8. The Meizan Studio (1880–1941) : Yabu Meizan and Yabu Tsuneo

 Yabu Meizan (1853-1934)  藪 明山

 Artist, Entrepreneur, Innovator

Born Masashichi Yabu on January 20, 1853, in Nagahori, Osaka, Yabu Meizan came from a distinguished lineage rooted in art and scholarship. His grandfather, Yabu Kaku-dō (1773–1849), was a respected Confucian scholar and calligrapher from Awaji Island, while his father, Yabu Chōsui (1814–1867), was a celebrated Ukiyo-e artist known for landscapes and bird-and-flower compositions. As the second son, Yabu was raised in an environment where art and culture were central to daily life.

In 1860, he became heir to the Yabu Sukezaemon family and moved to Fukura on Awaji Island. There, he studied calligraphy and classical literature under the head priest of Shinkōji Temple, and later received instruction in Chinese classics and painting from Tadokoro Atsurō, a samurai from Sumoto. At age fifteen, with the dawn of the Meiji era in 1868, Yabu relocated to Osaka to pursue commercial training.

Early accounts suggest that Yabu felt a strong calling toward the arts and traveled to Tokyo in 1880 to study ceramic painting. His training lasted from April to October. On returning to Osaka that same year, he founded a studio in Nakanoshima specializing in richly decorated Satsuma ware. He sourced unglazed pottery from renowned kilns such as Kinkozan in Kyoto and Chin Jukan in Satsuma. We presume that Yabu Masashichi began using the art name (go) of “Yabu Meizan” or “Meizan” at or around this date.

Although Meizan referred to himself as a tōgakō (“ceramic painter”), nonetheless it remains uncertain whether he truly possessed the technical skills to justify that title (in: Tomoko Nakano in “Yabu Meizan in 1880”). A more nuanced understanding of his brief time in Tokyo may be found in the phrase kanzuru tokoro (“the place of inspiration”), as described by Tsuneo in the posthumously compiled Business Biography of the Late Yabu Meizan. This suggests that his stay was less about formal training in ceramic painting—training which, in any case, would have been too brief to develop the necessary expertise. Moreover, available sources offer no evidence that he studied painting under his father, the accomplished artist Yabu Chōsui. It is therefore plausible that Meizan’s own painting abilities—particularly in the early years of the studio—were insufficient to account for the exceptional quality of the works produced under his name.

A wonderful example of Meizan's craftmanship on an 11 cm small vase,  with detailed scenes depicting numerous craftsmen and artisans engaged in different tasks during the completion process of two Shinto shrines.

According to Nakano Tomoko in “The ‘Ceramic Painter’ Yabu Meizan and His Artistic Practice” (p. 19), “As far as can be ascertained, production continued in the workshop until the Taisho period, but ceased thereafter.” In her original Japanese text, she uses the phrase 大正年間までは, which translates literally as “until the years of the Taisho period,” rather than “up to and including the Taisho period.” This nuance suggests that production likely stopped sometime during the early Taisho years, approximately between 1912 and 1916. This interpretation aligns with the absence of any known works from the Yabu Meizan Studio dated to the later Taisho period.

It is believed that the Meizan Studio continued to operate by selling previously completed works until the early Showa period, prior to the outbreak of war. Despite the declining demand for Satsuma ware in the years leading up to the end of production, Meizan remained steadfast in his commitment to quality. His focus on refinement and consistency set his work apart from mass-produced ceramics, underscoring his dedication to artistic excellence even in difficult times.

Yabu Meizan was not only a master art director but also a product of his time. The Meiji era was marked by modernization and Western alignment, balanced with a desire to preserve Japanese identity. The Japanese government promoted traditional arts such as ceramics, lacquerware, and metalwork as national heritage, showcased at expositions in Vienna (1873), Paris (1878) and beyond. Meizan actively contributed to this effort, building overseas networks and helping organize major exhibitions in Chicago (1893), Paris (1900), St. Louis (1904), London (1910) and San Francisco (1915). He pursued efficiency in production while remaining true to his artistic ideals, elevating Satsuma ware from craft to art and earning acclaim in the West.

It should be noted that several other Satsuma artists also signed their work with the name Meizan, either using the same spelling or different kanji characters. Most of these artists can easily be distinguished from Yabu Meizan, as their signature styles and overall quality differ significantly. That said, only the Meizan from Kanazawa—identified by Louis Lawrence—poses a genuine source of confusion. His work is of comparable quality, and his signature, 'Meizan Sei,' bears a notable resemblance.

