Glorify the Empire
In this well-researched and enriching book, Annika Culver focuses on several Japanese artists who visited Manchukuo during the 1930s and 1940s and produced different types of artistic works. Culver argues that such works functioned as unofficial propaganda for Japanese imperialist expansion in East Asia. These artists were formerly leftists or avant-garde oriented, but later were attracted to Manchukuo for different reasons. By focusing on these artists, Culver aimed to challenge the dominating view that propaganda was a top-down phenomenon. Instead she argues that many of these Japanese artists participated voluntarily in supporting Imperial Japan and such activities were rather grassroots and entrepreneurial (p.6). While her argument is convincing overall, there are some questions that need to be further clarified.
The book is divided into seven chapters. Chapter one offers some background information on Japan’s expansion in Manchuria. Each of the rest chapters focuses on one artist’s artistic activities connected to Manchukuo, and these artists were: Yamada Seizaburo, Fukuzawa Ichoro, Ai Mitsu, Fuchikami Hakuyo, Muto Tomio, and Kawabata Yasunari. One wonders why the author chose to focus on these individuals. It may be helpful to understand how many Japanese artists went to Manchuria if the author offered some quantitative evidence. While these chapters offer fascinating stories on those artists’ involvement with Manchukuo, one doubts if the author has used her sources selectively.
Although these artists went to Manchukuo for different reasons, all of them eventually stayed there for some time and produced works with Manchukuo as the theme. More importantly, such productions shared their approval of Manchukuo. Because of this, Culver argues that these artists were supporters of Imperial Japan (p.34), and their works served as unofficial propaganda. Culver believes that the reason that Manchukuo attracted these artists was because “it offered them a renewed sense of personal agency”. (p.34), and many Japanese saw Manchukuo as “utopian hope for the future of domestic Japan in crisis” (p.35).
Culver has done well in relating Japan’s internal crisis with what was going on in Manchukuo. Japan’s crisis caused by modernization made some artists saw Manchuria as an alternative and the hope. At the same time, the increasing disparity between the left-right political binary and the growing strength of Japanese fascism within Japan led to the persecution of leftists. Both factors contributed to many artists’ arrival at Manchuria.
Largely due to the connection between Japan’s internal political development and Manchuria, Culver’s implication that these artists voluntarily participated in the unofficial propaganda for Imperial Japan is not completely convincing. For example, Yamada Seizaburo went to Manchuria because he was put into prison because of his left-wing works (p.44). In fact, during the 1930s, the artistic world was highly controlled by the Japanese government, resulting some artists’ draft to the army, others experiencing restrictions (p.88). Besides, Manchukuo government’s Publicity and News Bureau did cooperate to sponsor the visits of Japanese artists (p.100). So it is debated on how “unofficial” these artists’ activities were.
Hongyan Xiang, Colorado State University, (Hong.Xiang@colostate.edu)