http://www.e-yakimono.net/html/lnt-critique-aoyama.html
His essay proceeds to explore our misconceptions of the system and the value of distinguishing between honoring the artisans and their work and honoring the artform they're tasked with preserving -- the latter is what's really related to the intention of the system as-written. Further, the system's about preservation rather than praise. To me, this was the most striking part, but the essay is a very interesting critique of the "LNT" system in general.Aoyama Wahei wrote:The greatest art and traditions of Japan -- Korin's screens, Koetsu's chawan, Rikyu's tearoom, Itsukushima Shrine, Matsumoto castle -- are all national treasures. By designating a person a "living embodiment" of a national treasure, one is led to believe that such a figure himself would surely be equivalent to the aforementioned symbols of Japanese culture. Unfortunately, this is far from truth.
The truth is this -- there is no such thing as a "Living National Treasure."
...
The term "Living National Treasure" is merely a colloquial one coined by a newspaper journalist in 1955 to both simplify and mystify the official but clunky title "Important Intangible Cultural Property."
...
Those persons designated with this distinction are not "Important Intangible Cultural Property" themselves. Rather, [they are] "holders" or "protectors" of an important but intangible cultural property of Japan. ... To put it simply, the Living National Treasure system is but a law designating some endangered thing for preservation...
...
The cultural property being preserved is not the man, but the technique or style of pottery he creates. The man is not the treasure; rather, the treasure is the style of pottery.
...
In no way was the law intended to be an award that confers a higher status to an artist for contributions to his art, nor did the law designate the artist himself as a treasure; rather, the treasure was the traditional techniques he possessed. The law was not to praise, but to protect.