김수영의 비인칭적 시적 주체와 참여시-‘적’, ‘죽음’, ‘딴 사람’과 두 개의 ‘시 무용론’ = Kim Soo-young’s Impersonal Poetic Subject and Participatory Poetry-‘Foe’, ‘Death’, ‘Other’, and two ‘Poetry’s uselessness’

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Kim Soo-young’s ‘Anti-Poetry’, along with his ‘silent poetics’, has been understood as a poetics that goes beyond the construct of subject and object. The expression ‘other’ is not so much about the deconstruction of the subject as it is about the new subject that is sub- sequently re-established. Kim’s poetics emphasizes the movement from one meaning to an- other, from one subject to another, as in her own words, ‘entering into meaning and rescuing meaning’. This movement is negative in the sense that it completely overthrows what pre- cedes it, but it is also Indefinite in the sense that it does not reach a sum through negation, but continues to betray endlessly.
For Kim, those who write poetry (the artistry of poetry) and those who discuss poetry (the reality of poetry) cannot coexist, and to be ‘other’ means to kill those who discuss poetry. The sentiment that can be summarized as ‘generosity’ in the entire Anti-Poetry Theory is to show the supremacy, the state of wisdom, made possible by killing the one who discusses poetry.
The reason why poets are bound to divide their subjects is explained in detail in Bataille’s Literature and Evil, which Kim Soo-young expressed that she “liked so much.” Bataille said that literature should be close to evil, not good. For Bataille, the essence of poetry is freedom, which is made possible by breaking away from the pre-existing order or doxa, such as goodness. According to Bataille, humans are inevitably at odds with themselves because they cannot be free from doxa, even from their own tendency to settle for the established order. Bataille sees discord with the established order as a fundamental literary engagement, and such engagement entails the death of the subject, the depersonalization of the subject, in that it requires discord with the self. For both Bataille and Kim, literature’s subversive power is most powerful when it is most free, when it follows evil, in Bataille’s terms, and when it is unsettling, in Kim’s terms.
For Kim, poetry is about moving between one extreme of reality and the other extreme of artistry. Kim’s poetic subject must cross over death and become ‘other’ all the time, a con- stant self-betrayal that does not remain at either extreme. Thus, for Kim, poetry becomes something that cannot remain in either reality or artistry. Unlike Lee Eoryeong’s insistence on keeping a distance between literature and politics in order to preserve literary autonomy, for Kim, literary autonomy is only a starting point toward true freedom. Kim wanted literature to be indistinguishable from other matters of life, such as politics. One of Kim’s attempts to go beyond the literary space allocated by politics was to split the poetic subject.