20世紀 中國詩의 國際性

朴正元(Park, Jeong-weon) 한국외국어대학교 외국문학연구소 2005 외국문학연구 Vol.- No.21

If seen from the historical viewpoint, under the effect of western modernism, symbolical poetry (in the 20's), Modernism (in the 30's), Jiuye poetry (in the 40's), Menglong poetry (in the 70's and early 80's), Post-Menglong poetry (in the late 80's) appeared in modern China. Chinese Modernism was achieved through the inflow of modernism poem of western and direct of poets. Introducing the poems of Paul Verlaine, Gemy de Gourmout, Francis Jammes, Baudelaire, T.S. Eliot, Yeats, Stéphane Mallarmé etc. acted as an important role. Mudan's modernism poem developed Chinese modernism poetry world through William Empson's effect and the contact of English and American modern literature. Mudan accomplished notable accomplishment that is differentiated with other poets: First, through resisting traditional idea, created new modern poem's esthetics. Second, expressed modern's survival environment which is placed absurdity and estrangement. Third, refuse the idea of perfect self which appears in the traditional poems and express disrupted self. Fourth, selected usual poetic language and refuse rhythm at tradition poem, sought free prose poem. Mudan's modern poem was unfamiliar thing in Chinese poetry world at that time, but, through modernism, it is the right example that shows internationalism of the 20th century Chinese poem. Mudan accommodates Chinese culture heritage critically, and accommodates western's modernism actively. His modernism poem caused much effect to Menglong poetry that appeared in the late 70's.

