동아시아 미술사의 가능성

서지정보

ㆍ발행기관 : 한국미술연구소 ㆍ수록지정보 : 美術史論壇 / 30권
ㆍ저자명 : 오가와 히로미쓰

영어 초록

This thesis is an attempt to clarify an answer to the fundamental question by Professor Hong, which reads, “Would it be ever possible to facilitate integrative construction of the East Asian Art History?” First of all, while verifying that the terminology “美術（art）” is a word coinage in modern Japanese era related to Europe fine arts or Shöne Kunst, and it has become common terminology among East Asian cultural sphere with Chinese character after the beginning of 20th century, I’d like to consider in what context whether its meaning is clarified as to present common distinctive feature or otherwise identified as different, under the similar cultural zone.
In other words, the common or different features come into being by succeeding or renouncing, or even accepting or transforming the traditional framework of Chinese “書畵(calligraphy and painting)” based on the literati view of calligraphy and painting, and the very modern notion of European “art” which includes all the painting, sculpture, architecture and craft.
In Japan, while “美術” or art as a framework has been accepted, on the other hand “calligraphy and painting” as a framework was abandoned, and “calligraphy” itself was discarded out of the framework of “art”, as witnessed in the Ministry of Education Art Exhibition, the divisions consist of painting, sculpture and craft only. In Taiwan, right from the initial stage when the Taiwan Art Exhibition was established and even after it was transformed into the Government-general of Taiwan Art Exhibition, the categories were divided into only two consistently, which are “East Paintings Division” and “West Paintings Division.” In Korea, the initial concept of the Government-general of Korea which tried to rule out calligraphy out of the Korea Art Exhibition has been modified based on the objection from the Korean committee members and others, resulting in addition of “the 3rd division, Calligraphy” along with “the 1st division, East Paintings” and “the 2nd division, Western Paintings and Sculptures.” Whereas in China, at the West-lake Exposition in 1929, the showpieces of Art Museum included painting, calligraphy, craft, sculpture and architecture, which represents it’s a double attempt to succeed tradition of “calligraphy and painting” and to accept modernization of the “art”. Without taking heed of the meaning difference of “art” depending on the region or the era, the common premises to discuss the East Asian Art History integrally cannot be obtained.
In that context, “the integrative construction of East Asia Art History” which include Korea and China where, different from Japanese “art” framework in which “calligraphy” nor “architecture” fall in, both of them are considered as within the framework of “art”, should be compiled by beginning with describing the summary of each field of painting, sculpture, craft and architecture chronologically in each era for each Japan, China and Korea, by conforming the “history of calligraphy” and “history of architecture” studied separately in Japan, into the “history of art”.
The “integrative construction” in terms of paintings, however, needs to be determined as, different from Europe where the international styles are succeeded and evolved from Romanesque, to Gothic to Renaissance, etc., in case of East Asia where Chinese or Korean dynasty, or Japanese dynasty or shogunate era change impose great impact on stylistic transformation, one cannot apply the method of describing the situation of each country utilizing stylistic transformation evolving as an axis. The possibility lies with, based on the unfolding of Chinese Painting History, by objectively analyzing if Japanese and Korean painting history defining whether Chinese painting left its impact in each area, if the painting history’s development of those three countries are understood spirally, then the result would become nothing but to answer to the question, “Would it be ever possible to facilitate integrative construction of the East Asian Art History?”
More concretely, during the 250 years of Chinese painting history between Yuan dynasty to the middle of Ming dynasty, in which two distinctive international modalities evolved, namely Li-Guo school of Yuan dynasty and Southern Song court style landscape painting of Ming dynasty, along with these development one can review the Chinese painting history unfolding during the period, and study the evolution of landscape painting history in responding Korea’s latter half period of Goryeo to early period of Joseon dynasty, and ending period of Japanese Kamakura era, Nanboku period to the middle of Muromachi by re-examining a few of each existing art pieces, and defining features commonly witnessed in Chinese paintings and also identifying uncommon characteristics.
My thesis, however, does not represent comprehensive and concrete recommendations towards “integrative construction of the East Asian Art History,” responding to Professor Hong’s compelling question. It is necessary to state doggedly that this is a rudimentary stage in which only its possibility has been affirmed. In East Asia where China existed as an unparalleled center, if it is feasible to discover a similar axis to the one which correlates to varied styles which arose another and yet another in various regions in Europe. There is no question that “integrative construction of the East Asian Art History” depends solely on that point.

참고 자료

없음