1930년대 김환태 문예이론의 비평사적 의의 (Criticism-Historical Significance of the Literary Theory of Whantae Kim in 1930's)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국비평문학회
· 수록지 정보 : 비평문학 / 43호 / 337 ~ 356페이지
· 저자명 : 전정구

초록

이 연구는 1930년대 중반을 전후하여 활동한 눌인 김환태(1909~1944)의 문예이론을 살펴보고 그것이 지닌 비평사적 의의를 재조명하는데 목표를 두었다. 그는 작품에서 얻은 인상과 감동을 충실히 표현하고 전달하기 위해 비평가는 창조적 예술가가 되지 않으면 안 된다고 믿었다. 현대 문예이론의 수준에서 이러한 주장이 논리적 정합성을 확보한 것은 아니다. 그렇지만 그가 강조한 주관적 감상은 자세히 읽기와 목적성을 배제한 예술적 쾌락의 추구, 바꾸어 말하면 순수한 작품감상에의 몰입에 대한 문제로 귀결된다.
김환태는 비평의 지도성을 비판하면서 문학 본연의 기능을 고양시켰으며 창작의 자율성을 최대한 보장해 주려고 노력했다. 따라서 문학관-예술관의 차이에도 불구하고 카프진영의 지도비평 이론이나 창작방법론을 그가 비판한 것은 경청할만한 가치가 충분히 있다. 어느 시대를 막론하고 현실-실제를 외면하면서 이론-이상(理想)에 몰입하도록 작가들을 이끌어간 창작방법이 좋은 문학의 생산에 기여한 예는 없다. 정지용이나 이태준 등 1930년대 최고의 작가들의 작품평에서 김환태는 그것을 실증적으로 예시하고 있다. 「상허의 작품과 그 예술관」(1934)의 끝부분에서 “진정한 예술일수록 우리는 내용 즉 형식, 형식 즉 내용이라는 느낌”을 갖는다는 지적이 그것이다.
김환태는 문예비평 이론의 편향(偏向)과 일탈을 경계하면서 프로문학 퇴조기의 대안논리를 모색한 실천 비평가였다. 특히 뉴크리티시즘-형식주의의 기본강령에 근접한 그의 문예이론, 다시 말하면 ‘작품 그자체로’를 강조한 이론의 선진적 측면을 이 연구에서 부각시켰다. 이러한 점에 초점을 맞추어 그의 문예이론의 시대사적 의미를 다시 평가하고자 한 것이 이 연구이다. 따라서 김환태의 문단활동은 주관비평이나 창조-예술비평의 단순한 실천자의 모습보다는 신비평이나 형식주의에 근접한 문예이론가로서의 역할에 중점이 놓여 있다.

영어초록

Whantae Kim(1909~1944) was a sincere literary theorist who believed that a critic should be a creative artist in order to express substantially impression and touch of literal works and communicate them completely, and who proved the belief with practical criticism.
He wanted to be neither a legislator who establishes laws nor a judge who makes judicial decisions upon the literary works. He was an admirer of eternal beauty, who wanted to take a stroll on a world of art, to enrapture with the fragrance and beauty of the art, and to hear the sound of breath of the spirit with pure sentences and overflowing sense of life.
We are to find a real aspect of the literary self-portrait of Whantae Kim as a pilgrim who rambles in the world of deep and still contemplation. Therefore, to him, the impression and the criticism could not be separated, as two of different kinds.
Criticism is just impression in more delicate representation. The matter is how to subjective impression acquires objectivity and generality. According to Whantae Kim, the acquisition was made by completeness of the subjectivity, which is that the 'pure subjectivity' is the realization of the 'pure objectivity'.
The standard of the modern literary theory does not give any justification to this assertion. However the subjective impression emphasized by him becomes ultimately an issue of the pursuit of artistic delight, apart from close reading and purposiveness. In other words, the impression becomes the matter of immersion to the pure impression of the works.
Therefore, despite of some different viewpoints, it is worth-while to pay attention to that he criticized the theory of the creative methodology of KAPF that discussed and determined the superiority and inferiority of literary works, based on the information that imported from Japan or obtained from the translation of a few introductory booklets.
Regardless of any eras or periods, there is no case of production of good literature contributed by any production method that had workers immerse into theory-ideal while having them ignore practice-reality. Literature becomes just an instrument if it secedes from its object. The most blind point of KAPF is that KAPF was confined in the dogma of theory, considered literature as a tool for political propaganda, and forced writers to write their works with the production methodology.
Criticising the guidance of the criticism of KAPF, Whantae Kim uplifted the inherent function of literature and endeavored to provide maximum guarantee to autonomy of literary production. Whantae Kim demonstrates an example of such uplift and provision with the criticism on the best writers in 1930's, such as, Jiyong Jung, Taejung Lee, etc. That is, at the end of 「The work of Sang Hue and His Art View」(1934), he stated that, "from the genuine art, we get the impression that substance is form, and, reversely, form is substance." Whantae Kim warned the inclination of deviation of literary criticism while opening the real way to writers.
He is a practical critic who ordered the disorder and chaos of literary theory originated in the period of proletariat literature, and presented an alternative logic to the theory. His literary theory emphasizing the 'works as they are' was the criticism that presented the right direction of the modern literary criticism since it was close to the basic principle of the New Criticism―formalism. Reflecting this fact, it is necessary to re-establish and revaluate the criticism-historical position and significance of Whantae Kim in 1930's.

참고자료

· 없음