又峰趙熙龍의 繪畵觀

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This thesis aims to consider the theoretical view of painting and achieve an understanding of the Chinese literary art of Jo Huiryong(1789~1866), a painter of the middle-class literati in the first half of the 19<SUP>th</SUP> century, through his writings. As the literary activities of the middle class gained pace in the 19th century, they also came to play an increasing role in the world of painting, among whom Jo Huiryong was a leading figure. The study of his view of painting is thought to have contributed to the comprehension of the paintings of not only Jo Huiryong but also of middle-class literary society of that time, as well as the painting phenomenon of the nineteenth century in general.
In the 19<SUP>th</SUP> century, Chinese culture reached Korea as a result of more active interchanges with China. The middle classes had the economic and intellectual freedom to learn about and enjoy Chinese books and paintings by themselves. Such conditions provided them with an opportunity to understand the current of Chinese painting and essays on paintings. The raised consciousness of the literary culture of the Ming and Qing Dynasties achieved through such channels helped them to understand the trend of the Joseon Dynasty's artistic milieu. Jo Huiryong was also able to access Chinese books and paintings, something which can be confirmed by many of the comments in his writings about Chinese paintings and the related theories. The Chinese paintings he saw were principally those of the Qing Dynasty rather than those dating from more earlier times, mirroring the exchange that had taken place between Joseon and Qing since the 18th century as a result of the Yeonam circle, as well as the influence of Kim Jeonghui. Jo Huiryong referred to such books on art theory as Xuanhe Huapu(宣和畵譜), Tuhui Baojian(圖繪寶鑑) and Guochao Huahuilu(國朝畵徵錄), all of which were representative books on critical painting including compact biographies of painters. He referred to painters of the pre-Yuan Dynasty as Xuanhe Huapu and Tuhui Baojian, and to painters of the Ming and Qing periods as Guochao Huahuilu. Apart from these books, Jo Huiryong quoted such critical essays on painting as Nigulu(?古錄), which was written by Chen Jiru of the Ming Dynasty, Banqiao Tihua(板橋題畵) by Zheng Xie of the Qing Dynasty, and Pushan lunhua(浦山論畵) by Zhang Geng. The book that Jo Huiryong mentioned most frequently was Chen Jiru's Nigulu. Jo Huiryong also cited many short essays of the Late Ming and Early Qing Dynasty, including Nigulu. Here, we can see that the style of literary culture prevalent during the Late Ming Dynasty, which was brought into the capital by Joseon noblemen during the eighteenth century, survived until the nineteenth century.
What has drawn considerable attention in building up Jo Huiryong's view of painting is how he was affected by and distinguished from Kim Jeonghui from an artistic viewpoint. They had a close relationship in the aspect of literature and painting. According to many records, the relationship between Jo Huiryong and Kim Jeonghui continued throughout their lives, and it becomes clear that this relationship was a major influence on Jo Huiryong's artistic activity. Jo Huiryong's view of painting was even further developed based on Kim Jeonghui's theory.
Jo Huiryong's theory on paintings was explored here in the light of two aspects: namely the usefulness and the creation of paintings. As for their usefulness, Jo Huiryong defined paintings that are valuable as an expression of the artist's thoughts. Jo Huiryong valued the activity of creation in itself as well. He also thought that paintings could contribute to human longevity and that they reflected the Taoist hermit ideologies that were then popular among middle-class society. The discussion of creative activity meant defining how a painter could reveal his or her thoughts through the painting. Jo Huiryong thought highly of “shen-li”(神理), meaning the natural revelation of the artist's

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 머리말
• Ⅱ. 趙熙龍繪畵觀의 형성배경
• Ⅲ. 趙熙龍繪畵觀의 특성
• Ⅳ. 맺음말
• 참고문헌
• 〈Abstract〉

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 韓正熙, "한국과 중국의 회화" 학고재 1999
• 2 鄭炳三, "추사와 그의 시대" 돌베게 2002
• 3 周勳初外, "중국학연구회 고대문학분과 역 이론과 실천" 1992.
• 4 오수창, "정국의 추이" 靑年社 上 : 1990.
• 5 金正喜, "국역 완당전집" 솔출판사 1996
• 6 鄭玉子, "趙熙龍의 詩書畵論" 서울대학교 국사학과 19 : 1988.
• 7 韓榮奎, "趙熙龍의 藝術精神과 文藝性向" 2001
• 8 秀美, "趙熙龍繪畵의 硏究" 1991.
• 9 韓正熙, "董其昌과 朝鮮後期畵壇" 韓國美術史學會 第193號 : 1992.3.
• 10 扈承喜, "秋史의 藝術論" 韓國漢文學硏究會 8 : 1985.
• 11 趙熙龍, "漢瓦軒題畵雜存" 한길아트사 3 : 1999
• 12 安輝濬, "朝鮮末期畵壇과 近代繪畵로의 移行" 국립광주박물관 1995
• 13 洪善杓, "朝鮮時代繪畵史論" 文藝出版社 1999
• 14 "朝鮮後期의 繪畵觀-實學派의 繪畵觀을 중심으로 한국의 미 12" 중앙일보사 1982.
• 15 朴孝銀, "朝鮮後期문인들의 繪畵蒐集活動연구" 1999
• 16 崔耕苑, "朝鮮後期代淸회화교류와 淸회화양식의 수용" 1996
• 17 尹在敏, "朝鮮後期中人層漢文學의 硏究" 1990.
• 18 姜明官, "朝鮮後期.巷文學硏究" 창작과 비평사 1997
• 19 朴銀順, "恭齋尹斗緖의 畵論: 《恭齋先生墨蹟》」" 國立中央博物館 (67) : 2001.
• 20 趙熙龍, "壽鏡齋海外赤牘" 한길아트사 5 : 1999
• 21 文德熙, "南公轍의 書畵觀" 1994.
• 22 基白, "19世紀韓國史學의 새 樣相" 知識産業社 1981.
• 23 鄭雨峰, "19世紀詩論硏究" 1992.