[Fact Check] #02 Seidosha "Gendai Shiso" August 2016 Issue / "Privatizing" Hiroshima: Interview with Miyako Ishiuchi

"Gendai Shiso" August 2016, The Thought of <Hiroshima>, p.136
"Privatizing" Hiroshima: Interview with Miyako Ishiuchi

[False] Hiroshima is a place that everyone photographs and where every kind of expression has been made
(Needless to point out) This is false.

[False 1] The Atomic Bomb Dome is usually photographed from below looking up
This is false.
There is a major problem with generalizing a personal view as "usually." Representative documentary photographs of the Atomic Bomb Dome taken in 1945 are characterized by a bird's-eye perspective. Furthermore, many works by representative photographers from each period since the 1960s feature "straight-on" or "bird's-eye" compositions, and there are many that contrast with the "looking up from below" perspective ([Reference Plates]). In addition, the themes and intentions of these works are not limited to simple "anti-war/peace" messages. Nevertheless, content that relies solely on personal impressions without sufficient fact-checking is being spoken of as if it were a historical fact of photography. In particular, in Hiromi Tsuchida's 1979 Hiroshima Monument, the composition intentionally "buries the symbolic image of the Dome within the city". The reason why Ishiuchi intentionally ignores Tsuchida's expression of Hiroshima in particular, and adopts an attitude that seems to disparage the evaluation of his foresight and pioneering methodology, will be discussed later.

* The claim that pushes photographers before Miyako Ishiuchi into a monolithic framework of "Hiroshima = men's monochrome = anti-war" and positions Ishiuchi, a woman, as having broken through this, is impression manipulation not based on historical fact. In reality, the female photographer Yoshino Oishi photographed Hiroshima more than 20 years before Ishiuchi, and her work also includes compositions of the Atomic Bomb Dome "looking up from below."

[False 2] I was poisoned by a certain preconceived notion called "Hiroshima"
This is false.
Ishiuchi's claim asserts a personal view as a general fact. Her statement gives the reader the impression that all photographers before her were "trapped by preconceived notions." However, based on the history of photography, such a monolithic interpretation does not hold. The documentary photographs taken in 1945 immediately after the bombing, the documentary photographs by Ken Domon in the 1950s immediately after the lifting of the press code, the "Map" series by Kikuji Kawada in the 1960s which strongly emphasized the photographer's subjectivity (and the innovation of Shomei Tomatsu's transition from monochrome to color, which opened up new frontiers in photographic history in the bombed city of Nagasaki, will be described separately), and the expressions centered on "contemporaneity" by Kenji Ishiguro all have different historical contexts and expressive intentions. And by the 1970s, there was already a social atmosphere of "Hiroshima again?" Then, in order to visualize the "invisible Hiroshima," Hiromi Tsuchida presented a new perspective of "contemporaneity" and "exclusion of the photographer's subjectivity" alongside the "coexistence of photography and text," confirming a major turning point in photographic expression of Hiroshima (see separate sheet). These groups of works were evaluated abroad at the time, and it is important that the "contemporaneity" in Tsuchida's expression has been continuously updated as "contemporary" up to 2025. Since the 2000s, it may appear that new expressions were born due to the transition from analog to digital and technical changes from monochrome to color, but from the perspective of "expression of the bombed city by the photographer," major expressive innovations actually occurred before 2000. Given the major changes in social conditions over the 65 years from 1945 to 2000, and the diversity and transition of photographic expression, lumping them together with words like "preconceived notions" is an act equivalent to falsifying photographic history that greatly diminishes historical reality.

