Three Beauties of the Present Day

Who are the three women?

Okita holds the round fan at lower right. Its flowering paulownia crest helps identify her with the Naniwaya teahouse. Ohisa, at lower left, wears a triple oak-leaf crest. Toyohina, above them, is associated with a primrose crest on her sleeve. Chiba and Toledo explain these signs as identifiers, so the fan and patterned clothes deserve as much attention as the faces. ^{[2] [4]}

The women had different occupations. Okita was a teahouse waitress; Ohisa was the daughter of a shop owner; Toyohina was a geisha, a professional entertainer. Chiba connects Okita’s teahouse with Asakusa and Ohisa’s family shop with Ryogoku. ^{[2] [4]}

Their names also vary across collection records. Chiba’s English title uses Naniwaya Kita and Takashima Hisa; its description and Toledo’s text use the familiar forms Okita and Ohisa. Cleveland catalogues the group as Tomimoto Toyohina, Takashimaya Ohisa, and Naniwaya Okita. Those variations need not imply different women. ^{[2] [4] [5]}

How can similar faces feel individual?

Compare the lower faces slowly. Follow each outline from brow to mouth, then compare how the faces turn towards the gap. Compare the spacing of the eyes and the small red lips, then move to the upper face.

Toledo describes Utamaro subtly changing facial features while retaining an ideal style of elongated faces and small eyes and mouths. Its interpretation draws attention to eye placement, noses and ears. Looking for those small differences is more useful than expecting photographic likeness. The repeated style gives the group coherence, while variations reward a second look. ^[4]

Andreas Marks places Utamaro’s large-head portraits within his development as a designer of pictures of beautiful women. That wider context helps explain the concentration on faces here. ^[6]

Why do some impressions have different writing?

Chiba describes a prohibition in 1793 on printing women’s names, with an exception for courtesans. It relates that restriction to another edition of this design in which the women’s names and part of the title were removed. This is the museum’s explanation of an edition difference; it is not a complete history of every surviving sheet. ^[2]

Toledo describes its impression as one of at least three known states and says it includes a title cartouche at upper right. The Met reproduction shown here has no rectangular title cartouche in that position. The difference is visible, but a photograph alone cannot tell us precisely when the sheet was printed or why a particular inscription is absent. ^{[1] [4]}

This makes the titles worth reading alongside the images. A familiar modern title can identify the design even where the physical sheet carries different writing. The Met records the Japanese title 三婦艶 as well as its English collection title. ^{[1] [2]}

What does mica change?

Toledo catalogues its impression as a colour woodblock print with mica dust. In its interpretation, the glittering background sets off the matte faces and the texture of the hair. That material contrast offers another way to understand the portrait: the pale skin is experienced against both dense black hair and a reflective ground. ^{[3] [4]}

The mica description belongs to Toledo’s sheet. The Met record describes its impression as a woodblock print in ink and colour on paper and does not specify mica. Chiba describes its smaller, medium-format version as a different production from the larger mica print. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

A digital reproduction can show colour and texture, but it does not reproduce the changing sparkle of mica as light or viewing angle changes.

One design, several collection objects

The Met dates JP1528 to about 1791 and records a height of 38.7 cm and width of 25.7 cm. Chiba dates its smaller impression to 1793 and records 32.0 × 21.6 cm. Toledo gives about 1793 for a sheet measuring 38.7 × 26.2 cm. Cleveland dates its impression to about 1794 and records 37.5 × 25.4 cm. ^{[1] [2] [3] [5]}

Those are the institutions’ catalogue dates and dimensions for their individual objects. They are not, by themselves, a proven sequence of states. A title difference, a smaller sheet and a different museum date each describe something about an impression; none should automatically stand in for the other two.

For a first comparison, keep the women’s triangular arrangement in view, then inspect the upper-right corner, the left edge and the crests. Return to the faces afterwards. The composition remains recognisable while the sheet around it changes.

The publisher behind the portrait

Toledo names Tsutaya Juzaburo as the publisher of its impression. Marks describes a substantial working relationship between Utamaro and Tsutaya, involving beauty prints and illustrated books. The object record supplies the attribution for this particular sheet; the book supplies context for the collaboration. ^{[3] [6]}

That distinction helps keep the artwork’s making in view. This is a printed image issued through a publishing business, not a unique painted portrait. Yet a familiar design reaches us as individual collection objects, with their own paper, colour, marks and histories. Looking at both the design and the sheet makes the comparison more rewarding.