근대성의 판타지아 — 1990년대 한국문학의 근대성 담론 —

황정아 한림대학교 한림과학원 2020 개념과 소통 Vol.0 No.25

The historic self-consciousness and self-narrative of the 1990s, which revolved around the sense of ‘break,’ owed much to the concept, or metaphor, of modernity. This paper examines the narrative and affective construction of modernity discourses in Korean Literature of the 1990s together with epistemic and socio-historical break which they prompted. The emergence of modernity discourses during the decade has largely been explained in terms of the response to the trend of postmodernism and the collapse of the socialist bloc, but absent any necessary link between these two developments and the focus on modernity, it seems that the discourses arose as a product of ideological choice. The trope of modernity, once established, enabled the discourses to sustain the idea of technological and industrial development underlying modernization and also to appropriate the postmodern critique of the modern, while effectively circumventing all attacks, both of modernization and of postmodernism. The discourses present a vastly augmented version of ‘modernity’ resembling a kind of perpetual motion machine, which attempts to rewrite and displace the prevailing narratives on how to go beyond the modern. Despite starting by declaring and lamenting the impossibility of revolution, the discourses mutate into allowing the possibility of modernity, which is then presumably capable of criticizing and even negating itself. Ultimately then, the impossibility thus repressed and turned into a possibility inevitably returns. In these discourses, modernity’s capacity for self-criticism and self-negation ultimately converge into aesthetic modernity, or literary modernism: howsoever thorough modernist criticisms may be, they merely amount to a specific self-referential performance of modernity. The ‘outside’ of modernity is something to be practiced, not just to be discovered, and the practice of overcoming modernity can only begin by accepting, once and for all, that it is impossible for modernity to truly negate itself. 이전 시기와의 ‘단절’을 중심으로 형성된 1990년대의 자의식에 자양분이 되어 주었고 또 그로부터 펼쳐진 서사에 뼈대가 되어 준 핵심 키워드 하나는 ‘근대성’이다. 이글은 1990년대 한국문학장에서 근대성을 적극적으로 내세운 담론들의 서사와 정동구조를 살피면서, 그 담론이 어떤 인식적ㆍ사회역사적 단절을 추동했는지 밝히고자한다. 이 시기 근대성 담론의 출현은 대개 포스트모더니즘이라는 담론적 압력과 사회주의 붕괴라는 현실적 압력으로 설명된다. 하지만 두 압력에 근대성으로 반응한 것은명백히 이데올로기적 선택인데 ‘근대성’은 포스트모더니즘의 근대비판을 일정하게수용하면서도 근대화에 연루된 진보와 발전의 이념을 지속시키기에 용이하며 동시에그 양자에 대한 비판을 피해 나가기에도 용이한 개념이었다. 근대성 담론은 무엇보다근대의 역량을 거의 무한동력에 가깝게 확대하고 그 경계를 거의 영속성에 가깝게확장하는 해석을 제시했으며, 이런 해석을 통해 근대 ‘너머’나 ‘이후’ 또는 ‘바깥’에관한 서사들의 다시쓰기를 수행했다. 구체적으로 근대성 담론은 근대성 너머로 가는일이 불가능하다고 주장하는 동시에 이 불가능의 서사를 근대성은 자기부정마저 가능하다는 서사로 전화시킨다. 이렇게 해서 혁명의 불가능성이 근대성 자체의 혁명성으로 대체되고 궁극적으로 망각된다. 하지만 가능성으로 대체된 불가능성이 어떤 흔적을 남기지 않을 수는 없다. 근대성의 내적 자기부정을 설명하는 기제는 미적 근대성으로 수렴되지만 미적 근대성이 아무리 철저히 근대를 비판하고 반성한들 그 행위는 결국 근대성의 자기반영에 지나지 않는다. 그토록 ‘창조적인’ 근대성에도 근본적인 자기비판과 부정은 불가능하다는 점을 인정할 때 근대성의 바깥은 비로소 구현되기 시작할 수 있다.