This mark "Dai Nippon Meizan sei" was reserved for exceptional pieces

Yabu Tsuneo was born in 1868 in Tsuyama, Okayama, into the Nakagawa samurai family. In 1883, he was adopted by the biological mother of Kayo, the wife of Yabu Meizan, making him Meizan’s brother-in-law by adoption. Twelve years later, in 1895, Tsuneo was formally incorporated into the Yabu family and designated as Yabu Meizan’s legal heir. Unlike Western notions of adoption, which often center on child welfare, Japanese adoption—especially of adults—served as a strategic means to preserve family lineage, social status, and property. Tsuneo’s adoption must be understood within this cultural framework: it was a deliberate move to secure the continuity of the Yabu legacy, particularly as Yabu Meizan’s ceramics enterprise was gaining international acclaim. Tsuneo would eventually succeed him as the second Meizan (ie Meizan II).

It remains uncertain whether Tsuneo received formal training in ceramic painting during his early years. However, it is certain that he was already active in Meizan’s studio prior to his official adoption in 1895. An article in the Manchester Guardian from 1891 (quoted in Louis Lawrence’s Satsuma: The Romance of Japan, p. 252) refers to him as Yabu Meizan’s brother—Tsuneo had not yet been adopted—and notes his involvement in establishing a line of modern Satsuma ceramics. His appointment as heir may well have marked the culmination of a long apprenticeship, suggesting he had acquired the necessary skills and experience to co-manage the studio alongside Yabu Meizan.

After Yabu Meizan’s retirement in 1926, the studio was formally transferred to Tsuneo, who led it until his death in 1941—bringing the Yabu Meizan Studio to a close. According to family records, the studio itself was destroyed in 1944 during an allied bombing of Osaka. 

Tsuneo’s relative obscurity can also be attributed to his limited output. As previously noted, although the Meizan Studio remained active until 1941, actual production likely ceased much earlier, around 1916, with operations shifting toward the sale of existing inventory. This makes the existence of Meizan pieces attributed to Tsuneo and dated after 1926 all the more intriguing. Although he led the studio from 1926 until his death in 1941—a span of fifteen years—the number of such works appears to be very limited, suggesting they were produced only sporadically and likely not beyond the early 1930’s. Interestingly, all known pieces are small to very small in scale—perhaps intended to highlight the kind of intricate detail that once made Yabu Meizan a celebrated figure in Satsuma ceramics. Despite the modest sample size, there is a surprising diversity in design, motif, and decoration. These range from kinrande-style and fully painted surfaces to more understated compositions with generous white space. The images include Japanese daily scenes, mythological figures, monkeys, birds, and even a millefleur-like arrangement featuring hundreds of butterflies and insects. When it comes to quality—both in design and execution—Tsuneo’s work seems, at times, to fall short of Yabu Meizan’s standards. Some compositions feel overly busy, lacking the balance and subtlety that characterized Meizan’s finest pieces. This is particularly noticeable in the depiction of monkeys and the use of dotting techniques, where the craftsmanship appears less refined.

Taken as a whole, the work gives the impression of drawing heavily on established traditions, with limited signs of artistic renewal. This impression may reflect the broader historical context: the late Taisho and especially the Showa periods were not generally associated with innovation in Satsuma ceramics, which had begun to lose their relevance much earlier.

We believe that Yabu Tsuneo, upon taking on the title of Meizan II, made a genuine effort to revive production at the Meizan Studio after a long period of inactivity. Unfortunately, this renewed attempt was quickly overshadowed by the economic downturn of the Great Depression and the rising tensions of an approaching war—circumstances that posed serious challenges for any ceramic workshop. The closure of the much larger Kinkozan Studio in 1932 clearly illustrates the broader difficulties of the time.

In that context, comparing Yabu Meizan and Yabu Tsuneo directly isn’t easy—and perhaps not entirely fair. Meizan founded the studio and developed its artistic identity during the vibrant Meiji era, a time of cultural growth and international recognition. Tsuneo, by contrast, inherited a studio whose production had already ceased, and was tasked with its leadership during a time defined by socio-economic constraints and looming conflict.

Although history has understandably placed Tsuneo in the shadow of his illustrious predecessor, he remains a vital part of the Meizan Studio’s legacy and deserves greater recognition within its historical narrative. For that reason, his role is emphasized here more explicitly than is typically the case in reviews of the Meizan Studio.