto: An Urban History of Japan’s Premodern Capital by Matthew Stavros describes this concept in detail:

Ashikaga shoguns are thought to have catalyzed this shift through their promotion of material culture and architecture inspired by a mixture of provincial rusticity and new continental influences. (Stavros 115)

Now an independent historical site in Kyoto, the Golden Pavilion (also known as Kinkaku-ji) was built as part of Ashikaga Yoshimitsu’s Kitayama Villa. This Villa housed the retired grand chancellor of state until his death. Yoshimitsu was famously referred to as the “King of Japan” while living here, an indication of the power he held despite no longer living in the capital (Stavros 98). Aesthetically, Kinkaku-ji utilizes the concept of “borrowed scenery” through its surroundings of majestic mountains and foliage. It is known for the gold-leaf covering and its use of  shinden, shoin, and Zen-inspired architectural styles, a feature that sets it apart from other medieval buildings (Stavros 120). It can be argued that the Golden Pavilion is an “emblem of ‘Kitayama culture’” because of Ashikaga Yoshimitsu’s patronage of the arts and tea culture of this period as well as his ability to harmonize the “courtly and warrior worlds” of the shogunate (Stavros 120). As mentioned in the above quote, Yoshimitsu built the Golden Pavilion using a variety of influences. Ultimately, the legacy of the Ashikage Shogunate in Kinkaku-ji is a marriage between contemporary and traditional styles Today, the Golden Pavilion Buddhist Temple is one of the most visited tourist attractions in Kyoto and can be considered a symbol of the historic city due to its likeness being reproduced for products such as stickers, postcards and travel guides.

Figure 1: The Golden Pavilion (Kinkaku-ji)

The Silver Pavilion (Ginkaku-Ji) was idealized by Ashikaga Yoshimasa as part of Higashiyama Villa, another retirement and garden location, and favors its predecessor Pavilion in architectural style. However, its lack of silver leaf plating prevents it from being completely complementary to the Golden Pavilion. Ginkaku-ji also uses “borrowed scenery” and features the Kogetsudai Sand Mound, a structure whose purpose has not been concretely defined. Because the Silver Pavilion was intended to emulate the Golden Pavilion, I would argue this acts as evidence that the Ashikaga shogunate established a pattern of creating these villas outside of the capital and essentially extending their power after their time in the main role (Stavros 99). In terms of current legacy, the Silver Pavilion also acts a present-day Buddhist temple and tourist site that gives visitors a sense of past Kyoto architecture. 

Photo Credit: http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3907.html

Figure 2: The Silver Pavilion (Ginkaku-ji)

From nearly the inception of Kyoto, the concept of “Rakugai,” or land outside of the official capital, was important for powerful aristocrats and retired imperial administrators and emperors. In the Rakugai of Kyoto, these wealthy citizens built betsugyō (“side business”) usually in the form of palace-temple complexes. According to Stavros, betsugyō served as vehicles that enabled retired imperial court members to exercise influence without being directly in the realm of the capital. He states, “The pattern is clear. Capital elites who retired from formal imperial posts to exercise greater power from behind the scenes consistently did so from sites outside of Kyoto… betsugyō were the luxuriant exurban homes of hereditary landholders who enjoyed expansive influence by right of their land wealth and close personal ties to both the court and religious establishments (99).”  

 The Golden and Silver Pavilions (Kinkaku shari-den and Ginkaku Kannon-den) are examples of betsugyō owned by retired Ashikaga shoguns. Aesthetically, the Golden Pavilion immediately strikes the onlooker as a spectacular treasure, as its exterior walls are leafed with gold. A national treasure, the Golden Pavilion was packed with international and domestic tourists alike, all of whom were admiring it’s shiny exterior. In contrast, the Silver Pavilion is a more modest structure not very unlike other pagodas we have seen throughout our time in Southeast and East Asia. However, there is beauty in this structure, and in my opinion, the “borrowed scenery” of the Silver Pavilion makes the overall experience of visiting this complex better than that of the Golden Pavilion. 

 As stated in the textbook, these temple-palace complexes allowed retired Ashikaga shoguns to express power from beyond the pre-planned boundaries of the capital city. For example, Stavros cites a time when Ashikaga Yoshimitsu received an embassy from the Ming court at the Golden Pavilion. During this meeting, the embassy addressed Yoshimitsu as the “King of Japan.” Regarding this extraterritorial exchange, Stavros said, “Not only had the former shogun stepped outside of the capital, he had assumed a title entirely outside the framework of Japanese politics (98).” The Silver Pavilion complex, built by Yoshimitsu’s grandson, functioned in many of the same ways, as it featured “facilities both for administrators and vassals (98).”        