Against Aesthetic Modernity: A Combined Action between Pragmatism and Confucianism

( Peng Feng ) 성균관대학교 동아시아학술원 2003 Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies Vol.3 No.2

In competing with the aesthetic modernity, pragmatism usually appeals to Confucianism for supports. How is it possible? Aesthetic modernity is known for its claim for aesthetic autonomy, or art for art`s sake. In contrary, pragmatism and Confucianism oppose to the compartmentalization and elitism supposed by aesthetic modernity, instead, advocate connection and popularization. However, even there are a number of similarities between pragmatism and Confucianism, we cannot ignore the underlying differences between them. A semiotic analysis can manifest not only the difference between aesthetic modernity and pragmatism or Confucianism, but also the difference between pragmatism and Confucianism.

한국의 ‘미적 근대성’과 디자인- 새마을운동의 디자인사적 의미

최범 한국예술종합학교 한국예술연구소 2022 한국예술연구 Vol.- No.35

As modernity in Korea proceeded involuntarily due to external shocks, modernity in Korea also shows a very different aspect from modernity in the West. The Saemaul Undong is a material-oriented modernization that shows the characteristics of Korean modernization in a condensed way, and in many ways is the origin of the present Korea. This also served as an opportunity to determine Korea’s ‘aesthetic modernity’ and the character of design. This study critically analyzes how Korea’s ‘aesthetic modernity’ is molded through the Korean modernization movement called Saemaul Undong, and how it is revealed through design that forms the aesthetic dimension of everyday life. On the other hand, by pointing out that the state-led design promotion has emerged at the same time as the design of everyday life that Saemaul Undong was born, I try to depict the overall character of modern Korean design. Through this, I would like to present a new perspective on the history of Korean design. 한국의 근대가 외부의 충격에 의해 비자발적으로 시작된 만큼 한국의 근대성 역시 서구의 근대성과는 크게 다른 양상을 보인다. 그중에서도, 서구의 근대에서 볼 수 있는 것 같은 사회적 분화가 제대로 이루어지지 않은 까닭에 사회의 모든 영역이 경제로 환원되는 이른바 ‘환원근대’(김덕영) 현상은 한국 근대의 ‘미적 차원’을 이해하는 데도 결정적인 단서를 제공한다. 서구 근대의 경우에는 정치, 경제와 같이 계산적 합리성이 지배하는 현실 근대성 영역이 있는가 하면, 그와는 일정하게 독립된, 자율적 예술을 중심으로 하는 ‘미적 근대성’ 영역이 존재한다. 그러나 한국과 같은 ‘환원근대’ 상태에서는 독자적인 ‘미적 근대성’ 영역이 성립될 수 없다. 이러한 조건은 한국 근대의 미와 예술의 운명에 치명적인 작용을 한다. 이 연구는 새마을운동이라는 한국적 근대화 운동을 통해서 한국의 ‘미적 근대성’이 어떻게 주조되었고, 그것이 일상의 ‘미적 차원’을 형성하는 디자인을 통해서 어떻게 드러나는가를 비판적으로 분석한다. 그리하여 새마을운동이 한국 현대 디자인의 한 기원임을 예증하면서 한국 디자인사 연구의 한 방향을 제시한다.

미적 근대성과 언어

여태천(Tae-Chon Yeo) 어문연구학회 2007 어문연구 Vol.53 No.-

  This article looks around the language as historical condition which provided the modern subject in forming of modern literature. And this article recomposes the connection which is made a description of aesthetic modernity in literary history, or to record it again with language. The language as historical condition allows us to know the entity of aesthetic modernity. Actually, our modern literature limitations are apparent. Nevertheless we don’t have to overlook literary men’s efforts with the language in 1910’s ~1920’s. Especially we have to look at aesthetic modernity in a field of language. This article searches how a language which expressed emotions and represented an idea is transformed into a purity language which took aim at itself. Aesthetic modernity and the modern subject are realized in text-contents of 1920’s poem and other works. But from a linguistic point of view, a form of presentation is not actualized to the autonomous state. Aesthetic modernity is absolutely not a question of ideal-literature. It is a question of language which relates with the attitude of the subject. In the end, when we will have an understanding mother language as not a everyday language but a literary language, we could discussed the unification of the written and spoken language or aesthetic modernity.

