일본미술사 성립기의 인도미술 인식 - 메이지(明治)기에서 다이쇼(大正)기를 중심으로 - (Perspectives on Indian Art during the Meiji and Taisho Period)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서울대학교 인문학연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 인문논총 / 60호 / 173 ~ 205페이지
· 저자명 : 강희정

초록

The Japanese art-historian Hamada Gosaku wrote an article under the
title of 「Concerning on the Greco-Indian Buddhist Art (希臘印度式佛敎美
術について)」 in the first art-history journal of Japan named 『Kokka (國華)』 in
1906. The word of Greco-Indian is an important perspective of how the
intellectuals at those periods viewed Asian Art History. Originally, the term
希臘印度式 in Japanese, is a translation of the words ‘Greco-Indian’ or
‘Indo-Greek’, which were used by Western researchers. The concepts of
‘Greco-Indian’ art were not clear in their substances, but they were well
comprehended by the Western scholars with prejudice in the 19th century.
Japanese scholars used the pure translation of the term ‘Greco-Indian’.
This means that the Japanese were largely depending on western concepts
for the construction of the history of Japanese art. However, the images
that the Japanese imagined about the Indian art differed from those of the
Western’s. It was because the western point of view, based on the
Orientalism towards India, was different, while the Japanese had to make
the concept of the ‘East’.
Okakura Tenshin emphasized the influence of India on the mural
paintings of the Horyu-ji (法隆寺) Kondo, and the arts in the Shosoin (正倉院). He paid special attention on the cave temples and wall paintings in
India like Ajanta, treated them as the important origin of Japanese art. In
1893, Ito Chuta claimed the applications of entasis on the columns in
Horyu-ji as a result of the cultural exchange between the East and the
West. And he named them ‘Greek Doric’ order. During the Meiji Era, the
Japanese researchers fully accepted the Western point of view about the
Indian art rather than creating their own perspective, and actively
researching the arts. As a result, they understood Indian arts with an
obscure angle of Greco-Indian art, and tried to explain their arts on that
basis.
The Japanese in the Meiji Era argued India as the origin of the Oriental
spirits, while explaining the Indian Buddhist art under the Greek
traditions. And they highly estimated the Indian art influenced by the
Greek. This vague understanding of India resulted from remarkably
subjective creation of the Orientalism, which was spread at Meiji times.
Though the Indian art was evaluated as the very origin of the Eastern
culture, India was only imagined by the Japanese. It was inevitable for the
Japanese, who thought the Indian Buddhist art was the origin of theirs, to
focus more on the Gandharan art than Indian subcontinent art. This
period, in which several regions of Gandhara were excavated and
investigated, was also same time that Japanese started to pay attention to
the Indian art. Considering from the point of World History, Japan’s
focusing on India coincided with the movements of the West.
In Taisho era, after the Meiji, Japanese more widely noticed and
researched Indian art. Taki Seichi, who had visited the West in 1911,
understood the new trend of Western scholars, and showed us how much
the Japanese were sensitive to the Western scholars’ research methods. He
pointed out that it was natural to discuss the influence of Gandhara on the
eastern regions. As he mentioned, it is persuasive since Gandhara is located
in the north-west region of India, and is a gateway to the Silk Road area
and China. His concrete works are easily compared with those of the
antecedents who abstractly understood Indian art on the basis of
Gandharan art. Even if the way to research on Indian art had been
developed to be more precise and specific until Taisho times, their
intention, to find out the origin of Buddhist art from India, was not
changed. The method of study was accordingly dependant on the similarity
of the external shape between Indian and Japanese art.
The Japanese tried to raise the value of Japanese art by showing the
Greek art influence on Japanese art, which was importantly regarded in the
West. Since they were not free from the paradigm of the Buddhist art
penetrated into Japan, they focused on the certain art forms which were
transmitted to the Silk Road and China from India. Therefore they chose
some kind of art according to their necessity. Gandharan sculpture, Sanchi
stupa, and Ajanta murals were considered as the main objects to be
compared. Since modern Japanese still accept this idea as considerable until
today, it is worth discussing to research the Japanese attitude to Indian art
in the early 20th century.