 While the construction of the Golden and Silver Pavilions during the Ashikaga Shogunate might suggest that the retired shoguns of this era had little respect for imperial processes and statehood, Stavros holds that they actually validated the imperial system and its authority. Culturally, Stavros states that the fact that no betsugyō were built within the boundaries of the capital “suggests a sustained respect for the principle of capital exclusivity and, by extension, imperial relevance (100).” Ultimately, he states that, “these and other examples suggest that reinforcing classical ideas about capital boundaries and exclusivity bolstered the efficacy of the institutions the city was built to accommodate (101).”  

The Kinkaku shari-den, or Golden Pavilion, and the Ginkaku Kannon-den, or Silver Pavilion, are both extremely popular tourist sites in Japan. The Golden Pavilion, built by Ashikaga Yoshimitsu, is three stories high and covered in gold leaf. The building incorporates Shinden, Shoin (warrior) and Zen architectural styles and is an embodiment of Ashikaga Yoshimitsu’s appreciation for the arts (Stavros 118). Ashikaga’s grandson, Yoshimasa Yoshimitsu, built the Silver Pavilion in the image of the Golden Pavilion. Its architectural style is very similar to the Golden Pavilion’s though the structure is not actually covered in silver.

The Golden Pavilion

The Silver Pavilion. Source.

The Golden and Silver Pavilions’ inclusion of Shinden architectural style is very significant, especially since the Shogunate was expected to build in the Shoin style emblematic of its rule. The inclusion of Shinden style in the Golden and Silver Pavilions can be considered “the result of a compulsion to fulfill the ritual demands of…official station” using traditional architecture (Stavros). The use of Shinden style was a way for the Ashikaga Shogunate to pay its respects to the powerful imperial court of the past. This adherence to tradition is also noticeable in the Pavilions’ locations on the outskirts of Kyoto. Despite the increasing irrelevance of Kyoto’s boundaries, “no bestsugyo were built within the boundaries of the old city,” suggesting a “sustained respect” for imperial power (Stavros 100).

However, this respect for imperial power only extends so far. Both the Pavilions are examples of betsugyo, or lavish residential complexes of retired elite, like Ashikaga, who “enjoyed expansive influence by right of their land wealth and close personal ties to both the court and religious establishments” (Stavros 99). The betsugyo are physical embodiments of the powerful private personas that allowed elites to behave in ways “well beyond their roles as public servants” (Stavros 101). Though the betsugyo are all located outside of the capital as a sign of respect for imperial power, they exemplify the elites of Japan finding a type of loophole in society’s hierarchy that allowed them to continue to exercise power without stepping on any toes. The Golden Pavilion best exemplifies the extent of the elites’ private displays of power, the striking building was so impressive at the time of its construction that the Ming court mistook Ashikaga for the “King of Japan” (Stavros 98).

Today, the Golden and Silver Pavilions remain important features in the Japanese landscape. The buildings, especially the Golden Pavilion, are beautiful to look at, and when the SEAS group visited both were quite crowded with tourists and school trips. The continued fame of both sites highlights how impressive both buildings are, and serves as a reminder of the influence of the Ashikaga Shogunate.

                                                Works Cited

Stavros, Matthew. “Kyoto: An Urban History of Japan’s Pre-Modern Capital”. Honolulu: Univeristy of Hawai’i Press, 2014. Print.

The Golden and Silver Pavilion are similar in the fact that both were built as retirement houses but acted as political bases giving the elites who built them increased power.  However, aesthetically the two complexes vary greatly.  The Golden Pavilion is three stores tall – with each story using a different architectural style.  The most distinguishing characteristic of the Golden Pavilion is the golden plating that covers the top two stories.  

Where the Golden Pavilion is flashy and self-explanatory, the sliver Pavilion is quite the opposite.  Even though it was named after the metal and it had planned to incorporate silver in the design, the Silver Pavilion is not silver.  Instead, it is a humble brown color surrounded by an amazing garden. 

 In terms of what these buildings tell us about the Ashikaga Shogunate, Stavros states that elites would often retire from Japan’s government in order to obtain greater power from behind the scenes; however, since the buildings were constructed around the edges of the city, there inceptions help to legitimize the emperor and the elites in the government.  Since the Ashikaga shogunate built both the Golden and Sliver Pavilion, one can conclude that the group was extremely powerful in during that time in Japanese society. In fact as Stavros states “Ashikaga Yoshimitsu – famously received an embassy from the Ming court addressing him as ‘King of Japan’” (98).  A title that he received after he had retired from his potion; a title created completely outside of the “frame work of Japanese politics” (98).