김수영 시에 나타난 도시의 시간과 공간 인식

권경아(Kwon Kyung-A) 한양대학교 수행인문학연구소 2005 수행인문학 Vol.35 No.-

If modern literature is a kind of product of cities, to examine the relationship between cities and literature is one of the basic tasks in researching modern literature. Cities are in the indispensable relationship with the forms of artistic expression. To respond and adapt to shocking experience of cities is the very form of artistic expression. Su-Young Kim responds to this experience of modern cities with new sensitivity. By overcoming contradictory modernity, he shows his cognition of new modernity, that is, aesthetic modernity. As for him, cities are expressed as the time of speed, which is linked with modernity. However, in his poetry, modern life that is symbolized as speed is not always refused. By overcoming contradictory modernity, not by simply criticizing civilization, he shows his intention to establish new modernity. This intention is revealed as new modernity, that is, aesthetic modernity, in understanding urban space. Aesthetic modernity that is revealed through recognition of urban space is expressed as recognizing emptiness of the realities through facing up to the realities. Contingency, temporary nature and emptiness of urban space are contemporary phenomena found in modern cities, that is, contemporaneity. Su-Young Kim gives a meaning to emptiness by recognizing that emptiness of urban space is the very feature of the present and showing it as it is. It is to give eternal nature to contingency and temporary nature, which is a characteristic of aesthetic modernity.

