Japanese bowl? Karatsu ware? Could it be Hamada?

Hi, only my second question here at this great forum, and this bowl doesn't even belong to me, but a freind of mine who found this in a thriftstore in Stockholm, sweden.

I've seen a couple of hamada-attributed bowls with this 'finger-painted' decore(?) and the big question is: Could this be a Shoji Hamada piece? I know there is no box and such, which makes it impossible to tell, but it's still interesting to hear an opinion from someone with more experience with Hamada pottery. It's about 10 cm in diametre.

Hamada returned to Japan in 1924, once he had helped leach set up st ives pottery from 1920. When he arrived home in 1924 from that date, he never signed another pot, from what I have read, but I am sure there will be some evidence to refute this!! Whilst at st ives he generally signed his work with the st ives monogram and the sho mark. Prior to 1920 working in Japan he signed with a single sho mark. You will occasionally see some of his works with a shell imprint but this is part of the firing process as he used shells to stand his work on rather than clay, so i believe. Provenance of his work is notoriously hard to determine, and you may never know for sure. I hope this is of interest, there are many more experts on this forum able to add/expand for you.

em x

I'll have a go at trying to point out the reasons why this bowl could be by Shoji Hamada and the reasons why it couldn't be.

For:
(i) Hamada didn't signed the vast majority of his pots and this is not signed.
(ii) He worked in stoneware and this bowl is in stoneware.
(iii) the glazes used on this bowl are the type used by Hamada and he also, on occasions, decorated using finger wiping, which this bowl displays.

Against:
(i) The shape of this bowl is not the shape of one of Hamada's teabowls and if it is was made in Japan it is a rice bowl - something that Hamada would not have thrown himself.
(ii) the finger wiping is stilted, which suggests someone who was not accustomed to this type of decoration. It is unlike all examples of Hamada's finger wipe decoration that I have seen.
(iii) the tenmoku glaze, although similar, does not look like the glaze that Hamada used.
(iv) The glaze is too evenly finished near the foot. If it was by Hamada the foot would either be by and large unglazed or glazed entirely.

So what can be said is that the chances of this bowl having been thrown by Shoji Hamada are so small that it can be dismissed as being a probability.

However, if items such as this were made at his pottery then he wouldn't have thrown them in any case, as he had other potters doing that sort of thing for him.

So it comes down to the decoration and it is my view that the finger wipe decoration is too stilted for it to have been done by Shoji Hamada and the brown tenmoku glaze does not look right for pots produced at his pottery.

From the photographs it is difficult to be sure where it was made and finding it in Sweden doesn't really give any clues.

studio-pots wrote:I'll have a go at trying to point out the reasons why this bowl could be by Shoji Hamada and the reasons why it couldn't be.

For:
(i) Hamada didn't signed the vast majority of his pots and this is not signed.
(ii) He worked in stoneware and this bowl is in stoneware.
(iii) the glazes used on this bowl are the type used by Hamada and he also, on occasions, decorated using finger wiping, which this bowl displays.

Against:
(i) The shape of this bowl is not the shape of one of Hamada's teabowls and if it is was made in Japan it is a rice bowl - something that Hamada would not have thrown himself.
(ii) the finger wiping is stilted, which suggests someone who was not accustomed to this type of decoration. It is unlike all examples of Hamada's finger wipe decoration that I have seen.
(iii) the tenmoku glaze, although similar, does not look like the glaze that Hamada used.
(iv) The glaze is too evenly finished near the foot. If it was by Hamada the foot would either be by and large unglazed or glazed entirely.

So what can be said is that the chances of this bowl having been thrown by Shoji Hamada are so small that it can be dismissed as being a probability.

However, if items such as this were made at his pottery then he wouldn't have thrown them in any case, as he had other potters doing that sort of thing for him.

So it comes down to the decoration and it is my view that the finger wipe decoration is too stilted for it to have been done by Shoji Hamada and the brown tenmoku glaze does not look right for pots produced at his pottery.

From the photographs it is difficult to be sure where it was made and finding it in Sweden doesn't really give any clues.

Thank you! Amazing info and valid points. This link is from an swedish auction house and shows the hamada bowl i found similar to my friends bowl: http://www.bukowskis.com/auctions/572/1047-shoji-hamada-1874-1978-tillskriven-kopp-japan-1950-tal?locale=en&q=hamada
I don't know if that one really is Hamada, but the unglazed foot is there anyway =)

eshearm wrote:Hamada returned to Japan in 1924, once he had helped leach set up st ives pottery from 1920. When he arrived home in 1924 from that date, he never signed another pot, from what I have read, but I am sure there will be some evidence to refute this!!  Whilst at st ives he generally signed his work with the st ives monogram and the sho mark. Prior to 1920 working in Japan he signed with a single sho mark.  You will occasionally see some of his works with a shell imprint but this is part of the firing process as he used shells to stand his work on rather than clay, so i believe.  Provenance of his work is notoriously hard to determine, and you may never know for sure. I hope this is of interest, there are many more experts on this forum able to add/expand for you.

em x

Thanks, yes it was an interesting read!

The yunomi at the Swedish auction house does have a little more provenance than your friend's bowl and there are subtle differences between the two similar to the ones that I was trying to point out. Looking at the two I can tell that they were not decorated by the same person.

The auction house pot is Japanese and could well be by Shoji Hamada, as it has similarities to Hamada's work but I do feel that the "attributed" term used by auction houses around the world is misleading at best. It is not something that I or any reputable dealer in studio pottery would say if they were trying to sell the item.

Therefore, although the item in the Swedish auction could well have been by Shoji Hamada, the lack of proof should have meant that it sold for within estimate and not at a price that it could be possible to pick up one with provenance and its own fitted box for.

Potting is like handwriting . Although the two pots have similarities there are so many differences it's the equivalent of two different writers copying out the same passage.
The nuka glazing round the rim reminds me of Karatsu ware