WSJ reports:

“No Japanese crew members aboard the whaling fleet have ever been injured by the group. The Sea Shepherd started tailing the annual hunt eight years ago with the aim of blocking the fleet from catching whales.”

Which is not true..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511988.stm

When I attended The School of Art Institute of Chicago for my MFA, I had a series of long conversation with a professor Francis Whitehead on this work and we tried to look at clues for which it might lead me to understand what my artistic value is.

We came to agree that it was heavily influenced by Japanese culture, and Zen. We started to think about philosophical debate in Zen, illustrated by Koan. She also told me to look at Marcel Duchamp and similarity with Zen ideas with a hope that this might lead to understanding where my questions are coming from.

There are many ideas Duchamp and Zen shares, such as non-attachment, rejection of language and system and poetic use of them. They both try to have a stance that question a stance itself therefore question was shifted from a specific to a whole. Chance is also a common theme that occurs in Zen stories and Duchamp’s works. It is no surprise artist such as John Cage who succeed Duchamp’s lineage looked at Zen seriously in his process of art makings.

Chance and probability is also a way of looking at the world. (Like presupposed idea such as causality) Giving ‘chance’ a thought provides us with an opportunity to look at unknown. Did we really come from small probability of one lucky sperm meeting the egg? In the byproduct of such a small chance, there is something we feel as beautiful.  As human, we sense beauty in unexplainable unknown, such as the birth of a child, sunset, and explosion of atomic bomb etc.
This also creates desire for us to uncover the truth of all things, and drives us to push our civilization.

Another point of interest is – “art and life”. My enquiry includes questions such as – How can art look art our lives and create a relationship with art works and objects that is shown inside white walls with what is happening outside? How does art’s nature of contextulization affect when we talk about life?  How can meaning of art share meaning of life? Can art and life share a place?
(We saw Rirkrit Tiravanija’s interview with Mary Jane Jocob)

The last part is things I have have not yet come to understand what my nature of enquiry is. This part of my questions includes “experience”. I am not sure how we can evaluate experience using our language, but I have huge interest in creating certain feelings with art, in a installation work for a example. Feelings and experience are closely associated. They inform many things such as memories, perception, realities, and so on.

I like looking at these things and to talk and exchange ideas between friends.

This unluckiest person BBC featured on this show was a survivor from an atomic bomb, who experienced the horror of atomic bomb not only in Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945 but also in Nagasaki on 9th Aug 1945.

Mr. Yamaguchi was on a business trip to Hiroshima from Nagasaki and just after 6th of August, he returned to his home town where another bomb was dropped.

It is reported that Japanese citizen in England contacted Japanese embassy in UK to report this program as unappropriate, which then lead to Japanese government to protest Britain. The producer of the program later apologised.

Mr. Yamaguchi’s experience has been recorded in a number of interviews, news archives and documentaries in the past in Japan. Many Japanese news media reported this BBC incident as highly inappropriate for victims of nuclear weapon and broadcasted the films of the man explaining the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the past.

The man has past away few years a go, so his daughter was interviewed. She expressed her disgrace for being made fun for being a victim of such atrocity.  She also continued to say that country such as United Kingdom posses nuclear weapon and them making fun of nuclear bomb is not funny at all.

This whole story came to my attention not only because I live in UK and I am a Japanese, but also I felt it was quite typical misunderstanding and gap in views, culture and position.

On one level, I am sure that the producer of this program did not have a good understanding of the actual impact of the A-bomb. This is partly because in UK or USA, many of the horrific footage from the bomb is not widely circulated. Compare to what is shown in Japan, American media like History channel does not as much documents of men, women, child, babies in Hiroshima/Nagasaki with heavy burns of half of their face falling off. Of course winnerd of war still need to maintain their position on war and this is politically motivated.

In Japan, these horrific images aree used at schools to educate how bad wars are, and how terrible it was for Japan to undertake in the last one. (In my opinion, this is also politically motivated as American had power over what should be taught at school after the war) And as Japan is the only victim of A-bomb in the world, they have the non-nuclear principle of “Not making”, “Not having” and “Not allowing to bring” nuclear weapons.
It is a extremely touchy subject for the Japanese and my feelings also hurt when Mr. Yamaguchi talks about river full of dead burnt people which he saw that day. It tells horror of the weapon and what he had to go through.

At the same time, I feel how Japanese media’s report on this BBC program was also misleading. They reported QI as a “comedy program” (used the word ‘Variety program’ which is widely used as comedy, shows etc in Japan) They also reported as though cast of the program laughed at the man, and dropping of A-bombs. I think British have sense of humour where often laugh at tragic occasions, not to make fun of the people or the situation, but laugh to make it more bearable perhaps.

To me, the program is not making the fun of the victim, in fact these cast are professionals and they were quite skillful in not making a direct joke. One of the cast’s comments on “It is amazing that the training was running the next day” is really a comment making a fun of inefficiency of British trains, and it was the ‘material’ they are laughing at, not to the a-bomb victims.

For me, stories like this makes me think about how tricky it can be when it comes to inter-cultural and historical positions, views and contexts. As someone who understand British humour and grew up watching documentary of atrocities of A-bombs, I think clear and well articulated communication is vital in this kind of case.

To a degree, British humour has its legetimacy in culture and so as the voices of the victims of A-bombs. And both legitimacy can only be consolidated to a fair ground when they can both communicate. Personaly I am interested in this issue because I feel well articulated communication can give us place to understand each other.

僕は日本で中学と高校の入試を経験したのだがやはり間違った時に消せるえんぴつを使っていた。日本ではいつも基本的に勉学はシャープペンシルかえんぴつだった。（本当は英語でシャープペンシルはメカニカルペンシルといいます）

そして、１６歳になってニュージーランドに留学することになって高校１年生に編入したのだが、ここでは生徒はみんなペンを使っていて僕もペンを使うよう指導された。なので間違った時のための修正液もみんな持っていた。

一回先生に鉛筆ではなんでだめなのか聞いてみたら、ペンで書くと正しいことを書くようになるというようなものだった。もう、もとどおりできないのだから自分の書いていることに自信をもって書き進んでいくスタイルをよしとしている感じだった。

これはニュージーランドだけではなくイギリス（ニュージーランドの教育システムはイギリスとほぼ同じ）やアメリカでもこうである。
これを大きく解釈するとやっぱりアングロサクソン系の国ではこういうようなことが言えると思う。
自分の行為や書いたものに責任を持つ。
間違いやミスであっても自分の意見を押し通すことにある程度の意義を持たせている。
一回で間違いなしに成功させることに重きを置く。

一方日本ではいつミスが起こるかわからないという不安感が念頭にある。
ペンで書いて間違いを認めないのは横着だという観念がある。
丁寧にミスを少しずつ訂正しながら書いているものをよりよく完成させていく。
これから何が学び取れるのかはわからないが書くこと一つを文化の背後にある哲学とういのはこんなに違うのです。