모더니즘의 결절과 계기

이영미(Lee, Young Mi) 구보학회 2006 구보학보 Vol.1 No.-

한국의 근대문학사를 인지하는 데 있어 ‘리얼리즘/모더니즘, 내용/형식’ 중심의 대립 관계를 벗어나기란 어렵다. 남한에서는 모더니즘이 근대적 리얼리즘을 벗어나는 새로운 기법으로 문학의 현대성을 실현하였다는, 단절적 인식을 보인다. 그러나 북한에서는 현대성 문제보다 정치성에 기준을 두면서 리얼리즘을 사회주의 리얼리즘으로 숭배하고, 모더니즘은 부르조아 리얼리즘으로 규정하여 공격의 대상으로 삼는다. 문학적 계보의 연속성 속에서 남한의 퇴폐적 산물로 대립하여 적대적으로 인식하는 것이다. 어쨌든 이것은 모두 분단논리의 이분법적 자장에서 머무르는 정태적 분석 동향을 보이고 있었다. 그래서 본고는 문학사의 동태적 해석을 지향하여, 일제 강점기 타자로서 한층 필연적일 수밖에 없는 ‘문학의 저항적 속성’이라는 운동성 속에 모더니즘 역시 놓이고, 리얼리즘에서 모더니즘으로의 운동성 이행(패러다임) 관계에서 그 이행의 주체를 비평과 창작의 헤게모니 변동과 그 전환(에피스테메)으로 추정하는 가설을 제안하였다. 한국문학사에서 모더니즘에 관한 기존 해석의 반복 재생산은 매듭을 짓고 새로운 계기를 만들어야 한다는 문제 제기에서 시작되었다. 근대문학사에서 모더니즘이 서구문화의 이식에 불과한 퇴폐론 이라거나 카프의 내용 위주 리얼리즘에 대한 반동의 소산-결국 이식문화론의 연장-이라는 결론에 그치지 않고, 문학사적 맥락을 통해, 서구에서 모더니즘이 오랫동안 생성되어온 사유체계로 구조의 급진적 변동을 야기하듯, 문학(지식, 지성) 권력 투쟁 양상의 ‘깊게 구조화된 변동(에피스테메)’일 수 있다고 상상했다. 통사적으로 문학의 ‘자발적 힘’에 의한 지식의 재생산 혹은 지식구조의 변동 원리(문학사상적 전환)를 통해, 고전문학사와 현대문학사의 연속성을 구축하려는 시고(試考)이다. 사실 ‘박태원과 그 시대 모더니즘 작가’들의 역사적 행보는 매우 중요한 자산이다. 긍정적 혹은 부정적 해석 여부를 떠나, 그들의 내적 변동에 관한 다각적 구명은 오히려 한국문학사의 자생력-문학의 자발적 시대구분을 위한 힘-을 입증할 수 있는 기반으로서 충분히 의미가 있다는 것이다. 본고의 가설이, 1930년대 모더니즘은 내부적 저항성의 강화, 서구 현대성의 기반인 ‘계몽주의’를 ‘이용’하여 새로운 세계로 나아가려는 지식인-특히 작가-해방 운동의 일환이라는 논의로까지 확대되어, 근대문학사의 모더니티가 결코 완전한 ‘이식’-수동적 타자성, 열등한 민족성으로 고정시키는-의 역사가 아니었다는, 문학의 본질적 저항 정신-내재적 발전론의 확언일 수도 있을 자생적 틀로서, 문학이 사회를 결정하는-을 한층 드러내길 바란다. 나아가 향후의 담론적 전환, 그 역사적 구조 변동-빛을 잃어가는 창작을 대신할 그 무엇-에 추진력이 생기길 기대하였다. It’s hardly possible to escape from the confronting relations between ‘realism and modernism or contents and formats’ in understanding the modern literary history of Korea. In South Korea, modernism demon- strates some discontinuous perception that it has implemented the moder- nity of literature with a new technique escaping from modern realism. But things are different in North Korea, where the focus is placed on political matters rather than modernity, realism is worshiped as socialist realism, and modernism is under attack being regarded as bourgeois real- ism. In other words, they are confronting and showing hostile attitudes towards modernism as the degenerative product of South Korea in the continuity of literary lineage. No matter the differences, however, they share a common feature that they are adopting a stationary analysis ten- dency staying in the dichotomous field of separation. Thus this study attempted to put modernism in the movement of ‘the resistant attribute of literature’ that is absolutely inevitable as a typewriter during the Japanese rule, pursuing the dynamic interpretations of literary history. It also hy- pothesized that the subjects of the kinetic execution(paradigm) from real- ism to modernism would be the changes to the criticism and creation hegemony and the transition(episteme). The repetitions and reproductions of the old interpretations about modernism in the history of Korean liter- ature derived from the act of voicing the need for tying a knot and creating a new opportunity. In the history of modern literature, modernism didn’t remain at the conclusion that it’s nothing but a degenerative theory from the western culture or that it’s mere a product of reaction to the content-oriented realism by KAPF(in the end, it’s an extension of the transplantation culture theory). It rather caused radical changes to the structure via the thinking systems that have been created for long in the western world in the context of literary history. Such facts were reflected in the imagination that modernism could be ‘deep, structured changes (episteme)’ to the power struggle patterns of literature(knowledge or in- tellect). From a syntactic perspective, the imagination is a trial thinking to establish continuity between the old and modern literary history through the reproduction of knowledge by the ‘voluntary power’ of literature or the changing principles of knowledge structure(conversion of literary ide- ology). As a matter of fact, the historical steps that ‘Park Tae-won and his contemporary modernism writers’ took make very precious assets. It doesn’t matter their interpretations were positive or negative. Their multi- lateral investigations into the internal changes have enough significance as the foundation to prove the autogenous power of Korea’s literary his- tory(or the power to divide the voluntary periods of literature). It’s also hoped that the hypothesis would be expanded to discuss that modernism in the 1930s was part of the movement to liberate those intellectuals(or writers) trying to enter a new world by ‘using’ the ‘Enlightenment’ that worked to reinforce the internal resistance and paved the way to western modernity. It will be able to demonstrate that modernity in the modern literary history was not a history of complete ‘transplantation’(fixing the Koreans onto passive alterity and inferior character as a people) but re- flected the essential spirit of resistance of literature(literature can decide a society as an autogenous frameworks to confirm the intrinsic development theory). The results will hopefully offer some driving force to the dis- course conversion and the changes to its historical structure(something to replace the fading creations).

