Featured Article of the Month
Viewing Stone Classification Systems: Pros and Cons
A discussion of the benefits and weaknesses
By Thomas S. Elias
Classification systems bring order out of chaos. They are essential to help us understand the complicated natural features and man-made objects surrounding us. We classify everything from birds to trees, rocks, clouds, soils, bridges, vehicles, buildings, clothes, and even the money in our pockets. A classification system for viewing stones should serve a useful utilitarian purpose and is good only as it is easy to use and help develop a better understanding of the diversity of natural stones.
Most viewing stone classification systems are based on selected criteria or a combination of criteria. Some systems use the geographical place of origin which often are based on named rivers, mountain ranges, or regions within a country. Other classification systems utilize the shape and form of a stone of stones that suggest a figure, animal, hut, plateau, and other natural and manmade features. Less frequent systems are based on the color of stones or on the variety of surface patterns found on stones. Over time and use, China, Korea, and Japan have adopted hybrid systems that use a combination of the four categories.
One of the earliest classification systems is found in the 12th-century Chinese publication Tu Wan’s
Catalogue of Cloudy Forest
published between 1126 and 1130 A.D. This 900-year-old system uses place of origin primarily, but includes some categories based on shape, color, and surface patterns. Although there are exceptions, Chinese stone collectors still use the place of origin as the most frequently used classification system.
Korean collectors are more closely aligned with the Chinese methods and use the place of origin as a main classification system. Korean Suseok are also placed in one of four broad categories: Landscape Stones, Object Stones, Colored/Pattern Stones, and Abstract Stones. Greater emphasis is given to the use of natural unaltered viewing stones.
Suiseki became popular in Japan from the mid-1960s through the mid-1980s, and hundreds of thousands of new stone practitioners were practicing it. During this time dozens of introductory Suseiki books were published, some with classification systems. Many of these books were written or edited by Murata Kenji or his son Murata Keiji. An example is Introduction to Suiseki Hobby by Murata Keiji and Ei Saburo published in 1968. Murata and Ei included a classification system with thirty-four categories under the general heading Viewing Stones (Kansho-seki) and subdivided into five subcategories—Suiseki, Abstract, Beautiful Stones Rare stones, and Garden stones. These broad categories were further subdivided into subcategories based on their resemblance to features in the natural landscape. I think that Murata and his son provided the basis for Covello and Yoshimura’s very popular English language The Japanese Art of Stone Appreciation in 1984, which has been reprinted several times and translated into other languages. Overall, this book is an important introduction to Japanese suiseki. Covello and Yoshimura's book places considerable emphasis on classification systems by devoting almost one-quarter of the book to this subject. The information on the classification of stones is more extensive than the combined chapters on learning about the characteristics of stones, aesthetics, and display techniques.
I believe that Covello and Yoshimura’s book greatly influenced Western opinions and became the standard for what is suiseki and how these stones are classified. Their book included the term Kinzan-seki for near-view mountain stones. This is one example of a term currently used by many Western viewing stone enthusiasts but not by most serious Japanese collectors today. Japanese susieki followers use Yamagata-ishi for mountain stones or Toyama-ishi for distant mountain stones. How did this and similar discrepancies develop?
As stone appreciation spread globally, new words and expanded classification systems have been proposed. This is especially true in North America and possibly Europe. The invention of new names or the resurrection of older out-of-use terms have not always been helpful and have, instead, created confusion. The proliferation of terms for stone categories was taken to the extreme by Dennis and Dennis in their 2008 paper A Basic Classification Guide (Kihon Bunrui Shido) in the Japanese Custom (Nihon Dento) published in the October/November/December 2008 issue of Bonsai & Stone Appreciation Magazine. In their article, they proposed over 100 categories of Japanese Suiseki. Most of these categories are not commonly used in Japan and are not recognized by leading Japanese stone collectors and dealers. I recommend that we learn and follow the current terminology used in China, Korea, and Japan rather than using outdated names or inventing new words for Asian stones.
