근대기 동아시아의 문인화 담론 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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 outsi

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 머리말
• Ⅱ. 근대기 문인화 담론의 형성배경
• Ⅲ. 전통 문인화에 대한 비판의식
• Ⅳ. 20세기 동양 담론으로서의 근대 문인화론 전개
• Ⅴ. 맺음말
• 참고문헌
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 김용준, "李朝時代의 인물화, 문장, 1939.2"
• 2 한국미술의 자생성 간행위원회, "한국미술의 자생성" 한길아트 1999
• 3 정형민, "한국 근현대 미술용어의 변천과 정체성" 서울대학교 조형연구소 21 : 121-136, 1998
• 4 김현숙, "한국 근대미술에서의 東洋主義 연구 - 西洋畵壇을 중심으로" 한국근현대미술사학회(구 한국근대미술사학회) 10 : 7-31, 2002
• 5 오오노 이쿠히코, "페놀로사와 美術眞設" 미술사학연구회 4 : 193-220, 1992
• 6 류샤오루, "페놀로사" 3 : 313-336, 1996
• 7 滄浪散人, "조선, 중국회화의 특색, 所藏家 및 出品者로서 一言 (上)･(下), 동아일보, 1934.6.17-19"
• 8 이광주, "제1차 대전과 그 문명사적 의미, in 정념으로서의 역사" 문학과 지성사 109-131, 1987
• 9 구본웅, "제13회 조선미전을 봄 (1)-(6), 조선중앙일보,1934.5.30-6.6"
• 10 사사키 조헤이, "일본의 문인화" 한국미술연구소 4 : 65-85, 1996
• 11 이주현, "오창석의 예술론" 한국미술연구소 11 : 279-303, 2000
• 12 심영섭, "아세아주의 미술론 (1)-(18), 동아일보, 1929.8.21-9.7"
• 13 정형민, "서구 모더니즘의 수용과 전개에 따른 한국 전통회화의 변모" 서울대학교 조형연구소 17 : 8-16, 1994
• 14 김용준, "새 近園隨筆" 열화당 2001
• 15 조은정, "비평으로 본 한국미술" 대원사 2001
• 16 최원식, "동아시아인의 ‘동양’인식: 19-20세기" 문학과 지성사 1997
• 17 고희동, "나와 서화협회시대" 1952
• 18 "글씨와 사군자, 미전에 출품은 불가, 조선일보, 1926.3.16"
• 19 사토 도신, "근대일본미술의 미술용어" 서울대학교 조형연구소 21 : 137-157, 1998
• 20 김현숙, "근대기 서ㆍ사군자관의 변모, in 한국미술의 자생성" 한길아트 469-494, 1999
• 21 김병구, "고전부흥의 기획과 '조선적인 것'의 형성" 민족문학사학회 (31) : 12-38, 2006
• 22 최열, "韓國近代美術의 歷史: 韓國美術史辭典 1800-1945" 열화당 2006
• 23 김현숙, "韓國 近代美術에서의 東洋主義 硏究" 홍익대학교대학원 2001
• 24 김용준, "靑田 李象範論, 문장, 1939.9"
• 25 김용준, "近園全集 이후의 近園" 열화당 2007
• 26 고바야시 준코, "近代文人畵 批判の構造, in 上原和博士古稀記念美術史論集" 上原和博士古稀記念美術史論集刊行會 93-109, 1995
• 27 왕야천, "近五十年來西洋畫的趨勢, 東方雜誌 19卷3期, 1922.2.10"
• 28 西槇偉, "豊子愷(1898 -1975)의 서양미술 수용 및 중국 전통미술 재발견과 혁신에 대해" 한국미술연구소 (20) : 381-418, 2005
• 29 소노 라이조, "藝術創作の心理" 警醒社書店 1922
• 30 캉유웨이, "萬木草堂藏畵目" 江西書籍 1918
• 31 김용준, "翰墨餘談, 문장, 1939.11"
• 32 고무로 스이운, "翠雲隨筆" 丹靑書房 1943
• 33 천두슈, "美術革命: 答呂澂, 新靑年 6卷 1號, 1919.11"
• 34 페노로사, "美術眞設" 龍池會藏版 1882
• 35 안석주, "美展을 보고 (1)-(4), 조선일보, 1927.5.27-30"
• 36 김용준, "繪畵로 나타나는 鄕土色의 再吟味, 동아일보,1936.5.6."
