근대기 동아시아의 문인화 담론 연구 (Discourse on Literati Painting of Modern East Asia)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국근현대미술사학회(구 한국근대미술사학회)
· 수록지 정보 : 한국근현대미술사학(구 한국근대미술사학) / 20호 / 29 ~ 51페이지
· 저자명 : 박은수

초록

The discourse of literati painting formulated in early
modern age contained various historical, political
and cultural contexts experienced by East Asian
countries around the 20th century. Rapid westernization
and modernization enabled people to have
one-sided criticism on traditional literati painting
and the emerging orientalism led to its revival, thus
creating a discourse of various modern literati
painting. As such, the criticism and revival theory
formed within a short period of time connoted lots
of contradiction and irrationality as much as its
sudden transformation. Regardless of whether the
evaluation on literati painting was positive or
negative, the standard was always western countries
and its content was thoroughly affiliated and
developed with the political intention of each
country. The criticism of formulation, one of the
main issues of literati painting, that of the unity
theory of poetry, calligraphy and painting (詩･書･畵)
and that of a lack of realist spirits were one-way
criticism based on Western-oriented aesthetic values.
Besides, the discourse that helped the modern
interpretation of subsequent literati painting was
based on the association with Western modernism
art. Meanwhile, the logic of power surrounding the
then East Asia was reflected intact so that each
country developed the discourse of literati painting
with fierce purposeful consciousness: Japan within
the logic of imperialism, China with the instillation
of nationalism and expansion of selfconsciousness
and Korea under the influence of
colonial ideology Especially, Japan regarded literati
painting as a cultural tool for the solidarity of East
Asia and played the most active and leading role in
the formation and development of the discourse of
modern literati painting. By setting up the characteristics
of literati painting as the representation of
rhythmic vitality (氣韻生動), individuality, subjective
emotion, Japan created the concept of literati
painting compared to Western realism art; in
addition, it made new discourse discovering the
modernity under the concept that the said factors
would correspond to the subjectivity of Western
modernism art and expression. Furthermore, by
directly comparing rhythmic vitality of literati
painting to Western empathy theory, it claimed the
superiority of the latter or maintained that the
principle of artistic principles in Western modernism
had been actually immanent in Asian literati
painting, thus making it possible to have a
comparatively superior discourse to Western.
Namely, Japan attempted to produce the cultural
solidarity in Asia through the said discourse of
literati painting and to occupy its supremacy.
Meanwhile, Korea and China took in it corresponding
to their political situations and cultural
features, thus using it to establish their identity and
subjecthood.
As shown above, the discourse of literati
painting in early modern age faithfully reflected the
political and cultural demand and purpose in East
Asian society and became one of the newly
reinterpreted traditional theories. Thus, Asian
discourse in the 20th century was characterized by
an attempt to find out modern values from
something non-Western and traditional. In addition,
it would prove that artistic exchange in East Asia
focusing on Japan around the 20th century was not
fragmentary, but general. The artistic tradition of
East Asia in the past had been derived from
China; however, the new center of culture in early
modern age was Japan. Indeed, artistic interchange
of East Asia in early modern age was developed
diversely and actively based on Japan. Nevertheless,
literati paintings were connected with the identity of
a country in the name of tradition so that it tended
to avoid discussing the presence of influences with
foreign countries, especially with Japan. However,
how it was settled as local culture and diversified
would be more important than the issue of
hegemony, that is, who the center of culture was
and who the outsider was. In this regard, the
discourse of literati painting in early modern age
would have been worth doing researches as such
concrete examples.

영어초록

The discourse of literati painting formulated in early
modern age contained various historical, political
and cultural contexts experienced by East Asian
countries around the 20th century. Rapid westernization
and modernization enabled people to have
one-sided criticism on traditional literati painting
and the emerging orientalism led to its revival, thus
creating a discourse of various modern literati
painting. As such, the criticism and revival theory
formed within a short period of time connoted lots
of contradiction and irrationality as much as its
sudden transformation. Regardless of whether the
evaluation on literati painting was positive or
negative, the standard was always western countries
and its content was thoroughly affiliated and
developed with the political intention of each
country. The criticism of formulation, one of the
main issues of literati painting, that of the unity
theory of poetry, calligraphy and painting (詩･書･畵)
and that of a lack of realist spirits were one-way
criticism based on Western-oriented aesthetic values.
Besides, the discourse that helped the modern
interpretation of subsequent literati painting was
based on the association with Western modernism
art. Meanwhile, the logic of power surrounding the
then East Asia was reflected intact so that each
country developed the discourse of literati painting
with fierce purposeful consciousness: Japan within
the logic of imperialism, China with the instillation
of nationalism and expansion of selfconsciousness
and Korea under the influence of
colonial ideology Especially, Japan regarded literati
painting as a cultural tool for the solidarity of East
Asia and played the most active and leading role in
the formation and development of the discourse of
modern literati painting. By setting up the characteristics
of literati painting as the representation of
rhythmic vitality (氣韻生動), individuality, subjective
emotion, Japan created the concept of literati
painting compared to Western realism art; in
addition, it made new discourse discovering the
modernity under the concept that the said factors
would correspond to the subjectivity of Western
modernism art and expression. Furthermore, by
directly comparing rhythmic vitality of literati
painting to Western empathy theory, it claimed the
superiority of the latter or maintained that the
principle of artistic principles in Western modernism
had been actually immanent in Asian literati
painting, thus making it possible to have a
comparatively superior discourse to Western.
Namely, Japan attempted to produce the cultural
solidarity in Asia through the said discourse of
literati painting and to occupy its supremacy.
Meanwhile, Korea and China took in it corresponding
to their political situations and cultural
features, thus using it to establish their identity and
subjecthood.
As shown above, the discourse of literati
painting in early modern age faithfully reflected the
political and cultural demand and purpose in East
Asian society and became one of the newly
reinterpreted traditional theories. Thus, Asian
discourse in the 20th century was characterized by
an attempt to find out modern values from
something non-Western and traditional. In addition,
it would prove that artistic exchange in East Asia
focusing on Japan around the 20th century was not
fragmentary, but general. The artistic tradition of
East Asia in the past had been derived from
China; however, the new center of culture in early
modern age was Japan. Indeed, artistic interchange
of East Asia in early modern age was developed
diversely and actively based on Japan. Nevertheless,
literati paintings were connected with the identity of
a country in the name of tradition so that it tended
to avoid discussing the presence of influences with
foreign countries, especially with Japan. However,
how it was settled as local culture and diversified
would be more important than the issue of
hegemony, that is, who the center of culture was
and who the outsider was. In this regard, the
discourse of literati painting in early modern age
would have been worth doing researches as such
concrete examples.

참고자료

· 없음