The Kamakura period

From the middle of the 12th century the reality of true imperial court control over Japan was largely a fiction. The Taira (Heike), a provincial warrior family, assumed the role of imperial protector and became the effectual power wielder. From that time they entered into a protracted struggle for hegemony with the Minamoto (Genji), a powerful clan from eastern Japan. The Gempei War between the families raged through much of Japan’s central island from 1180 to 1185, during which such major temples as Tōdai and Kōfuku and their contents were completely destroyed. The Minamoto eventually emerged victorious, and, under the leadership of Minamoto Yoritomo, the culture and structure of national leadership shifted from the civil aristocracy to the hands of a provincial warrior class. In 1192 Yoritomo was named seii taishōgun (“barbarian-quelling generalissimo”) by the court, thus initiating an office of military dictator that would persist until the Meiji Restoration in 1868. Yoritomo located his power centre (later termed shogunate, or bakufu, literally “tent government”) in Kamakura, a small seaside village on a peninsula to the south of present-day Tokyo. Control of the shogunate soon passed to the Hōjō family through Yoritomo’s widow, but the government did not return to Kyōto until 1333. The years from 1185 to 1333 are thus known as the Kamakura period.

The military victory and subsequent structural changes not only established the new ruling group in a position of military and economic power but also allowed for the infusion and development of a new cultural ethos—one that paralleled but was determinedly distinct from that developed by the court in Nara and in Kyōto. Warrior values of strength, discipline, austerity, and immediacy found resonance in the practices of Zen Buddhism. This strain of Buddhism had long played a subsidiary role in Japan, but, from the 13th century, strong Japanese adherents were bolstered in number and authoritative leadership by immigrant Chinese monks who had been displaced by the Mongol conquests in China. Zen Buddhism offered the new military leadership a nonthreatening alternative to the Tendai-controlled religious establishment that dominated the Kyōto court. The iconographic needs and the inherent aesthetic predispositions of Zen Buddhism were refined through this initial relationship with the Kamakura elite and over the next several centuries became widely influential throughout Japan.

Populist religious movements, particularly those generated by Amidist beliefs during the Heian period, grew even stronger and more diverse during the Kamakura period, increasing demands for Buddhist iconography. During the 13th century fears of an invasion by the Mongols from the mainland were realized on two occasions (1274 and 1281). Both times the invaders were repulsed, but these episodes and their anticipation contributed to a pervasive anxiety that was more than occasionally exhibited in the mood and theme of religious iconography. It was a time punctuated by prayers of supplication and pleas for divine intervention. Although quite different in their fundamental precepts, the simple and direct means of access to salvation or enlightenment offered by Zen or Amidist practices were exceedingly popular.

New architectural styles also emerged from the void created by the Gempei War devastation. No person was more instrumental in the renaissance of religious art and architecture than the monk Shunjōbō Chōgen (1121–1206), who oversaw the restoration of Tōdai Temple. Nandai-mon, the main entry gate of this revered temple, offers a superb example of the tenjiku-yō (“Indian style,” although it originated in Southern Song China) of architecture introduced during the reconstruction. Extravagantly conceived eaves wing out more than 16 feet (5 metres), supported by nine-tier brackets. The simple mechanics of this operation lie exposed, straightforward and bold, like the overall impression of the gate’s design. Far less refined than Heian architecture, the immediacy of the new, and comparatively short-lived, style typified the aesthetic directness of the age.

Similar simple lines were features of the newly introduced Chinese Chan (Japanese: Zen) religious architectural style, which included slightly more complex bracketing supports joining columns and horizontal elements. Prosaic elements such as dormitories and refectories were part of the central plan, thus uniting overall design scheme with the important realities of communal life. Meditation halls were also more prominent. On the whole, however, traditional architecture in the period tended toward the decorative and overworked, as nonessential elements multiplied and functional units were embellished. Oddly, where technical virtuosity served the sculptural format well, the necessary simplicity of monumental architecture was compromised by too much display.