영어초록

The Japanese art-historian Hamada Gosaku wrote an article under the
title of 「Concerning on the Greco-Indian Buddhist Art (希臘印度式佛敎美
術について)」 in the first art-history journal of Japan named 『Kokka (國華)』 in
1906. The word of Greco-Indian is an important perspective of how the
intellectuals at those periods viewed Asian Art History. Originally, the term
希臘印度式 in Japanese, is a translation of the words ‘Greco-Indian’ or
‘Indo-Greek’, which were used by Western researchers. The concepts of
‘Greco-Indian’ art were not clear in their substances, but they were well
comprehended by the Western scholars with prejudice in the 19th century.
Japanese scholars used the pure translation of the term ‘Greco-Indian’.
This means that the Japanese were largely depending on western concepts
for the construction of the history of Japanese art. However, the images
that the Japanese imagined about the Indian art differed from those of the
Western’s. It was because the western point of view, based on the
Orientalism towards India, was different, while the Japanese had to make
the concept of the ‘East’.
Okakura Tenshin emphasized the influence of India on the mural
paintings of the Horyu-ji (法隆寺) Kondo, and the arts in the Shosoin (正倉院). He paid special attention on the cave temples and wall paintings in
India like Ajanta, treated them as the important origin of Japanese art. In
1893, Ito Chuta claimed the applications of entasis on the columns in
Horyu-ji as a result of the cultural exchange between the East and the
West. And he named them ‘Greek Doric’ order. During the Meiji Era, the
Japanese researchers fully accepted the Western point of view about the
Indian art rather than creating their own perspective, and actively
researching the arts. As a result, they understood Indian arts with an
obscure angle of Greco-Indian art, and tried to explain their arts on that
basis.
The Japanese in the Meiji Era argued India as the origin of the Oriental
spirits, while explaining the Indian Buddhist art under the Greek
traditions. And they highly estimated the Indian art influenced by the
Greek. This vague understanding of India resulted from remarkably
subjective creation of the Orientalism, which was spread at Meiji times.
Though the Indian art was evaluated as the very origin of the Eastern
culture, India was only imagined by the Japanese. It was inevitable for the
Japanese, who thought the Indian Buddhist art was the origin of theirs, to
focus more on the Gandharan art than Indian subcontinent art. This
period, in which several regions of Gandhara were excavated and
investigated, was also same time that Japanese started to pay attention to
the Indian art. Considering from the point of World History, Japan’s
focusing on India coincided with the movements of the West.
In Taisho era, after the Meiji, Japanese more widely noticed and
researched Indian art. Taki Seichi, who had visited the West in 1911,
understood the new trend of Western scholars, and showed us how much
the Japanese were sensitive to the Western scholars’ research methods. He
pointed out that it was natural to discuss the influence of Gandhara on the
eastern regions. As he mentioned, it is persuasive since Gandhara is located
in the north-west region of India, and is a gateway to the Silk Road area
and China. His concrete works are easily compared with those of the
antecedents who abstractly understood Indian art on the basis of
Gandharan art. Even if the way to research on Indian art had been
developed to be more precise and specific until Taisho times, their
intention, to find out the origin of Buddhist art from India, was not
changed. The method of study was accordingly dependant on the similarity
of the external shape between Indian and Japanese art.
The Japanese tried to raise the value of Japanese art by showing the
Greek art influence on Japanese art, which was importantly regarded in the
West. Since they were not free from the paradigm of the Buddhist art
penetrated into Japan, they focused on the certain art forms which were
transmitted to the Silk Road and China from India. Therefore they chose
some kind of art according to their necessity. Gandharan sculpture, Sanchi
stupa, and Ajanta murals were considered as the main objects to be
compared. Since modern Japanese still accept this idea as considerable until
today, it is worth discussing to research the Japanese attitude to Indian art
in the early 20th century.

참고자료

· 없음