식민지 근대성을 통해 본 한국 모더니즘에 대한 비교 연구: 모더니즘 변형에 대한 문학사적 접근

최성우 ( Seong Woo Choi ) 한국비교문학회 2015 比較文學 Vol.0 No.65

본 연구는 1930년대 식민지 상황에서 태어난 한국 모더니즘의 특징들을 호미 바바의 탈식민주의 이론을 빌려 다루고자 한다. 한국의 근대 문학을 알고자 하는 독자들, 특히 영어권 독자들을 위해 한국 모더니즘을 유럽 모더니즘들, 그리고 이들을 한국에 전달하는 중간 역할을 했던 일본의 모더니즘과 비교하는 방법은 유용하고 적합할 것이다. 원래 모더니즘은 19세기 말, 20세기 초 유럽에서 태동한 예술운동을 의미하며 여러 모더니즘들의 공통된 특징은 반전통주의라 볼 수 있다. 이 반전통주의를 기반으로 한 유럽 모더니즘들과 일본 모더니즘에 영향을 받아 한국 모더니즘도 자신만의 반전통적이고 새로운 독특한 문학을 만들어 냈는데 이는 식민지라는 그들과 다른 역사적 문화적 배경이 큰 영향을 준 것이라 볼 수 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 한국 모더니즘 문학을 제대로 알고 즐기기 위해서는 식민지 한국이라는 역사적 문화적 배경의 이해가 우선해야 함을 강조한다. 모더니즘 연구뿐 아니라 한국 문학 연구를 위해 탈식민주의적 접근법은 큰 역할을 담당할 것이며 본 연구가 이에 작은 기여를 할 수 있기를 바란다. Influenced by the ideas of postcolonialist Homi Bhabha, this study attempts to show the features of Korean modernism based on colonial modernity, to the readers, particularly to the English-speaking readers, who want to understand Korean modern literature. For this, it will be relevant and useful to compare Korean modernism with other European and Japanese ones. Modernism is an aesthetic movement rooted in the changes in European society in the late 19th and early 20th century. Its most remarkable common feature is anti-traditionalism. Based on the influences of European and Japanese modernisms, Korean modernists formed their own unique style which is pervaded by the features of Korean modernism. Thus, this study emphasizes the role and importance of historical and cultural background to understand Korean modernism which began in colonial Korea in the 1930s. Ultimately, the study aims to contribute to the improvement of how to approach Korean literary studies with post-colonialism that will unveil the unique features of Korean modernism.

논문 : 1920~30년대 한중(韓中) 현대시의 "모더니즘" 수용 양상 비교

이경하 중국어문학회 2010 中國語文學誌 Vol.33 No.-

Modernism has been formed as an opposition against Rationalism in the end of 19th century and a existing tradition and conventionality through the history of Western civilization that is the birthplace. However, Modernism in both countries took on a special aspect with a combination of the general aspect of the western literary and her own aspect and has been accepted by the unique cultural environment of Korea and China only over a decade, while the most trends of western literature that had formed and developed for many centuries. Modernism in the world of poetry of both countries could not but have an aspect different from western Modernism due to refraction that it has to be undergone by the main agent through the process of the acceptance. In Korea, Modernism has a refracted form in accordance with the characteristic of Japanese culture because most intellectuals in Korea didn`t accept it directly, but they did it when they studied in Japan as the children the middle class in colony. For example, `Anglo-American Modernism` is called `intellectualism` which means philosophy in Korea due to the japanese effect. However, in china, they showed a different aspect from Korea because a lot of students went to Europe and U.S.A. to study and they experienced their trend of literature directly. It minimized the refraction of the trend of western literature. On the other hand, Modernism leaned toward Symbolism but were indifferent to Futuristic relatively in the world of poetry of China because contemporary writers in China had a distance from their mental mechanism against Futuristic literature that denied traditional art and thought throughly that human being had made. The point that we have to investigate and reveal the truth carefully is we shouldn`t have to be based on and judge the western Modernism because Modernism of the both countries has a different cultural environment from the western one. Modernism has developed with a clear classification, Anglo-American Modernism and European Modernism in western, but there is no border in Korea and China. The contemporary poets in Korea and China had developed and produced their own Korean and Chinese Modernism that are mixed their wandering, disillusionment, and ideal under the gloomy political reality and western Modernism, symbolism, and traditional philosophy and literature. In other words, Modernism in the world of poetry of Korea and China does not correspond with the western one, but they have their own characteristic through the process of acceptance in their ways.