As an addendum, while photographers were challenging new expressions in the bombed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the 1960s to the 90s, regardless of whether they were monochrome or color, it was none other than Miyako Ishiuchi herself who remained fixated on monochrome expression. From "Yokosuka Story" (1979, shooting in Yokosuka until 1990) and "Endless Night" (1981) to "1·9·4·7" (1990) and "scars" (1991-2003), they were all monochrome. In "Mother's," which she began shooting in 1999, she adopted color for the first time to express the color of lipstick. Since 2000, color photography has been the standard in the photography world as a whole, as well as in the photography of bombed cities; ignoring the historical background and the history of photographic expression, and touting the innovation of Ishiuchi's "Hiroshima" based solely on the issue of color is a major error.

[False] The image I knew until then
This is merely the "image" held by Ishiuchi personally, not a fact.

[False 3] The fixed, preconceived image of Hiroshima, such as monpe (work pants) and air defense hoods
Same as above. It is an "image" held by Ishiuchi personally or impression manipulation, not a fact.

There is a tendency in Ishiuchi's statements to present her own views as established facts without sufficient factual support. This is particularly notable in her attitude toward Hiromi Tsuchida's "Hiroshima Collection" (1982-), the only preceding case of photographic expression of Hiroshima's atomic bomb artifacts as a work before Ishiuchi. Of the approximately 150 works included in the "Hiroshima Collection," only 3 are air defense hoods and 1 is monpe; the vast majority consist of photographs of everyday clothing and daily necessities such as dresses, shirts, and jackets. This clearly shows that the subject of the work is based on a perspective of "the present (contemporaneity)" rather than "the past." Tsuchida's work presented the concept of capturing atomic bomb artifacts as "contemporaneity" and has received a certain level of evaluation both domestically and internationally. However, there is a tendency for Ishiuchi to position this pioneering practice of Tsuchida as "old, past expression/men's preconceived monochrome," and to speak of her own expression not as an extension of it but as innovative, yet there are also points made that some of Ishiuchi's works are similar to the symbolic and bird's-eye compositions of the preceding Tsuchida.
Reference: For the history of photography of bombed cities, its transition, and how the expressions of Ishiguro and Tsuchida in particular became major turning points, see Masafumi Suzushiro's "Atomic Bomb = Photography Theory: Regarding the 'War of the Retina'" (Mado-sha, 2005). In addition, the characteristics and transitions of photographs of bombed cities from 1945 to 1995 are covered in the commentary on major photographers in the essay by Ryuichi Kaneko included in the "Nuclear - Half-Life" exhibition catalog (Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography, 1995).

[False] I was surprised, there were still things left that I should photograph
This is impression manipulation not based on fact. What Ishiuchi calls "things I should photograph" here were mostly already "photographed" by Hiromi Tsuchida in 1982. This can be taken as a statement intended to make it appear as if she "photographed them for the first time" in 2007, by treating that fact as if it "did not exist." The intention of the statement is as described above.

[Note] I tear up again while looking at the image data of the mementos.
I have no interest in the data of the materials, but I have doubts about "tearing up" just by looking at the images. Without knowing the specific owners or stories, what exactly is she "tearing up" for?

[False 1] Things like "anti-war" or "peace" are already taken for granted, so I won't say them.
Ishiuchi's statement gives the impression that photographers before her were shooting and presenting works solely for the purpose of making strong claims of "anti-war/peace." However, in light of photographic history, such a monolithic tendency is hardly confirmed.
However, there is a serious problem that even the self-evident philosophy of "anti-war and peace" is not sufficiently conveyed to the viewer in Ishiuchi's work without accompanying explanation.

[Note] I myself am not very interested in data

[False 2] Data is the past, and the past cannot be photographed. I am photographing the skirts and dresses in front of me today.
The expressive method Ishiuchi presents here is one that Hiromi Tsuchida had already constructed and practiced in his "Hiroshima Collection" in 1982. In that work, Tsuchida practiced photographing atomic bomb artifacts from the perspective of the "present" and indicating the "past" with accompanying text. In other words, the methodology of presenting atomic bomb artifacts as "contemporaneity" was already established by Tsuchida in the early 1980s, and it maintains its effectiveness as a contemporary expressive method even in 2025. Therefore, the description that can be read as Ishiuchi presenting the same methodology as her own original idea for the first time in 2007, 25 years after Tsuchida, is not in accordance with photographic history and is false. Rather, there has been a point made from the beginning that Ishiuchi may have plagiarized Tsuchida's concept (and therefore attempted to manipulate the impression by intentionally pushing Tsuchida's work into the frame of "old, past expression").