미적 근대성의 해방적 가치와 새로운 타자성의 의미 - 서정주 『질마재 신화』를 중심으로

김용희 상허학회 2006 상허학보 Vol.17 No.-

이 논문은 한국 전통 서정성이 담고 있는 '미적 자율성'이라는 딜레마 속에서 심미적 서정이 오히려 해방적 전복적 가치를 구현할 수 있다는 점을 서정주 시를 통해 살펴보고자 한다. 서정주의『질마재 신화』는 한국 전통 서정이 갖는 미학적 자율성의 해방적 의미와 동양주의의 '타자성'이 갖는 새로운 의미를 드러내는 분명하고 뚜렷한 지점이 될 수 있다.『귀촉도』,『서정주시선』, 신라초』에서 보여주던 '신라주의'의 주관통합의 세계가『질마재 신화』에 와서 민간전승적 집단기억 속에서 모순과 대립의 역설적 통합을 시도한다. 이는 근대적 미의식의 방법론적 전개라 할 수 있다.『질마재 신화』에서 나타나는 미적 근대성의 해방적 가치는 세 가지 국면에서 살필 수 있다. 이야기 체의 흥과 음성주의, 그로테스크한 미학적 변칙들, 그리고 탈근대적 의미에서의 마술적 사실주의를 미학적 실체로 드러내고 있다. 이와 같은 특질들은 한국 문학사에서 시적 전통과 매우 구분되는 독특한 지점이다. 1930년대 고전에 대한 숭배와 상고취미를 환기해보자. 1930년대 정지용, 1950년대 조지훈, 등한국 전통서정은 철저하게 유가적 전통에 기반하고 있다는 것을 전제할 수 있다. 이에 반해 서정주의 전통시는 민간의 중요한 의식적 토대로서 역사적으로 기층불교와 도교적 문화에 깊숙하게 관여하고 있다. 이와 같은 이유로 인해 서정주의시는 상층 지배 이데올로기였던 유교와 달리 반권위적이고 다원적인 문화가치를 추구할 수 있었던 것이다. 이야기 체의 '흥'과 음성주의가 갖는 민주주의적 집단성, 그리고 현실에서 소외되고 결점된 것들에서 신성성을 찾아가는 작업은 근대에서의 '타자성'의 복원을 시도하는 방법론적 전개라 할 수 있다. 서정주의〈질마재 신화〉는 그런 점에서 근대적 제도성을 벗어나는 탈근대적 해방감과 동시에 미적 근대성의 전복적 의미 전개를 보여준다. 이로 인해 서정주 시는 한국전통 서정이 갖는 주객관 통합의 시학, 혹은 '동잎성 시학'이 갖는 배타적 현실인식의 한계를 벗어날 수 있었다. This paper endeavors to examine the fact that aesthetic lyricism can actually embody liberating and subversive values within the dilemma of 'aesthetic independence' within Korea's traditional lyricism through the poetry of Suh Jungjoo. Suh Jungjoo's "Jilmaje Mythology" may be a clear and definite point that reveals the liberating meaning of aesthetic independence in Korea's traditional lyrics and a new meaning of 'otherness' in Orientalism. The world of subjective integration of 'Shilla-ism' revealed in "Gwichokdo", "Suh Jungjoo's Poems", and "Shillacho" is attempting a paradoxical integration of contradiction and conflict within collective folkloric memory in "Jilmaje Mythology". This may be considered a methodological development of modern aesthetic consciousness. The liberating value of aesthetic modernity found in "Jilmaje Mythology" may be examined in three aspects. It reveals the excitement and phonetics of storytelling, grotesque aesthetic anomalies, and the true aesthetic identity of magical realism in the ex-modernistic sense. Such are the features that distinguish it from the poetic tradition of Korean literature. Let's think back to the adoration of the classics in the 1930s and hobbies of antiquity. As in the case of Jung Jiyong of the 1930s and Cho Jihoon of the 1950s, Korea's traditional lyrics are thoroughly based on Confucianist traditions. On the other hand, historically, Suh Jungjoo's traditional poetry has been deeply involved in foundational Buddhism and Taoist culture as key ceremonial bases of civilians. For such reasons, Suh Jungjoo's poetry was able to pursue diverse and anti-authoritarian cultural values unlike Confucianism, which was an dominating ideology of the upper class. The democratic collectiveness inherent in storytelling 'excitement' and phonetics, and the search for sacredness in those that are excluded and lacking in reality may be considered a methodological development attempting to restore 'otherness' in modernity. From that point of view, Sub Jungjoo's〈The Myth of Jilmaje〉shows the ex-modernistic liberation from modern institutions while a subversive development of the meaning of aesthetic modernity is shown. For this reason, Suh Jungjoo's poetry is able to move beyond the limits of exclusive reality awareness inherent in the poetry of subjective/objective integration or 'poetry of sameness' inherent in Korean traditional lyrics.

