Zen Patriarchs in Zen Paintings - Term Paper Example

November 26, Zen Patriarchs in Zen Paintings Chan or Zen Buddhism is a type of Buddhism in China and Japan thatfocuses on strange and sudden periods of enlightenment. There are many Zen stories which are told about peoples enlightenments, and many of these are also turned into paintings or artwork. The story of Huike Presenting his Severed Arm to Bodhidharma is a good example of this, and it is a work that has been reproduced by several artists, including Sesshu and Dai Jin. Both Sesshu and Dai Jin approached the storys representation in very different manners, emhasizing different aspects of the story and its characters. Dai Jin tends to make the story seem more historical, while Sesshu emphasizes its meaning and immediate nature more. Although both are effective ways of representing the storys theme of sacrifice, Sesshu, through his use of the formal elements of art, is the most effective. To understand the theme of the two paintings it is first necessary to have an understanding of Zen Buddhism. Zen was an offshoot of regular Buddhism which still focused on meditation but which had as its focus a tendency of sudden inspiration as a way of achieving enlightenment. Zen monks often did strange and what seem today to be bizarre things in the cause of becoming enlightened. They were also supposed to hold the world in disdain and focus more on spiritual things. An example of both is Bodhidharma, who is one of the figures in both the painting by Sesshu and Dai Jin, and who is an important figure in Zen Buddhism. He is known as the first patriarch, who was essential in setting out the tenets of Zen Buddhism for all its followers. The story of Huike presenting his arm to Bodhidharma is one about sacrifice and is an important one because Huike, as an early follower of Bodhidharma, would eventually go on to become the second Zen Patriarch. In the story, Huike is supposed to have approached Bodhidharma to request to be his disciple. After waiting for Bodhidharma to stop meditating, he asked the master to accept him. Bodhidharma was not sure whether he had what it takes so he talked to him about the great sacrifices that needed to happen in order to properly achieve enlightenment. Because Bodhidharma supposedly cut off his own eyelids to medidate more effectively this had a significant meaning. After hearing Bodhidharmas talk on sacrifice, Huike cut off his own arm and presented it to the patriarch. The theme of the story, then, is the importance of sacrifice to a Zen Buddhist practitioner. A related theme is the lack of importance of this world. Sesshu and Dai Jin are two artists who explored this story artistically, although both approached it with very different methods and design. To determine which artist most effectively explores the theme of sacrifice, it is necessary to look at the paintings in great detail and compare them to one another. Specifically it is important to look at composition, space, volume, the use of lines, the tone of the paintings, and their use of texture. In many cases, these artistic techniques overlap and complement one another. The composition of the paintings are most important in how the characters are placed in relation to one another. Dai Jins Huike looks directly at Bodhidharma while he presents his arm, and his pose is reverential but at the same time direct. However, in Sesshus painting Huike is not looking straight at the master. His back is more arched and he glances off to one side, looking at Bodhidharma only through the corner of his eye. Bodhidharma himself is almost out of sight in Sesshus painting, the ends of his robe being hidden by the mouth of the cave in which he sits. This seems to have a meaning of how advanced the master is in Zen. Dai Jin shows Bodhidharma in a more open position, suggesting he is more approachable, and limiting our perception of him as a true zen master. The space of the two paintings is noticeably different. Sesshus version is a much more close-up depiction of the scene, while Dai Jins has a number of other elements in it and shows the two characters not only in relation to one another but also in relation to their surroundings. Sesshus version seems almost otherworldly, while Dai Jins is clearly set in a mountain scene complete with trees and shrubberies. The effect this has is that Sesshus characters seem much more immediate and central to the artwork, and Dai Jins are almost incidental, or at least less large, because of their surroundings. Dai Jins version does seem to be more successful in making the story seem to be a part of history, but Sesshus emphasizes the importance of the event more successfully. In terms of volume, Sesshus version is again the most effective. Dai Jins painting is clearly supposed to be taking place in a three-dimensional space but the artists techniques are not as good. The tree does add a bit of volume, but not much. Instead, perhaps due to the medium chosen and the monotone of the colors in it, the whole space seems to collapse and become two-dimensional. This again adds to the kind of "from history" feel of the painting but does not make its message stand out. In contrast, Sesshus varying use of colors and the way his pieces are arranged make them pop out into a seemingly three-dimensional space. This gives us a better idea of the relationship between Huike, standing in the lower part of the painting, and Bodhidharma, who is almost receding into the background. In Dai Jins painting, both of the characters are in the same area, the middle ground, which makes their relationship less significant. The use of line is one other area which helps Sesshu to convey a three-dimensional sense to it. In this regards line and volume overlap. Sesshus lines are thickest around Bodhidharmas robes, heightening his sense of importance. In contrast, the lines around Huike are thinner except on the sleeve of his remaining arm, which serves to draw attention to the disembodied arm he is holding. Dai Jins lines are all uniform except for the cave entrance. While this does center the characters involved in Huikes story, their monotony is only enhanced by the lack of variation in lines otherwise. Even with the emphasis on the cave entrance, they are lost in the world which surrounds them and it is hard to determine the subject matter, let alone the theme they represent. The tone of Dai Jins painting runs into similar problems, its muted hues and high contrast areas have not been used effectively to suggest the theme. As with the composition and the lines, the tone is clearly different immediately around the characters but that is not enough to communicate the message behind the story. The tone in Sesshus piece seems much richer, even though there is not really much variation. In this respect it is probably difficult to separate the tone from other aspects of the painting such as line and texture. Sesshus low-key tone, for instance, coupled with the lines around Bodhidharma and the vriance of lines on the cave entrance, make him seem almost otherworldly. There is a much richer feeling of sacrifice because of the tone. As mentioned above, texture in the paintings mixes with tone and line. There is a much greater variance of texture in Sesshus version of the story, with the cave wall and Huikes robes an especial focus. Bodhidharmas otherworldliness is again emphasized by his pure white robe, completely lacking in texture, and the way there seems to be a disturbance in the air around him. Dai Jins version is slightly more realistic in the way it approaches texture. While Bodhidharmas robe is whiter than the rest of the painting, it shares the textures of the real world, and also is similar to Huikes robe in a way that Sesshus is not. This has the effect of making him seem like a less exalted zen persona, and this means that the sacrifice is not as important. It also makes the theme of ignoring the world seem less important. As can be seen by this close examination of the two paintings, Sesshus verison is definitely an improvement on the work by Dai Jin, the earlier artist who probably inspired him. Sesshus painting of the work emphasizes the theme of sacrifice and the lack of worldly attention that Zen practitioners are supposed to have. Dai Jins painting looks mor elike something that would be found in a history book, in that it seems more representational than Sesshus version. However, this representation of reality detracts from the effectiveness of its theme. By using bolder lines, more varied texture, and a compositional element that crops the painting in close to the two characters, placing them in different areas of the picture, Sesshu successfully emphasizes the themes running through the painting in a way that Dai Jin does not achieve in his version. Read More