“Conversation as Design”: A New Poetic Style of William Carlos Williams

심진호 한국영미어문학회 2009 영미어문학 Vol.- No.90

Williams, who has always been interested in paintings, created a new artistic composition method called “conversation as design.” It means an innovative poetic style which represents a dialogue that extends beyond the limited surface of the painter's canvas to the unconsciousness of the viewer by denying simply mimetic illusion. Significantly, he finds this artistic composition in the Cubist paintings of Juan Gris and applies it to his poetry. Both Williams and Gris have a common artistic direction. They try to represent a new artistic province in poetry and painting beyond conventional perspectives. Williams feels an obvious artistic affinity for Cubist painters, especially Gris, so much so that he regards Gris as his artistic alter ego. If Picasso and Braque were the great figures of Analytic Cubism, it is Gris who became a leading exponent of Cubism and in some ways even consummator of 'Synthetic Cubism' which is said to synthesize both the abstract and the concrete. Most importantly, Williams creates his own poetic style heavily affected by Synthetic Cubism of Gris. Lots of Williams' poetry and prose in his works show imaginative and sensitive explorations of the principle of the Synthetic Cubism of Gris. Ultimately, “conversation as design” is deeply submerged in Williams' poetic imagination. Based on it, Williams creates a new poetic style which is not abstraction but the thing itself as a palpable dimension of experience. Williams, who has always been interested in paintings, created a new artistic composition method called “conversation as design.” It means an innovative poetic style which represents a dialogue that extends beyond the limited surface of the painter's canvas to the unconsciousness of the viewer by denying simply mimetic illusion. Significantly, he finds this artistic composition in the Cubist paintings of Juan Gris and applies it to his poetry. Both Williams and Gris have a common artistic direction. They try to represent a new artistic province in poetry and painting beyond conventional perspectives. Williams feels an obvious artistic affinity for Cubist painters, especially Gris, so much so that he regards Gris as his artistic alter ego. If Picasso and Braque were the great figures of Analytic Cubism, it is Gris who became a leading exponent of Cubism and in some ways even consummator of 'Synthetic Cubism' which is said to synthesize both the abstract and the concrete. Most importantly, Williams creates his own poetic style heavily affected by Synthetic Cubism of Gris. Lots of Williams' poetry and prose in his works show imaginative and sensitive explorations of the principle of the Synthetic Cubism of Gris. Ultimately, “conversation as design” is deeply submerged in Williams' poetic imagination. Based on it, Williams creates a new poetic style which is not abstraction but the thing itself as a palpable dimension of experience.

The Machine Avant-garde in the Poetry of William Carlos Williams

심진호 한국영미어문학회 2010 영미어문학 Vol.- No.94

Throughout his entire works, Williams often shows his preoccupation with machine technology. He emphasizes that the poet in the machine age should be an “engineer” or “artisan,” as “a poem is a machine made of words” to integrate art and technology simultaneously. Significantly, the themes and images on machine technology in his work are always associated with the Avant-garde arts, especially, Precisionism. Through continuous relationship with Precisionist artists such as Charles Demuth and Charles Sheeler, Williams' interest in the ideas and achievements of machine aesthetics and indigenous American things are firmly constructed. Most importantly, Williams' machine aesthetics are indivisibly related to speed and movement. The notion of speed and movement in Williams works is so immense that it is almost impossible to analyze Williams' poetry without understanding it. In fact, almost all of the poems on machine technology clearly reveal the kinetic expressions such as “moving” and “running.” It is not surprising that his poetry visually implies the cinematic quality derived from the kinetic imagination. Thus, through wide-ranging experiments with the machine Avant-garde, Williams could create the new poetry which suggests the distinctively American poetics. Throughout his entire works, Williams often shows his preoccupation with machine technology. He emphasizes that the poet in the machine age should be an “engineer” or “artisan,” as “a poem is a machine made of words” to integrate art and technology simultaneously. Significantly, the themes and images on machine technology in his work are always associated with the Avant-garde arts, especially, Precisionism. Through continuous relationship with Precisionist artists such as Charles Demuth and Charles Sheeler, Williams' interest in the ideas and achievements of machine aesthetics and indigenous American things are firmly constructed. Most importantly, Williams' machine aesthetics are indivisibly related to speed and movement. The notion of speed and movement in Williams works is so immense that it is almost impossible to analyze Williams' poetry without understanding it. In fact, almost all of the poems on machine technology clearly reveal the kinetic expressions such as “moving” and “running.” It is not surprising that his poetry visually implies the cinematic quality derived from the kinetic imagination. Thus, through wide-ranging experiments with the machine Avant-garde, Williams could create the new poetry which suggests the distinctively American poetics.