이태준 소설에 나타난 노인의 근대 수용 양상 연구

김개영(Kim Gae-young) 동남어문학회 2017 동남어문논집 Vol.1 No.43

이 연구에서는 이태준의 단편 소설에 나타난 노인 인물형을 통해 1930년대 근대 수용의 특징을 살폈다. 모험과 성장, 팽창의 속성을 가진 근대는 그치지 않는 열정을 간직한, 영원한 ‘젊음’의 이미지로 상상된다. 노인은이러한 근대와 대척점에 서 있는 존재로 항시 소외의 문제와 맞닥뜨린다. 더구나 전통적 삶에 익숙한 식민지 시대 노인에게 근대는 폭력 그 자체로 작용 할 여지가 크다. 그러나 1930년대 파행적 근대가 진행되고 있는 상황에서도노인은 근대의 수용에 있어 다양한 포지션을 갖는다. 이태준의 단편 소설에는이러한 노인의 근대 수용양상이 잘 그려져 있다. 본고에서는 그 양상을 ‘적극적 수용’과 ‘소극적 수용’ 두 가지로 나눴다. 전자는 두 가지로 인물형으로 나눌 수 있는데, ‘지사형 인물’과 ‘속물형 인물’이 그것이다. 지사형은 근대의 가치를 민족의 독립과 발전의 원동력으로 삼는 인물로 젊은이의 귀감이 되며,속물형은 근대의 가치를 자신의 현실적 욕망과 결부시키려는 인물로 비윤리적인 존재로 전락한다. 근대적 요소를 소극적으로 수용하는 노인 또한 두 가지 종류로 나눌 수 있는데, ‘자기 긍정형 인물’과 ‘자기 부정형 인물’이 그것이다. 전자는 근대적 가치의 부정성을 깨달고 전통적 삶이나 인정에 바탕 한 공동체 사회에 더 큰 애정을 가지는 인물형이다. 후자는 전통과 그 가치에 대해애정을 가지고 있지만, 전통적 가치를 포섭한 새로운 근대(미적 근대)의 출현으로 인해 소외를 느끼는 인물형이다. 이러한 네 가지 노인 인물형은 자발적이든 비자발적이든 모두 근대로부터 소외되어 있다는 것이 특징적이다 This study examined characteristics of the adoption of modernity in the 1930s through the elderly characters found in Tae-Joon Lee s short stories. Modernity, with the attributes of adventure, growth, and expansion, conveys the idea of persistent passion and eternal youth. However, the elderly stay in the line between traditional and modern world, and always face the problem of alienation. For the old people who are accustomed to the traditional life in Korea, colonial modernity can be a violent force for them. In the midst of the fractured modernity during the 1930s, the elderly held different positions in reacting to modernity. Lee s short stories depicted the process of modernity from the images of elderly during the colonial times. In this paper, we will discuss the different reactions toward colonial modernity and categorize them into two behaviors: one is called active acceptance and the other one is called passive acceptance . The elderly who actively accept modern changes can be divided into two character types: patriot type and materialistic type . The former considers the value of modernity as the driving force for building and developing an independent motherland. Unlike the patriot type which is praised by the young, the latter is viewed as an unethical type which attempts to associate the value of modernity with his/her personal needs. The elderly who passively accept modern changes can be divided into two types as well: one is called self-affirming type and the other is called self-deprecating type . The former is a character type that recognizes the negative side of modernity, and has a greater affection for the community built on traditional values or relationships. The latter also has the affection for the tradition and its values. Nevertheless, this character type maintains a sense of alienation in the emerging modern world (aesthetic modern world). These four elderly character types discussed above, either they are intentional or not, experience a social isolation in the modern world.

한국 소설의 근대성 실현에 관한 연구 : 근대성 담론과 연구사를 중심으로

임환모 현대문학이론학회 2004 現代文學理論硏究 Vol.0 No.23

By researching a discourse and a study of modernity, this study intends to stand out that what is a frame of modernity to spread over phenomenon in global and how a frame of modernity is embodied to connect in a Korean particularity. It should be to show a direction of study on the Korean Modern Fiction. The result of this study is following; 1) The Modernity is an effort that a human being is to realize productive rationality. The positive aspect of productive rationality is the bourgeoisie's social-historical modernity, the negative aspect is an aesthetic modernity. 2) The origin of Korean Modern Fiction had been searched in period from the new-style fiction, Sinsosuhi written in 'the time of flowering' to the Mujung, the work written by Lee, Kwang-su in 1917. The narrative discourse in this time was not a subordinate genre of literature as art but a writing of a rhetorical dimension. 3) In Fiction, the productive rationality was regularized from the Inhyungjojongsul written by Kim, dong-in in 1919, and had been realized to the Gamja a(1925). 4) The aesthetic modernity that was characterized by self-deconstructed planning mainly had been gotten accomplished by writers of the "Guinhwi" , the literary group in the middle of 1930s. 5) While the research of the origin and a rational modernity in the Korean Modern Fiction have made a through investigation of the modernity as contemporary or regime, the formation of autonomous identity etc, the research of aesthetic modernity have made a object of study that was experiences of the writer and reader about modernity, the subject's confronted aspect, a contravention and deviation, a inner form and nan-ative layer in fiction. 6) As the necessity about a study among departments enlarged, the study of modernity got activation. It is available that have been to examine the nature of Korean Modern Fiction through negotiating between a internal and external modernity, but, is criticized that simplifies only one frame. Drawing deduction from the result of this study, the study on Korean Modern Fiction have an important matter that brings light on how to have some connection with a convention, modern and post-modern that mixed in a social situation and an aspect of complicated discourse.