1920년대 한국 모더니즘 시의 전개양상 연구

권경아(Kwon Kyung-a) 어문연구학회 2015 어문연구 Vol.85 No.-

모더니즘 시의 전개 양상을 살펴보며 1920년대의 모더니즘 미학이 어떠한 양상으로 드러나는지 고찰하였다. 이장희, 정지용, 임화의 시들에 대해 구체적인 텍스트 분석을 통해 특징들을 찾아내고 이 특징들이 그들의 시적 인식, 근대성과 어떻게 관련되어 있는 지를 종합적으로 검토하였다. 본 연구는 1920년대의 한국 모더니즘 시를 대상으로 근대성이 어떻게 인식되고 있으며 이들의 시가 1920 년대라는 한국 사회에 나타나는 근대의 모순과 위기 상황을 어떻게 미적으로 대응하고 있는지를 살펴보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 본 연구에서는 역사 철학적 근대성 또는 자본주의적 근대성이라는 긍정적 측면과 이러 한 근대성에 대해 저항하는 부정적 측면에서의 근대성을 포괄하는 양면적 근대성의 개념을 기반으로 1920 년대 시에 나타나는 근대성의 인식을 고찰하였다. 1920년대의 시에 대한 연구는 주로 개별 작품들의 형식이나 기법을 연구하는 차원에서 단편적으로 이루 어지고 있다. 이러한 연구는 개별 시인의 시세계를 분석하거나 각각의 작품들 분석에 치중하고 있어 1920년 대 모더니즘 시의 종합적 고찰이나 연구라 하기 어렵다. 한국 모더니즘의 전개 양상을 종합적으로 살펴보기 위해서는 이러한 다양한 형식이나 기법들이 어떠한 배경에서 나타나게 되었는지가 조명되어야 할 것이다. 1920년대 시들의 다양한 기법과 형식 실험은 당대의 근대성 인식과 관련이 있다고 할 수 있다. 1920년대 모더니즘 시는 전통적인 시형식에 대한 저항의 의미를 지니고 있다. 이러한 미학적 저항들은 새로운 시에 대한 열망으로 이어지며 다양한 시적 실험으로 나타난다. 이장희의 감각의 객관성이나 정지용의 이미지즘, 그리고 임화의 형식 실험 등은 동시대의 미학을 혁신하는 미적 근대성의 인식에서 비롯된 미학적 저항이라 할 수 있다. This study attempted to figure out the pattern of modernist aesthetics during the 1920s. In addition, the development patterns of the poems of modernism in the 1920s were investigated through the poems written by Lee Jang-hui, Chung Ji-yong, Im Hwa, which reveal the characteristics of modernism in the 1920s very well. Furthermore, the characteristics of these poems were examined through analysis on specific texts, and how they were related with the poets’ poetic recognition and modernity was analyzed. The purpose of this study is to figure out how the modernity is recognized against Korean modernist poems in the 1920s and how these poems aesthetically responded to the paradox and crisis of modernity which were found in the Korean society in the 1920s. Furthermore, it examined the perception of modernity in the poems during the 1920s based on the concept of ‘modernity with double views’ which covers modernity in both positive (historical/philosophical modernity or capitalist modernity) and negative (resistance against this kind of modernity) aspects. A study on the poems in the 1920s has been mostly conducted in a formal or technical aspect. However, it is not reasonable to say that this kind of study is a general study on modernist poems in the 1920s. To figure out the development pattern of Korean modernism from a comprehensive perspective, how and under what background these diverse forms and techniques have been expressed should be illuminated. It appears that a test on the diverse forms and techniques of poems in the 1920s is related with the perception of contemporary modernity. The modernist poems in the 1920s were diverse aesthetic resistances targeted to open up a new era by overcoming the extreme and tragic situations such as national liberation and war. These aesthetic resistances were an artistic approach to aesthetic modernity for the innovation of contemporary aesthetics. In addition, they were significant in that they revealed social resistance against reality in an aesthetic mode.