숨겨진 핵심 : 윌리엄 칼로스 윌리엄즈의 라틴적 자아

심진호 새한영어영문학회 2007 새한영어영문학 Vol.49 No.1

In reading William Carlos Williams' poetry, it is necessary to understand his Latin roots which include Spanish heritage from Spain and Latin America. Recognizing his Latin blood from his family background, especially through his Puerto Rican mother Elena, Williams can discover and establish his self-identity. Through his entire life, Williams tries to reconcile his two antagonistic selves, Anglo Bill and Latin Carlos. Mingling Anglo Bill and Latin Carlos, Williams can construct his own self-identity and American identity beyond narrow-minded Puritanism and "Puritan lineage", that is, the tradition of orthodox English literature. Williams believes that the cultural colonialism of America originates from Puritanical viewpoints which denies differences, diversities, and otherness, representing "south." Therefore, he always emphasizes the New World, America, to be anti-Puritan through his works. Above all, Carlos Williams' attachment and alliance with Latin self continuously make him explore Spanish language and literature. Williams can reconfirm his Latin self when he chases Spanish artist and writers such as Juan Gris, Luis de Go′ngora, Juan Ruiz, and Federico Garcia Lorca. Williams also strongly aspires the hybridized New World by exploring his Latin self. He regards the mingling New World's positive traits as "the best spirit of the New World." However, he refuses compulsive and indiscreet mingling strategies. Locating his Latin half as a spiritual center, Williams can construct the authentic literary and cultural identity of America.

레이프 번 윌리엄즈의 교회음악 - 음악적 신념과 기독교 교리와의 갈등을 중심으로 -

차수정 한국실천신학회 2011 신학과 실천 Vol.0 No.27

반적으로 레이프 번 윌리엄즈(1872-1958)의 교회음악을 논함에 있어 그의 종교성에 대한 논의는 심도 있게 다루어진 적이 없다. 그가 남긴 방대한 양의 교회음악 작품에 가리어 논제의 중요성이 희석되었거나 아예 핵심 논제로 여겨지지 않은 이유일 것이다. 그러나 위의 문제는 작곡가의 신학적 정체성과 작품 간의 유기적 관계에 대한 진지한 물음으로 과연 교회음악이란 무엇인가에 대한 담론의 시작이기도 하다. 번 윌리엄즈가 활동한 19세기 말에서 20세기 초에 이르는 시기는 불가지론과 무신론이 기독교 교리와 대립하고, 전통적 기독관과 진보적 사상이 혼재하며, 찰스 다윈의 진화론이 창조주의 창조성을 의구하게 하던 시기였다. 번 윌리엄즈 역시 영성과 교리적 확신을 추구하기 보다는 지성의 날카로움을 동경하였으며, 무신론과 불가지론을 표방하고 민족주의 음악 운동을 고수하는 가운데 범종교적인 세계관을 음악 속에 구현하고자 하였다. 따라서 상당수의 그의 교회음악 작품은 기독교적인 외형에도 불구하고 개인의 신앙적 회심에 기초한 것이 아니라 스스로 ‘음악적 시민권’이라 표현한 ‘영국적인 것’에 대한 음악적 신념에 기초한 것이었으며, 이는 곧 영국 전통의 연장선에서 이루어 졌다고 보는 것이 옳을 것이다. 특별히 번 윌리엄즈는 영국 민요와 17세기 튜터 왕조 시대의 교회음악을 작곡 소재로 차용하며 영국적 정서가 강조된 찬송가와 다양한 교회음악 작곡에 귀감이 되었다. 그러나 신학적 측면에서 조감하는 그의 일부 교회음악 작품은 교리에 적합하지 않다 사료되어 번 윌리엄즈의 교회음악을 사회 윤리적 교회음악 (socio-ethical church music)이라 명칭하고 순수 교회음악과의 구별을 시도하였다. 따라서 본고의 연구 핵심은 신학적인 비평에 의한 교리적 분석은 아니며 작곡가의 기독교적 이해와 예술성과의 관계, 즉 신학과 음악이 서로 상충 또는 동반의 관계에서 어떻게 조화와 갈등과 화해를 이루었는지에 대한 해석이며, 실제로 교회음악 정체성이 여러 면에서 희석되어 가고 있는 현시점에서 본고는 교회음악의 창작 과정과 실행에 대한 진지한 재고와 자성의 동기가 되고자 한다. Generally speaking, the research of Ralph Vaughan Williams'(1872-1958) religious identity has not been seriously debated for one of two reasons: his religious identity was overlooked for its lack of importance or disregarded because of the artistry found in the bulk of church music left by Vaughan Williams. This article aims to examine Vaughan Williams doctrine and determine the presence or absence of any conflict between Vaughan Williams and the church. Research is about his ideas and its relation to church music in order to propose the fundamental question of "What is church music?" In this study such as Vaughan Williams ideological background, religious concept, musical concept, church music, and biblical citations as well as biblical versifications are discussed. In the process of conducting the research, a new problem hold to be considered-whether or not a composer's religious concept and the work itself could conflict each other. Vaughan Williams' music philosophy and religious concept are divided and analyzed according to the following categories: blood ties, school ties, social ties, musical education, and social colleagues. As a result, the core of Vaughan Williams' idea are to show patriotism to England--thus his music is an expression of the combination or summary of English traditions and ethic community. Vaughan Williams' church music, as expected, originates from English folk songs and hymns, as well as 16th and 17th century church music traditions. Vaughan Williams' music priorities ethnicity over religion, and his personal religious beliefs over traditional Christian beliefs. In conclusion, his musical contributions ought to be titled "socio-ethical church music" or just "religious music."