자유의 시학과 미적 현대성

이광호(Lee Kwang-Ho) 한국시학회 2005 한국시학연구 Vol.- No.12

Kim Su-Young and Kim Choon-Soo were the key contributors in the establishment of the theory of modern Korean poetry. The two poets had a negative stance on the traditional form and value of Korean poetry. In or-der for the modern Korean poetry to achieve an authentic modernity, they infused their whole selves in the two aspects; creativity and theory. In addition, they have asserted the theory of achieving aesthetic 'freedom' in the writing of modern poetry. Their theory was significant in the sense that they have pursued to maximize the poetic freedom in the modern poetry. The key words and creative methodology presented by these two poets which are the principal factors of the modern poetry, still play a pivotal role in the Korean modern poetry. However, the specific direction of these two poets on modern aesthetics was different. While Kim Su-Young's poetry centered on modernity and freedom, Kim Choon-Soo's poetry deeply searched for the poetry language and image. Although the concept of 'meaningless poet' was first introduced by Kim Choon-Soo, Kim Su-Young likewise attained a considerable under-standing on the functions of language and issues of the 'meaningless poetry'. Therefore, the theory of Kim Su-Young and Kim Choon-Soo sur-rounding the concept of 'meaningless' could be the chain to explain the relativity and distinction between the two theories of poetry. This study examines the 'meaningless' poetics by comparing the poetries of Kim Su-Young and Kim Choon-Soo; the mainstreams of the theory of poetry in the 1960-70s. This research analyzes the function and the effect of poetic language in the poetry of these two poets and furthermore examines how these theories are reflected in their overall poetries. The study also reveals the specific aesthetic methodology of 'poetic freedom' used in the poetics of these two poets. In conclusion, the research identifies which theories of these two poets contributed to the establishment of the modern Korean poetry and how they have touched the 'esthetic modernity' in the modern Korean literature. The research found that the two poets have at-tempted the freedom of poetics through different aesthetic methodology and have highly contributed to the consciousness of the esthetic modernity in the Korean poetry.