해방기 모더니즘 시의 ‘도시’와 ‘시민정신’ 분석 - 『새로운 도시와 시민들의 합창』을 중심으로 -

이봉례 순천대학교 남도문화연구소 2010 南道文化硏究 Vol.0 No.18

1940s is the time when there were many historically important events occurring like the “Japanese Occupation” and “Nation‘s Dividing Time.” As social and political conflict intensified, these aspects began to show up in the poetry. In the 1930s, as a result of the inflow trend of the western literature and it sparked the modernism movement. Then in the 1940s, through experiencing a variety of experiments and challenging courses, it began to settle down. Then the 1950s, it brings much development and it can be considered to be the dilator period of modernism. 1940s is the span of time that is the most important period of the flow of literature. Additionally, 1940s is a period of time which holds a unique spirit of the times of “liberation period” in literature works. In this manuscript, the meaning of “city” and “citizen” in liberation period modernism is analyzed centered on an anthology poetry book titled 『The New City and Chorus of Citizens』. 『The New City and Chorus of Citizens』(1948) was the second work of group of poets of 「Sinsiron」 With the purpose of revival of the new modernism movement, the group of poets gathered and 5 poets produced pieces of works well exposing the spirit of times. They claimed discrimination against the past times and they started a new modernism movement. An ideal about modernism movement is shown directly through the title of their book. The “city” is a place where the essence of modernism shows well. While overcoming difficulties in reality and creating a new era, the “citizens” live in a city and become the owner of the “city”. And the “citizens” overcome the reality and try a “Dionysus” type of combination through the “chorus”. This is what the group of poets intend in modernism through 「Sinsiron」 Kim, Kyungryn, Im, Hogwon, Park, Inhwan, Kim, Suyoung, Yang, Byungshik, and others were the nuclear members of the modernism poet movement and through individual characteristics expression, they pointed out the ills of the western civilization and stressed on the fact that with citizenship, they must create a new bright future. 『The New City and Chorus of Citizens』wasn‘t affected by the ideology of the era of the chaotic political situation and showed their will of the modernism poetry movement of the poets. And in the 30s and the 50s, it can be considered to play the role of a bridge that links the Korean modernism. Furthermore, until today, when industrialization and urbanization have been completed, it has been the foundation of modern poetry history.