In the 1970s and 1980s, leading Suiseki connoisseurs began placing greater emphasis on methods of displaying stones. This effort focused on the utilization of space within a tokonoma to display bonsai and Suiseki in refined and elegant methods of seasonal displays. This was actively and effectively promoted by Katayama Teiichi and his School of Keido. This challenged collectors to think about the aesthetic qualities and how best to master display methods.
Following the Murata era in Japanese Suiseki, Matsuura Arishige became the chairman of the Nippon Suiseki Association from 1990 to 2010. He was an influential leader in Japan and a tireless promoter of Suiseki globally. He placed less emphasis on classification systems and greater emphasis on the features of outstanding stones. Matsuura published a more simplified classification system in his Japanese language Suiseki Introductory Manual in 2003. A basic classification system provided by Matsuura in his English language An Introduction to Suiseki was published in 2010. This is a much simpler system than the one published by Covello and Yoshimura. Matsuura provides a basic framework for organizing stones into useful and readily identifiable categories while leaving broad latitude for imaginative minds to interpret each stone.
In Japan, the two most frequently used systems are the place of origin and shape. These two systems are often combined. For example, a Kamogawa Kuzuya ishi is a Kamo River hut-shaped stone. Complex classification systems that attempt to categorize more variations in stone forms and shapes can restrict one’s imagination, while a simple basic classification system allows greater freedom in interpreting a viewing stone.
We should not lose sight that Chinese, Korean, and Japanese stone connoisseurs have been developing and refining classification schemes that work best for them for nearly a thousand years. In North America and Europe, the art of viewing stone appreciation is typically fifty to seventy-five years old. Furthermore, in Japan, matters relating to aesthetics are left vague and not clearly defined. In North America and Europe, people are more prone to eliminate vagueness by trying to define matters sharply and fitting objects and concepts into clearly defined categories. We need to spend more time learning about Asian methods of stone appreciation and aesthetics and less time trying to reinvent the wheel.
I prefer to use the place of origin as the primary classification system, and let the viewer determine what they see in the shape or form of a stone. Veteran stone collectors will know that a Lingbi stone originated in Lingbi County in Anhui Province in China. Stones from the Japanese Kamo, Seta, and Abe rivers are well known. A stone from the Eel River in California or the Ligurian Mountains in Italy will carry more meaning and likely be more highly valued than if it is just classified as a mountain stone.
Also, I prefer to use the word Suiseki for certain types of stones found only in Japan. I love the beauty and elegance of a fine Suiseki properly displayed. This Japanese word has a special meaning to me. Sadly, the use of the term Suiseki is often applied by non-Asian stone collectors to all stones regardless of their country of origin. For me, this degrades the true meaning of Suiseki while ignoring the vocabulary and practices of other countries.
Suseok is my preferred word when referring to Korean stones, and Guangshanshi, Gongshi, and other names when appropriate for Chinese stones. The term viewing stones is found in both the Chinese and Japanese literature for the broadest category that encompasses the widest range of stone types used in both countries. This is why I prefer to use Viewing Stones for the broadest category of stones appreciated for their aesthetic qualities. It is readily understood and doesn’t have to be defined. Furthermore, the words viewing stones do not carry one country’s bias and implication that one country’s methods of stone appreciation are superior to another country’s methods of stone appreciation.
A classification system should be viewed as an aid to help viewing stone enthusiasts understand the diversity of stones used in stone appreciation. It is a doorway, opening the way to a more thorough understanding of stones collected and utilized for their aesthetic qualities. Don’t become so absorbed in overly detailed classification systems as to lose sight of what is truly important—learning how to look at stones and their features, and making fine stone displays that convey a message. Let your imagination run freely as you look at a stone and don’t waste time trying to force a stone into artificially created recognized classification categories. For example, in Japanese Suiseki, the distinction between a step stone (Dan-seki) and a plateau stone (Doha) is not always precise.
In viewing stone appreciation, we are engaged in imprecise considerations of a sense of beauty found in nature. The viewing experience is personal and subjective subject to the education and life experiences of each person. Enjoy and appreciate exceptional stones. They can enrich your life.