탈근대 담론의 '차이의 선'에 대한 계보학적·윤리적 연구 : 크리스토프 멘케의 미학적 담론을 중심으로

김동규(Kim Dong-Gyu) 사회와 철학 연구회 2012 사회와 철학 Vol.0 No.23

이 글의 목적은 탈근대 담론의 전제가 되고 있는 '차이의 선'의 의미와 타당성을 비판적으로 고찰하는 데 있다. 이 글은 특히 '차이의 선'의 확립 과정이 미학의 성립 과정과 연동되어 있다는 테제에 초점을 맞출 것이다. 이 작업을 통해서 탈근대담론의 계보학적 뿌리는 물론이거니와 근대 이래로 부단히 지속되어 온 '철학의 미학화' 과정의 의미와 '미학의 (윤리/정치) 철학적 의미'를 새로운 반성적 지평에서 조망할 것이다. 마지막으로 우리는 차이의 선을 산출하는 원천이 결국 (이성적 주체만이 아닌 감성적 인간의) '자유'임을 밝힐 것이다. 추가적으로 '차이의 선'의 한계는 바로 '자유' 개념의 '서양적 한계'에 있다고 주장할 것이다. 근대에 이르러 감각적인 것(미학적인 것)은 더 이상 거짓과 오류의 원천이 아니라, '또 다른 선'으로 등장한다. 미학적인 것은 규정할 수 없는 어두운 힘이지만 실천적 주체를 변형시키는 위력으로 이해된다. 미학은 이런 위력이 현상하는 장소로 출발한다. 이런 점에서 미학은 근대의 산물이다. 그리고 근대의 미학화의 과정은 선의 분화 과정, '선의 차이화' 과정으로 명명될 수 있다. 그러나 '선의 차이'는 한 순간 '차이의 선'으로 전도된다. '선의 차이'를 '차이의 선'으로 전복시킨 사람이 바로 니체다. 선의 차이화로 말미암아 더 이상 통일적인 '선'을 말할 수 없게 될 때, 차이의 생성은 일단 조건 없이 긍정될 수밖에 없다. 차이는 "선악의 저편"에서 실천적 주체를 변형시키는 미학적 힘이기 때문이다. 이런 전복적인 변화의 핵심부에는 인간에 대한 상이한 존재이해가 놓여있다. 즉 근대에 인간이 '이성적 주체'로 이해 되었다면, 탈근대적 인간은 '미학적 존재'로 이해된다. 이런 계보학적 탐구를 통해서 볼 때, 탈근대 담론은 이성적 자유만이 아닌 감각의 자유, 미학적 자유를 추구하는 담론이며 그런 담론이기에 '차이의 선'을 핵심 모토로 삼을 수 있었다. 하지만 '차이의 선' 역시 서구적 자유개념의 연장선상에 있다. 결국 '차이의 선'은 외관상 타자성을 극대화시킨 것처럼 보이지만 실상 서양의 자기-중심-자유론, 그것의 최신 버전일 뿐이다. The aim of this investigation is to consider genealogically significances of the goodness of difference, which postmodernism has presupposed. The thesis, that I would like to focus on specially, is that the goodness of difference related to the birth of aesthetics. Through this study, I will analyze a philosophical sense of the autonomic aesthetics as well as a meaning of the inevitable aestheticization of philosophy in postmodernism. Finally I hold that the deepest ground of the goodness of difference is the human's freedom which belongs to the aesthetic being as well as to the reasonal subject. In addition, I will suggest that the limit of the goodness of difference is that of the occidental freedom concept. One didn't consider the sensible(aesthetic/aisthesis) thing as the other goodness until modern times. Instead it had been regarded as the source of the fallacy and mistake. In the modern age, aesthetic things are understood as the power that can transform practical subject, in despite of their undefined dark force. Aesthetics starts as the place where this force emerges. And the process of the modern aestheticization can be named as the process of the differentiation of the goodness. But the process of the differentiation of the goodness could not be recognized clearly from the beginning, because the aesthetic could not be recognized directly as the ethical/practical goodness. Therefore it was called as autonomy of the aesthetic. In postmodernism, the difference of goodness has been transformed dramatically. In a moment, the difference of goodness was reversed as the goodness of difference. Man expected the unified goodness, i.e supreme goodness, but this turned out to be hopeless after Hegel's philosophy. Nietzsche is the first philosopher who reversed the difference of goodness. After the independence of aesthetics, aesthetic things became not only the other goodness, but man also manifested the sovereignty of the aesthetic. The history of aesthetics is the process of differentiation of the practical goodness, and at the same time the process of establishing of the goodness of difference. While human being was understood as a rational subject in modern, it is understood as a aesthetic being in post-modern. But both of them presuppose the freedom, which is the necessary condition of the rational and aesthetic being as well. Postmodernism requests us not only the rational freedom but also the aesthetic freedom. Therefore the goodness of difference is in fact the latest version of the occidental self-centric freedom, although it seems to be not.