신모더니즘론 이후의 동아시아 모더니즘 연구 : 모더니즘의 역사화와 지역성 이념

최현희(Choe, Hyonhui) 구보학회 2021 구보학보 Vol.- No.29

1990년대 이후 영미 문학비평에서는 모더니즘과 글로벌 모더니티의 관계를 쌍방향적 개입 관계로 보는 신모더니즘론적 경향이 나타난다. 이 글은 그러한 경향에서 나온 동아시아 모더니즘에 대한 연구들을 개략적으로 살펴보고 이를 바탕으로 하여 현단계의 한국 모더니즘 연구를 갱신할 수 있는 방법론을 모색하고자 한다. 전통적 모더니즘론에서 모더니즘 예술은 그 환경으로부터 자율성을 본질로 한다고 상정된다. 그러나 신모더니즘론은 그러한 초월성을 견지한다면, 모더니즘의 근본 강령이라 할 ‘새로움의 추구’에 역행하는 것은 아닌가 하는 의문을 던진다. 모더니즘을 근대성의 세계로부터 분리하여 이해하려는 방식은 결국 모더니즘의 ‘새로움’을 박제하여 모더니즘의 삶을 보존하는 게 아니라 결국 죽이고 있지 않은가? 이에 이어지는 질문으로는 다음과 같은 것이 있다. 또 모더니즘과 모더니티의 분리된 이해는 미학적 자율성이라는 모더니즘의 핵심 이념에 모더니즘을 대상으로 하는 해석자 스스로 무반성적으로 걸려든 결과가 아닐까? 이 글에서 검토한 연구들은 모두 미학적 자율성, 실험성, 난해성을 핵심 가치로 하는 작품들로 구성되어 있는 모더니즘을 글로벌 혹은 그 모더니즘이 생산된 지역의 모더니티와의 긴밀한 연동 가운데 분석하고 평가하는 경향을 띤다. 그 분석에서 모더니즘 연구는 미학적인 것과 정치사회적인 것 사이에 그어진 경계선을 넘나들면서 미학성에 침윤되어온 기존의 모더니즘론을 갱신하는 한편 모더니즘과 모더니티의 관계를 역동적으로 볼 수 있는 틀을 제시하고 있다. 이러한 사례를 검토함으로써 모더니즘과 모더니티 연구의 분할 상태에 있는 현단계 한국 내 모더니즘 연구에 대한 문제 제기가 좀더 구체화될 수 있기를 기대한다. Modernist studies in Anglophone literary criticism since the 1990s took a theoretical turn called the New Modernist Studies. The trend posited interactive relation between aesthetic modernism and global modernity. This paper examines some of recent achievements from East Asian modernist studies from Anglophone academia in the trend. By surveying one of the major trends in modernist studies, this paper suggests Korean modernist studies to focus on the sociopolitical contexts of modernist aesthetics. Traditional studies on aesthetic modernism tended to assume modernist artwork’s autonomy from its sociopolitical environment. New modernist studies raised a question that such insistence on artistic autonomy ironically resulted in ignorance in the modernism’s foremost dogma of “the pursuit of the new.” Once the artistic newness is detached from the reality of our lives and fixated at the point of the detachment, it is no more new. The defense of modernism’s autonomy from social reality protects artistic realm from outside forces, but the protection is in reality rendering art dissociated from its environment. New modernist studies on East Asian modernisms examine modernisms as in modernist practices intervening in the producing and maintaining process of the global modernity and local modernities. They attempt to blur the borderline between the aesthetic and the sociopolitical and thereby to situate aesthetic modernism within its dynamic relationship with modernity in general. The lesson from the studies in this trend is that Korean modernist studies to have more acute sense of the interaction between modernism and modernity.

