03.31
The middle section of the interview, translated below, sets forth some of the ideas oyakata often emphasized while I was an apprentice, ideas which he has continued to emphasize in conversations that I have had with him since completing my apprenticeship. Here is the translation:
“To offer an explanation, it should be reasonable to understand the garden in the way you have seen it for yourself, in the way that you personally have experienced it. That is the way I would like to have you look at the garden.
Then again, it is possible to consider ‘indirect beauty’. That is, when you look at the garden, or when you look at yourself through the lens of the garden, what are the feelings that you experience?
The current way of understanding the world is individualistic, but I feel that this approach is not unreasonable. Therefore, broadly speaking, I would hope that you are able to realize a new understanding of yourself in viewing the garden.”
This emphasis on the experience of the individual is contrary to one of the widely promoted explanations of the Japanese tradition, which places the focus upon understanding the garden as a manifestation of symbolic and religious meanings which are expected to be static.
I find the backdrop for this small explanation of his view of the garden quite interesting, however. The first garden is the Entokuin North Garden, as already mentioned, and the second garden shown is ‘The Garden of the Three Shapes’, a courtyard garden inside the Main Hall of Kenninji Zen Temple in Kyoto. In the case of the Entokuin North Garden, Kitayama restored a Momoyama-period garden, and although ‘The Garden of the Three Shapes’ is an original work by Kitayama, the construction of a courtyard garden within the main hall of a major Zen Buddhist monastery is not a context for unbridled self-expression.
Although Kitayama expected us to understand ourselves as individuals, especially as we completed apprenticeship and went on to design and build gardens as independent garden creators, we were also expected to know when and how to strike an appropriate balance between innovation and self-expression on the one hand, and preservation and ‘following the rules’ on the other. Understanding how to combine these two is a significant riddle.