The Use of Dionysus, Demeter and Kore Myths: William Carlos Williams’ Mythical Imagination

Jin Ho Shim(심진호) 한국영미어문학회 2007 영미어문학 Vol.- No.84

  The ancient Greek myths always stimulate William Carlos Williams" poetic imagination. Williams uses the themes and motifs of the Dionysus, Demeter and Kore myths in his poetry. Significantly, the myths Williams uses are closely related to the “female principle” which represents the liquid principle in things, regeneration and fertility.<BR>  Williams clearly recognizes the indivisible connection of the myths of Dionysus with Demeter and Kore. He states that his poetic imagination should pursue the Dionysian fluidity which offends Apollonian rigidity. Also, Williams" inspiring Kore and Demeter are the epitome of his female images, embodying all versions of his female principle. Throughout the Demeter/Kore myth, Williams has the vision of eternal return. Thus, in many poems including “The Wanderer” Williams shows the themes and motifs of loss and recovery, of immersion and regeneration, and of death and rebirth in endless cycle.<BR>  The myths of Dionysus, Demeter and Kore give rich evocation of the female principle which Williams always emphasizes. Employing the myths of Dionysus, Demeter and Kore as his poetic subject matter, Williams firmly believes he could overcome the chaotic reality that his era faces. Accordingly, the recurrent myths of Dionysus, Demeter and Kore in the poetry of Williams bring a vision of a New World to overcome the barren modern wasteland.

Images of “Social Upheaval” : William Carlos Williams’ Documentary Style

Shim, Jin-Ho(심진호) 새한영어영문학회 2013 새한영어영문학 Vol.55 No.4

The aftermath of the Depression in the 1930s brings about an enormous change in Williams’ prose and poetry. Heavily influenced by photography, Williams desires to visualize the atmosphere of “social upheaval” in his works. His commitment to Objectivism is also based on straight photography. In the Depression, Williams produced lots of short stories and poetry on the working-class and proletarian people, feeling empathy for them. In portraying them, he realizes the inadequacy of Objectivism due to its strict form, lack of emotion and impersonality. In this period, the poet attempts to combine his emotional and subjective “I” with his Objectivist vision so that he can create distinctly American poetry. Evans’s “documentary style” photography inspires Williams to construct a new poetics getting out of sheer Objectivism. In his laudatory review “Sermon With a Camera,” Williams penetrates the unique power of Evans’s photographs distinguished from his contemporary photographers. Significantly, Evans’s photographs are based on “contact” and “locality,” acting as the poet’s primary poetic principles. Moreover, the lyrical elements of his photographs are visually embodied as the “vulgarity of beauty” or “Beautiful Thing” in Williams’ poetry. The non-Objectivist vision of Williams’ short stories and poetry from the 1930s is well suited to Evans’s “documentary style” photography. The working-class and proletarian people standing against the extreme harsh realities of misery appear as the “Beautiful Thing” in Williams’ works. For Williams, the “Beautiful Thing” is quite the same as the “eloquent” and “fluent” images in poetry, which become the essence of “documentary style” poetics. Ultimately, Williams’ poetry including his epic Paterson since the 1930s should be understood as an extension of “documentary style” poetics.

