Abstract

It is widely believed that traditional Japanese buildings differed fundamentally from those of the West in actively responding to time. This article examines that notion by analyzing five arguments, based on language, history, and architectural elements respectively, that have been used to suggest that the traditional Japanese room was designed to respond to time. It suggests that the arguments based on language are logically questionable, that those based on history are plausible, although impossible to prove, but that those based on the physical evidence of the room itself seem irrefutable. It is argued that the Japanese room clearly was designed to respond to the changing needs of the moment, but that in this it reflected greater sensitivity to and differing means of accommodating change, rather than a fundamental difference in values from other cultures. It is suggested that for the purposes of drawing attention to such differences, claims of Japanese uniqueness may actually have been counterproductive, tending to distract attention from alternative ways of implementing what in many cases seem to be shared human values, and implying that other cultures cannot learn from Japanese architecture, when there is plentiful evidence to suggest that they can and frequently have.