한국 모더니즘 시의 전통 인식 양상

이혜원(Lee, Hye-won) 고려대학교 한국학연구소 2014 한국학연구 Vol.50 No.-

본고에서는 한국 모더니즘 시에 나타나는 전통에 대한 인식을 통해 한국적 모더니즘의 구체적인 양상을 살펴본다. 모더니즘의 대립 개념이라고 할 수 있는 전통에 대한 반응을 검토하여 모더니즘이 당대의 현실과 어떻게 충돌, 또는 조응하며 한국문학에 내재화되었는지를 추적할 수 있다. 본고에서는 한국 모더니즘 시를 대표하는 시인들이자 전통에 대한 예리한 자각을 보여주는 이상과 김수영의 시를 대상으로 1930년대와 1950-60년대 모더니즘 시에 나타나는 전통에 대한 인식의 변화를 살펴본다. 이상이 활동했던 1930년대는 서구 모더니즘이 수용된 지 얼마 되지 않은 데다 식민지의 특수성으로 인해 모더니즘의 외양을 모방하기에 급급했던 시기이다. 이상의 시는 현실과 유리된 미적 자율성의 극한을 추구하며 서구 모더니즘을 흉내 내는 데 그쳤던 식민지 모더니즘의 한계를 보여준다. 김수영은 1950년대 전후 모더니스트로서 출발하며 현실에 대한 투철한 인식에 기반을 둔 모더니즘을 추구한다. 그는 소외된 기층민중의 역사를 살아있는 전통으로 재발견하고 거기에서 후진국의 모더니티가 존립할 수 있는 생명력을 찾아낸다. 두 시인은 모두 당대의 선구적인 모더니스트들이었지만 시대적 차이로 의해 전통에 대해 인식하는 데 있어 뚜렷한 차별성을 보인다. 이상은 자신이 추구하는 모더니티에 끊임없이 침투하는 전통을 의식하면서 착종된 모더니즘에 봉착할 수밖에 없는 식민지 현실에 대한 뚜렷한 자각을 드러낸다. 김수영에게 전통은 파기해야할 과거의 시간이 아니라 자기 혁신과 새로운 발견의 가능성을 가져오는 카이로스적 시간이다. 모더니즘과 전통에 대한 두 시인의 인식 차이는 그들의 미학적 특성과도 밀접하게 관련된다. 이상은 모더니티의 극단적 표현으로 수학이나 과학적 용어와 같은 인공어를 과감하게 사용하여 미적 자율성을 극대화한다. 이상의 인공적인 언어에 비해 김수영은 일상어와 거침없는 구어체로 현실에 밀착된 시를 쓴다. 일상어의 질감과 역동성을 새로운 미학적 차원으로 끌어들인 그의 시에서 전통의 재발견은 미적 모더니티의 새로운 동력으로 작용하고 있다. In this paper, I studied on the specific aspects of Korean modernism through the awareness of tradition appeared in Korean modernism poetry. Yi Sang and Kim Soo-young were not only representative poets of Korean modernism but also showed keen self-awareness about tradition, so I looked deep into aspects of awareness about tradition of the 1930s’ and 1950-60s’ modernism poetry by their poems. Yi Sang was active in 1930s when most of Korean poets were busy imitating Western modernism because of the uniqueness of the colony. His poetry showed the limits of colonial modernism that pursued the ultimate aesthetic autonomy and imitated western modernism. Kim Soo-Young came forward as a postwar modernist of 1950s, and pursued modernism which based on clear perception of reality. He rediscovered the history of the people as a living tradition, and rooted out the vital power in it. Both of the poets were the leading modernist of their age, but showed the clear differentiation in their awareness of tradition. Yi Sang was conscious of tradition that constantly permeated into modernity, and revealed clear awareness of the reality of the colony that could not help meeting the self-contradictory modernism. Kim Soo-young realized the fact that tradition is not merely past time, but time of Kairos that brings possibility of selfreform and new discovery. The difference between the two poets about modernism and awareness of tradition were also closely related their aesthetic properties. Yi Sang expressed extreme modernity by the artificial language, such as mathematic or scientific terms, and drastically maximized the aesthetic autonomy. Unlike Yi Sang, Kim Soo-young wrote poetry closer to reality with everyday language and inexorable spoken language. In his poetry, everyday language was inspired new aesthetic dimension, also rediscovery of tradition was militating as a new power of aesthetic modernity.

한국미술에 있어서 ‘모더니즘’의 의미와 특징

정무정(Chung, Moojeong) 한국근현대미술사학회 2011 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.22 No.-