The Poetry of Contact : William Carlos Williams’ Quest for American Mode of Verse

Hongki Kim 한국중앙영어영문학회 2012 영어영문학연구 Vol.54 No.2

William Carlos Williams’ concept of the “contact” is pivotal in understanding his work and poetical theories. What Williams means by contact functions as an important question putting into consideration the distinct historical and cultural identity of the period. For Symbolist poets the things of this world become symbols through which they strive to express abstract ideas above words. But for Williams Symbolist poetic tropes such as simile and metaphor stick to the associational or sentimental value and only blur the uniqueness and the individuality of things. He objects to the way that the trope of similarity deprives language of particularity and presence. Instead, Williams emphasizes the Precisionist and Objectivist language that does not describe or classify the meanings of words. Williams proposes that if there is to be artist’s own presence in his poetry, it must be impersonal and objective. And he compels his readers to focus on the vivid gestalt of “things” he presents in his poems. Williams’ poetical theory is not simply distinguishable from that of Symbolist poetry; but his Precisionist Objectivism serves as a stepping stone to his vision of both American identity and modernist culture. His awareness of American locality leads to his discovery that the American voice must be the foundation of American verse. For him a true American voice reflects “presence” and “particularity” that characterize the immediate cultural and historical ground on which the American stands. Williams’ poetry becomes a microcosm of his culture and society in which he captures and names an identifiable relation with the moment and place where he exists. Preferring to let the actual words that he finds in his immediate environment speak for themselves, Williams only shows by silently pointing in order to present the topography of his time. In Williams’ poetry every object has not simply its own locality but names the unique and particular historical context in which it is situated.

레이먼드 윌리엄스의 『열쇳말』과 개념사

송승철 ( Seung Cheol Song ) 한림과학원 2012 개념과 소통 Vol.0 No.10

Raymond Williams`s Keywords, first published in 1976 and revised in 1983, concerns the complex process of linguistic changes, and their present significance, as applied to the ``everyday`` and ``general`` terms required to discuss issues of culture and society. The reputation of the work, however, is remarkably different within the community of conceptual history and outside of it. Inside the world of conceptual history, Keywords has often been mentioned as a critical target: being spurned by Quentin Skinner, for example. Outside, it has had considerable influence, especially in the area of cultural studies and critical theories. This article intends to approach the ``dialogue`` between Skinner and Williams, by reading Williams`s Keywords according to his original intentions, as well as by placing the book within the context of his overall academic development. Skinner`s criticisms may be summed up in three points: (1) Williams fails to distinguish words and concepts; (2) Williams collapses three different linguistic dimensions - meaning, reference, and attitude - into the internal structure of meaning alone; (3) the fundamental source of his failure is his idea of language as reflection. Williams made no rejoinder to Skinner, except indirectly through his supporters. We also should admit that the approaches of Skinner and Williams agree more often than they disagree. It is true Williams suffers some confusions, by his neglecting to distinguish semantics from pragmatics. Nevertheless, his focus on the internal structure of words does not arise primarily from expressing the reflectional idea of language, nor from any lack of understanding of the interactions within the words concerned, but rather from the delay between the inception of Keywords and its actual publication, and especially from the author`s intention to provide “an extra edge of awareness” to working-class people. This article concludes that Williams`s methodology of focusing on the internal structure of words and their development may be, when carefully used, a valuable addition to the methodolgy of conceptual history. Moreover, Williams`s intention to make words ``problematic`` should be accepted as a useful way to shake up the current approach, which is inclined otherwise to become too specialized within academic boundaries. The most significant question about Keywords may then be seen as understanding the ways that Williams problematized keywords, and to what degree he succeeded in his intention.