[False] In that sense, it is very contemporary
This is also a concept that Hiromi Tsuchida had already presented and practiced with his "Hiroshima Collection" in 1982.

[False] I don't think anyone has thought about Hiroshima like this.
This is false. To repeat, these are all concepts that were already presented and practiced by Hiromi Tsuchida in his "Hiroshima Collection" in 1982.

[Basis: Supplement] As mentioned above, in Hiromi Tsuchida's "Hiroshima Collection" shot in 1982, a methodology for capturing atomic bomb artifacts not as "the past" but as "the present (contemporary)" had already been established. This concept was already evaluated by Koji Taki in 1985 [see supplement below]. There are points made that Ishiuchi plagiarized Tsuchida's expressive methods based on "contemporaneity" and the "bird's-eye composition" of photographing atomic bomb artifacts as symbols in her 2007 "Hiroshima." Given this background, Ishiuchi's statements that lead readers to believe that "she is the first photographer to photograph atomic bomb artifacts as contemporary" indicate that the relationship with preceding cases in photographic history and factual verification need to be re-examined. Furthermore, it is a fact that there are many cases where Ishiuchi's claims were swallowed whole without sufficient fact-checking, such as research, interviews, and literature confirmation regarding Tsuchida's history of expression and the evaluation of preceding works, and arguments were developed based on these statements. It is a fact that this has impaired the accuracy of the evaluation and interpretation of photographic expression of "Hiroshima" in academic (especially art) fields, and I request an urgent correction.

[False] Everyone has passed it down using the katakana 'HIROSHIMA', but that is something men say, you know.
This is false.
There is no basis for limiting the notation 'HIROSHIMA' to statements or expressions unique to men.
This katakana notation is not a matter of value-based dimensions dependent on personal attributes such as gender, occupation, or work titles; rather, it holds significance as a shared symbolic concept in human history, distinct from mere geographical notation. Therefore, an attitude that denies the katakana notation 'HIROSHIMA' while simultaneously maximizing its symbolic nature in the evaluation of one's own self-expression lacks logical consistency.

* While Ishiuchi uses the hiragana 'hiroshima' in her work titles out of a strong personal preference, the names of the donors of the atomic-bomb artifacts she photographs are not written in their original Japanese names, but in the alphabet, with only the surname provided and the given name omitted. Furthermore, when the works are exhibited or sold at overseas auctions, even the abbreviated English name is not displayed, and the hiragana notation of the work title is also absent (see attached [Reference]). This discrepancy in notation suggests that only her own work titles are valued, while the individuality of the atomic-bomb artifact donors—the subjects of her work—is disregarded. While attention is focused on the existence of the artist herself, which the work title symbolizes, the existence of the subjects and donors is diluted. It can be interpreted that the purpose of downsizing and personalizing the facts from 'HIROSHIMA' to 'hiroshima' was also to provide legitimacy to private usage, including the sale of photographs and the cropping of photos that the peace memorial museum does not recommend.
It is a fact that there have been voices pointing out the morality of the act of 'selling a privatized "HIROSHIMA" for personal gain,' which has been carried out for a long time.

[Note] As a woman, I am photographing women's items
It seems that this initial concept is no longer followed today. It has been confirmed that there are also works featuring men's items.

[Note] I tell them until I'm blue in the face that it must absolutely be in hiragana
Morality aside, Ishiuchi's <hiroshima> works are being bought and sold extensively both domestically and internationally, but in auctions, for example, the characters for 'hiroshima' and the names of the donors have already disappeared.