In the discourses of Korean art history, the concept of modernism has tended to be used in an equivocal way. This ambiguous usage may cause a confusion in discussions of Korean art history. This paper aims to explore the characteristics of modernism in Korean art by distinguishing its different usages. According to Charles Harrison, who is professor of the history and theory of art at the Open University in England, the concept of modernism has been used in three different ways in Western art history. First, as the substantive form of the adjective ‘modern,’ modernism is used to refer to the distinguishing characteristics of Western culture from mid-nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth. The second sense of modernism refers to the modern tradition in high art and to the grounds on which a truly modern art may be distinguish not only from classical and conservative types of art but from the forms of popular and mass culture. Finally, the third sense of modernism stands not for the artistic tendency but for the usage itself and for a tendency in criticism which this usage is thought to typify. The first documented use of the term modernism in Korean art history can date as early as 1931, when the artist Kim Yongjoon argued that “we should not hastily disregard all the modern art movements as superfluous” in his review for the second exhibition of the Dongmi Association. As an argument against Hong Deuksoon’s criticism of its first exhibition, Kim’s review advocated the establishment of a true Chosun art. In this sense, Kim’s theory of native art can be considered both a part of modernity in Korean art and a characteristic of Korean ‘modernism’. Not only did the information about current artistic trends from the Japanese art community play an important role in forming the concept modernism in Korean art, but the interaction between artists and writers in the 1930s did too. Especially, members of the Guin Association came to understand modernity and got their literary inspirations through modern art. While expounding his theory of modernism, Kim Kirim, one of it members, proposed a solution to correct the literary tendency toward technicalism by criticizing modern civilization, whose parallel can also be found in Kim Bokjin’s theory of art. With the intervention of Japanese colonial policy, however, the balance between modern and proletariat art was broken and Korean modernism’s potential for criticizing modern civilization was also dissipated. The theory of modernism proposed by Lie Yll, who came out in favor of the so-called ‘Monochrome Painting’ in the middle of the 1970s, corresponds exactly to Clement Greenberg’s Modernist art. In ‘Monochrome Painting’, Lie Yll saw not only a complete command of medium but also a Korean outlook on nature. Thus, he regarded it as the most fruitful example for advanced Korean art. His view of ‘Monochrome Painting’, which was presented at length in his subsequent critical writing, formulated arguments for a compelling theory of Korean modernist painting. In this sense, his theory of ‘Monochrome Painting’ can be seen as a Korean version of Clement Greenberg’s modernist theory. Considering that he tried to differentiate his Modernism from Greenberg’s one by introducing east asian thoughts on nature, however, we can also find a characteristic of Korean Modernism in Lie’s theory.

Modernism and Post-Modernism Aesthetics in Seeing Things

Hong, Sung Sook 한국예이츠학회 2008 한국예이츠 저널 Vol.29 No.-

Modernism and post-modernism are two aspects of aesthetic modernity reflecting some of the spiritual crises of the western civilization as resistance against the scientific modernity. These two are similar or the same to each other in seeing the modern world as fragments and discontinuities with pessimistic tone, the reality as relativity, and the language as lack. By contrast, many differences between the two can be seen as well. For example, modernism reflects Elite's taste of high culture while postmodernism is impatient with Elite's taste of ideas. And also, modernism hands down humanism and enlightenment while postmodernism rejects the so-called humanism and enlightenment. More likely than not, however, the foremost difference will be that modernism has the spirit of betterment by a kind of stoic attitude through self-criticism hoping for the birth of the hero who searches for the spiritual father, while postmodernism reflects a kind of Epicurism emphasizing 'seize the day' by accepting the commercial, technological and scientific values. It follows that modernism tries to expand freedom of more people through digging inner reality while postmodernism tries to expand equality of more people through de-constructing the concept of hierarchy of the western civilization. I think that Seamus Heaney's Seeing Things is characterized by the combination of modernism and post-modernism: his poetry contains the characteristics of modernism in respect that it continuously reflects the pursuit of tradition. At the same time, it includes post-modern aesthetics in respect that Squarings of Seeing Things transforms the concrete into the abstract by de-constructing some of the fixed meanings, from which readers can enjoy the entire freedom. My last conclusion is that Seamus Heaney's Seeing Things reflects not only his pursuit for the past tradition but also his desire to de-construct it. In brief, his poetry reflects some ambivalence: the search for the father and killing him, waiting for Godot and searching for light, freedom, equality and song.