제 3 부 한국인의 가치관과 인성교육 : “대모신(大母神)”으로서 엘레나 윌리엄즈-윌리엄 칼로스 윌리엄즈의 예술적 상상력의 원천

심진호 ( Jinho Shim ) 한국청소년효문화학회 2015 청소년과 효문화 Vol.25 No.-

Throughout his entire life, Williams has strongly been influenced by his mother Elena. Originally born from Puerto Rico, Elena is inscribed as a strong emotional connectedness and an aesthetic kinship beyond blood ties, mother and son, in the works of Williams. As he states that “Her interest in art became my interest in art.” Elena becomes the avatar of maternity in Williams`` imagination. While Elena and maternity function as the positive and creative driving forces, Williams`` father George and paternity are rarely dealt with or usually described as negative attributes. The intimate mother-son relationship in Williams’ poetry and prose is indivisibly related to Psychology and Psychoanalysis. As his statement that “She seemed an heroic figure, a poetic ideal” plainly manifests, Elena is invariably inscribed as an artist who stimulates poetic inspiration to Williams. As she arouses the strong aesthetic bond transcending the biological blood ties with his son, Elena accords with the concept of the “Great Mother,” a term representing a partial aspect of the Archetypal Feminine coined by Erich Neumann. In short, the image of the “Great Mother” presupposes a highly developed speculative consciousness that we all are related to the Mother. Due to Elena, Williams is able to have the circular and pluralistic vision breaking from the linear and dualistic perspective. Throughout Williams`` entire poetry and prose, Elena signifying as the “Great Mother” acts as an eternal muse who provokes the poet’s creative imagination.