The fact that Ishiuchi was aware of Tsuchida's <Hiroshima Collection>—the only prior example of a work published after photographing materials held by the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum—at the time of her 2007 shoot is confirmed in the aforementioned interview. (Culture Power: Miyako Ishiuchi x Aomi Okabe, June 25, 2007)

Issues in the August 2016 "Gendai Shiso" Interview with Miyako Ishiuchi
This journal is evaluated as an academic publication with a certain degree of influence and credibility in the academic community. As a result, it has been cited frequently in subsequent research papers, and consequently, the arguments published in the journal have been widely accepted as historical fact. The impact is significant, and the interview is often cited and referenced even in papers that contain factual errors. Therefore, a re-examination and clear explanation regarding the proofreading system and fact-checking flow of the writers and editorial department at the time are required.
Originally, it has been considered academic common sense that researchers must always verify primary sources rather than accepting descriptions uncritically. However, it is also a problem that many museum curators, in particular, lack sufficient knowledge of the history of photography and have not thoroughly conducted basic research such as scrutinizing primary sources or interviewing the parties involved. It is necessary to present the way photography (and the history of photography) is treated in the art world and the current issues as a challenge to be addressed again.
Even without specialized knowledge of the history of photography, it is clear that it is impossible to uniformly summarize the transition of diverse expressions during the boom of Japanese photography from 1945 to 2000 by referring to only a few works by representative photographers. Nevertheless, the publisher should be held accountable for the fact that such descriptions were publicly distributed as a publication.

Summary
Many of the claims presented in this article are considered to be based on arbitrary interpretations and personal preconceived notions aimed at justifying Ishiuchi's own work. The media outlet "Gendai Shiso," which published the article without comparison with the history of photography, fact-checking, or historical verification, should be held accountable, including for its editorial structure and proofreading system at the time. This article functioned according to Ishiuchi's intentions, and as a result of content that differed from the facts being distributed as an academically reliable publication, it was cited numerous times as a reliable document in subsequent arguments and papers. Due to this influence, multiple cases have been confirmed where misunderstandings of historical facts have spread in a chain reaction, and verification and correction of each case are required.
It is believed that Ishiuchi actively disseminated information that differed from the facts—distorting interpretations and underestimating the achievements of her predecessors—in public forums for the purpose of relatively enhancing her own reputation, without showing any respect for the preceding "HIROSHIMA" expressions. The discourse that constructs a virtual opposing target using "big subjects" that do not exist as facts, such as "Male Hiroshima" or "The Curse of Hiroshima," and presents a composition of <woman/individual> opposing it, is a form of populist technique and simultaneously aligned with the trend of feminism that was emerging at the time. It is believed that such a discourse structure had the effect of suppressing legitimate counterarguments from the male side.
Originally, such behavior should have been pointed out through fact-checking and basic research by researchers, curators, journalists, and editors. However, in Japan, in addition to the compartmentalization and division between the photography world and the art world, sufficient verification was not conducted due to the rise of feminism at the time and the influence of art education that prioritized emotion and sensibility over historical context. As a result, a structure was formed in which the spread of misinformation was encouraged by numerous experts who agreed with Ishiuchi's claims, supported them, and sought to jump on the bandwagon themselves. The situation where one can only evaluate one's own work by treating the work of others negatively, even to the point of distorting facts, contains essential problems as a way of evaluating art. In particular, the fact that curators and researchers, whose job is to perform comparative verification, followed this stance rather than the artist herself, left a serious issue regarding the nature of professionalism, even if it was a result of prioritizing immediate effects.

Examples of citations of this interview)
・Hiroko Hagiwara, "From Hiroshima to hiroshima: The Gaze Prompted by Miyako Ishiuchi's Photo Series 'hiroshima/hiroshima'" (2022)
・Keihō Igarashi, "Beautiful Keepsakes"

⚫︎Links and summaries related to other cases