• 37 오카쿠라 텐신, "繪畵共進會の記, 東京日日新聞 , 1882.10.9"
• 38 심영섭, "第9回 協展評 (1)-(6), 동아일보, 1929.10.30-11.5"
• 39 이태준, "第13回 協展觀後記 (1)-(5), 조선중앙일보, 1934.10.24-31"
• 40 이태준, "第10回 朝鮮書畵協展을 보고 (1)-(8), 동아일보,1930.10.22-31"
• 41 김용준, "白蠻洋畵會를 만들고, 동아일보, 1930.2.23"
• 42 가오메이칭, "畵에서 國畵까지: 중국 현대 회화용어의전개상의 쟁점" 서울대학교 조형연구소 21 : 121-136, 1998
• 43 조선미, "東洋畵에 있어서의 倣의 槪念에 대하여" 성균관대학교 인문과학 연구소 13 (13): 295-313, 1984
• 44 변영로, "東洋畵論, 동아일보, 1920.7.7"
• 45 김복진, "朝鮮畵壇의 一年 (上)･(下), 조선일보, 1927.1.4-5"
• 46 고유섭, "朝鮮 古代美術의 特色과 그 傳承問題" 1941
• 47 김용준, "書畵協會의 印象" 3 (3): 1931
• 48 리포위안, "書法非藝術論, 東南日報 5期, 1935.10.10"
• 49 아사키 시게루, "日本近代思想大系 17 美術" 岩波書店 1989
• 50 야시로 유키오, "日本美術の特質" 岩波書店 1948
• 51 야마노우치 초조, "日本南畵史" 瑠璃書房 1981
• 52 천헝커, "文人畵的價値, 繪學雜誌 2號, 1921.1"
• 53 다키 세이이치, "文人畵槪論" 改造社 1922
• 54 인거, "文人畵之窮述与中國繪畵之前路, 亞波羅 20期, 1936.5"
• 55 오무라 세이가이, "文人畵の復興" 巧藝社 1921
• 56 다키 세이이치, "文人畵と表現主義" (330) : 1922
• 57 다키 세이이치, "支那美術の流行" (290) : 1911
• 58 오카쿠라 텐신, "支那の美術" (143) : 1894
• 59 다나타 토요조, "所謂南畵的新傾向に就て" (330) : 1917
• 60 쉬베이훙, "徐悲鴻藝術文集" 藝術家出版社 1987
• 61 구마모토 겐지로, "岡倉天心全集 3卷" 平凡社 1993
• 62 요시다 치즈코, "大村西崖と中國" (29) : 1-36, 1994
• 63 리포위안, "國畵底出路, 亞波羅 14期, 1935.11"
• 64 김용준, "吾園軼事, 문장, 1939.12"
• 65 쓰루타 타케요시, "原田悟郞氏聞書: 大正-昭和初期にをおける中國畵コレクションの成立, in 中國明淸名畵展: 中國天津市藝術博物館秘藏" 日中友好會館 3-24, 1992
• 66 우에하라 가즈, "原和博士古稀記念美術史論集" 同刊行會 1995
• 67 고무로 스이운, "南畵発揚千二百年" 4 (4): 1928
• 68 고무로 스이운, "南畵新論" 実業之日本社 1921
• 69 다나카 토요조, "南畵新論" (262) : 1912
• 70 윤희순, "協展을 보고 (1)-(6), 매일신보, 1930.10.21-26"
• 71 훙이란, "再論中西繪畵之動向再質施曉湘, 藝術論壇 1期, 1936.8"
• 72 랑사오쥔, "二十世紀中國美術文選" 上海書畵出版社 1999
• 73 위안룽춘, "中國近現代美術史" 天津人民美術出版社 2005
• 74 펑쯔카이, "中國美術在現代美術上的勝利, 東方雜誌 27卷 1期, 1930.1.10"
• 75 저우지인, "中國畵論輯要" 江蘇美術出版社 1985
• 76 쉬베이훙, "中國畵改良之方法, 北京大學日刊, 1918.5.23-25"
• 77 니시마키 이사무, "中國文人畵家の近代" 思文閣出版 2005
• 78 천헝커, "中國文人畵之硏究" 中華書局 1922
• 79 야시로 유키오, "世界に於ける日本美術の位置" 啓明會發行 1935
• 80 Conant, Ellen, "Nihonga: Transcending the Past: Japanese-StylePainting, 1868-1968" Weatherhill 1968
• 81 Cahill, James, "Nihonga Painters in the Nanga Tradition" 42 (42): 2-12, 1996
• 82 Addiss, Stephen, "Nanga: Transformations in Japanese LiteratiPainting" 36 (36): 48-56, 2005
• 83 Wong, Aida-Yuen, "Inventing Eastern Art in Japan and China, ca.1890s to ca.1930s" Columbia University 1999
• 84 박계리, "20세기 한국회화에서의 전통론" 이화여자대학교 대학원 2006
• 85 차오이챵, "20世紀中國畵: “傳統的延續與演進”國際學術硏討會論文集" 浙江人民美術出版社 1997
• 86 이주현, "20世紀 中國 畵壇의 石濤(1642-1707) 認識" 중국사학회 (35) : 373-412, 2005
• 87 김영나, "1930년대의 한국근대회화" 미술사연구회 7 : 31-46, 1993