『열쇳말』의 내적 구성원리와 신뢰성

송승철 ( Seungcheol Song ) 한림과학원 2021 개념과 소통 Vol.- No.27

레이먼드 윌리엄즈(Raymond Williams)의 『열쇳말』(Keywords)은 특정 분과학문에 속하는 전문용어가 아니라, 영국이 이차대전 후 복지국가를 지향하던 상황에서 당대의 핵심적 삶에 대한 사유와 경험을 기술할 때 필요한 “일반적 용어” 110 개를 선정하고, 각각의 용어에 담긴 의미의 다양성, 역사적 형성과정, 그리고 상호 관계를 추적한 저작이다. 그런데, 문화연구와 개념사, 그리고 지성사 분야에서 이 저작이 가진 위상과 신뢰성에 대한 평가가 너무 달라서 함께 붙여놓으면 마치 학계의 분열적 증상의 발현처럼 보인다. 필자의 판단하건데, 학계의 이와 같은 불일치의 가장 큰 이유는 윌리엄즈가 『열쇳말』에서 활용한 방법론에 대한 이해의 부족과 연관이 있다. 윌리엄즈 스스로 자신의 방법론을 ‘역사적 의미론’으로 명명했지만 방법론에 대해 구체적으로 밝힌 바가 없다. 그러나 『열쇳말』을 처음부터 끝까지 찬찬히 읽어보면 비록 모든 항목에 다 적용되는 것은 아니지만, 일정한 패턴에 따라 기술됨을 확인할 수 있다. 필자는 이 글에서 윌리엄스가 자신이 선택한 어휘가 지칭하는 의미들의 역사적 변화와 상호연관성을 추적하기 위해 사용한 방법과 이념을 ‘내적 원리’라는 이름 아래 다음과 같이 정리해보았다. 윌리엄즈의 ‘역사적 의미론’은 (1) 개념이나 담론 대신 단어를 중심으로 의미의 역사적 변화과정을 추구하는데, (2) 이때 대상을 “잠정적으로” 괄호치고, 단어의 내적 연관성에 주목하는 게 도움이 되고, (3) 의미변화의 추적 때 문학비평적 방법론의 활용과 단어의 물적 형태변화의 고찰이 중요하며 (4) 이런 변화과정은 의미의 일반화, 전문화, 추상화로 요약된다는 것이다. 윌리엄즈의 이러한 방법론은 언어의 살아있는 활력의 환기를 통해 언어의 전문화, 일반화, 추상화를 통해 작동하는 이데올로기에 대항하려는 그 자신의 비평의식의 산물이었다. 그런데, 이런 식의 서술방식은 독자―특히, 언어와 역사의 비환원적 결합 방식에 대한 요약적 지식을 원하는 개념사 전공자―의 입장에서 볼 때 여러 약점을 노정한다. “잠정적”이지만 현실에 괄호 치고 단어 자체를 살피는 방법론에 유보 없이 동의하기 어려울 것이고, 단어의 활력으로 이데올로기의 지배에 맞서려는 저자의 의도의 실효성에 동의하기도 쉽지 않을 터이다. 또한, 개념을 거부하고 전반적 사회조직과 지배적 관념이 서로 “녹아든”(in solution) “살아진 삶 전체”(a whole lived experience)에 대한 강조로 말미암아 명시적인 체계적 방법론의 개발을 회피하게 되는데, 이로 인해 저자의 방법론에 대한 일정한 사전 지식이 없을 때 논지의 맥락을 잡기가 쉽지 않다. 반면에, 윌리엄즈의 방법론은 장점도 적지 않다. 개념화되기 이전의 살아있는 언어적 활력을 중시하는 윌리엄즈 특유의 서술방식은 새로운 개념을 향한 사유를 촉발하고, 한 단어가 지칭하는 여러 개념들 간 차이를 보다 명확하게 하거나, 추상화된 근대적 개념에 담긴 의미의 미묘한 차이를 드러내는 장점도 가지고 있다. 마지막으로 “진보”를 대상으로 한 윌리엄즈의 용례와 코젤렉의 용례를 비교함으로써 두 사람의 유사성과 차이를 덧붙인다. Raymond Williams's Keywords, first published in 1976 and revised in 1983, is concerned with the complex processes of linguistic change and with the interrelations of about 110 ‘general’ terms which he judged necessary to describe the thoughts and experiences relevant to the British cultural and social issues of his era. Academic responses to this book vary enormously, however, depending upon the field of specialization, with scholars from cultural studies or conceptual history or intellectual history expressing widely discrepant evaluations in a kind of academic schizophrenia attack. In my view this discrepancy arises primarily from a pervasive misunderstanding of the peculiar methodology which William used in Keywords. He termed his approach “historical semantics”, but unfortunately did not describe its methods in any detail. If, however, we read Williams's description of his chosen words, carefully, starting at the beginning and continuing through to the end, it is evident that most (but not all) of the items are processed according to a certain pattern. In this paper I have tried to determine Williams's particular analytical approaches and also the underlying intentions ― that is, the inner constitutive principles he used to track the historical changes and the interrelations of meanings for his selected vocabulary. These principles can be enumerated as follows: (1) In his ‘historical semantics' Williams pursues the historical changes of meaning by focusing on ‘words’ rather than concepts or discourses. (2) He finds it helpful to focus on interconnections among the meanings within a word, putting its relations to social institutions and specific historical situations, “temporarily” to one side. (3) When tracing changes in meaning, Williams applies literary-critical methods, as well as delving into changes in the material form of the words themselves. (4) These changes can be summarized as the historical processes of generalization, specialization, and abstraction of meaning. The peculiar approach which Williams adopted in Keywords was a product of his critical consciousness, by means of which he was trying to counter the contemporary bourgeois ideologies. These ideologies operated through lengthy historical processes of specialization, generalization, and abstraction of language, in an attempt to foreclose the living vitality of language. Thus Williams adopted a narrative method which many readers find unsatisfactory, who are seeking instead a knowledge summary in the form of a non-reductive combination of language and history. Readers may also find it difficult to wholly agree with his examination of the selected words, which cuts them off, if only temporarily, from reality. And not everybody will accept as effective the author’s intention to confront the ruling ideologies with the vitality of everyday words. In fact, Williams's avoidance of an explicitly systematic methodology is related to his emphasis upon “a whole lived experience” in which general social processes and the dominant ideologies are “in solution.” Thus, without some prior knowledge of the author's methodology it is not easy to understand the context of his explications. On the other hand, Williams's method has provided and, even now, still provides many different illuminating insights. Williams's peculiar descriptive narrative, which emphasizes the vitality of living words over conceptualization, prompts us toward new opportunities for conceptualization. His approach also elucidates conceptual differences whenever the same word is used for some conflicting concepts. And finally, it reveals the subtle contradictory differences in meanings which are often contained, and are therefore hard to discern, within most abstract modern concepts.