안중식 행장

최열(Choi-youl) 인물미술사학회 2017 인물미술사학 Vol.- No.13

심전(心田) 안중식(安中植 1861-1919)은 20세기 예원의 종장(宗匠)이다. 숱한 제자를 길러낸 20세기 화단의 스승일뿐만 아니라 거의 모든 면에서 눈부신 성취를 거둔 당대 거장이었으며 사회활동 분야에서는 개화당에 가담하여 사회를 변화시켜 나가려는 혁명가로 활약하였고 화단활동에 뛰어들어 당대 미술가를 집결시켜 20세기 미술계를 형성해 나갔으며 창작활동 분야에서는 스승 오원(吾園) 장승업(張承業 1843-1897이후)의 고전형식주의(古典形式主義) 예술세계를 계승하여 20세기초 신고전(新古典) 세계를 개창함으로써 미술사를 새로운 단계로 이끌어 올리는 위대한 업적을 쌓았던 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 안중식에 관한 연구는 그 역사상 위치에 비해 소략하다. 더구나 사후 일백년도 지나지 않았는데 그 생애마저 불투명한 상황이다. 생애사는 작가연구의 토대를 이루는 분야인데 안중식 생애사의 미흡함은 그 동안 안중식 연구가 얼마나 소홀한가를 알려주는 증거이기도 하다. 안중식 생애사 연구에서 의미있는 몇가지 기록 이외에 연구자에 의한 최초의 생애연구는 1971년 장신영의 석사학위논문 <<심전 안중식의 연구>>이다. 뒤를 이은 연구는 1974년 이경성은 <조선조와 근대의 가교 심전 안중식>과 같은 해 김정의 <한국미의 발굴자 심전 안중식의 생애> 그리고 1978년 이구열의 <소림과 심전의 시대와 그들의 예술>가 있는데 이들 연구가 안중식 생애사의 대략을 보여주는 초기 연구라 하겠다. 1980년대는 안중식 연구가 풍성했던 때로 1980년 이단아의 《심전 안중식의 회화연구》, 1987년 조정육의 《심전 안중식의 작품세계》, 1989년 허영환의 〈전환기 한국화단의 기수〉, 1990년 이구열의 <심전 안중식: 전통의 계승, 근대 한국화의 개창〉이 꾸준히 출현했다. 그 뒤 한동안 잠잠했다가 세기가 바뀐 2000년 최열의 〈안중식 신고전의 세계〉를 통해 재평가를 꾀했던 것을 시작으로 생애사 연구의 진전을 꾀하여 2003년 박동수의 《심전 안중식 회화연구》가 등장했다. 1971년 장신영으로부터 2003년 박동수에 이르기까지 33년 동안 안중식 생애사 연구는 더디지만 상당한 진척을 이룩했다. 하지만 기초 자료의 부족으로 말미암아 아직도 미흡하기 그지 없고 또한 이미 알려진 생애사 가운데서도 모호한 내용이 상당하다. 따라서 이상의 모든 연구성과를 종합하고 그 토대 위에 몇가지 자료를 추가하여 생애를 재구성해야 할 필요가 발생하였다. 이러한 요청에 대한 응답이 바로 이 <안중식 행장>이다. Simjeon(心田) An Jung-sik (安中植 1861-1919) is the master of artistic and literary circles in the twentieth century. He was not only the scholar of painters in twentieth century, but also was a master who made remarkable achievement in all aspects: in social perspective, he was a revolutionist and joined Gaehwadang (Enlightenment Party of the Joseon) to change society, and in the art field, he assembled the artists of the era and formed art society of the twentieth century. Regarding the works, An succeed Owon Jang Seung-eop"s (張承業 1843-1897 after) classical-formalism, which An was able to establish Neoclassic world and led art history to the new level. Nevertheless, regarding An Jung-sik"s position in art history, examinations on An Jung-sik is pretty rough. Besides, less than a hundred year has passed after his death, but even his life research is in vague level. Life history research is the foundation of artist research, but the of An’s life history insufficiency obviously tells how indifferent the research is. Beside few meaningful records in An Jung-sik’s life history, the first academic writing of An"s life history is Jang Shin-young’s Master’s degree dissertation “A Study on Simjeon An Jung-sik” in 1971. The following researches are early studies that approximately approached the biography of An Jung-sik: Lee Kyung Sung’s "The Bridge of Joseon Dynasty and Modernism: Simjeon An Jung-sik", "An Excavator of Korean Beauty Simjeon An Jung-sik"s life" written by Kim Jeong at the same year, and " The Age of Sorim and Simjeon and Their Art" by Lee Gu-yeol in 1978. In the 1980s, the studies on An Jung-sik were abundantly made, and the following papers were composed: "Studies on Simjeon An Jung-sik"s Paintings" by Lee Dan-ah in 1980, Cho Jeong-yook"s "Simjeon An Jung-sik"s Art World", and Huh Young-hwan"s "Leader of Transition period in Korean Art" in 1989 and an essay by Lee Gu-yeol-‘Simjeon An Jung-sik: a Succession of the Tradition and the Origin of Korean Modern Paintings’. After a while, the papers on An were hardly found, but in 2000, Choi Youl stated "An Jungsik"s Neo-Classic World" and this triggered a revaluation. This led the big development in life history of An, which caused "Research on SimjeonAn Jung-sik"s Paintings" written by Park Dong-su in 2003. From the paper of Jang Shinyoung written in 1971 to that of Park Dongsu in 2003, the life history examination of An Jung-sik made a slow but significant progress. However, confronting lack of basic source causes insufficiencies and still An"s noted life history contains considerable number of ambiguous contexts. Thus, every examination results must be synthesized and with some references added, and the reconstruction of his life story is required. The response towards this request is the "Life history record after death of An Jung-sik".

안중식 연구사

최열(Choi Youl) 인물미술사학회 2016 인물미술사학 Vol.- No.12

심전(心田) 안중식(安中植 1861-1919)은 20세기 예원의 종장(宗匠)이다. 숱한 제자를 길러낸 20세기 화단의 스승일뿐만 아니라 거의 모든 면에서 눈부신 성취를 거둔 당대 거장이었으며 사회활동 분야에서는 개화당에 가담하여 사회를 변화시켜 나가려는 혁명가로 활약하였고 화단활동에 뛰어들어 당대 미술가를 집결시켜 20세기 미술계를 형성해 나갔으며 창작활동 분야에서는 스승 오원(吾園) 장승업(張承業 1843-1897이후)의 고전형식주의(古典形式主義) 예술세계를 계승하여 20세기초 신고전(新古典) 세계를 개창함으로써 미술사를 새로운 단계로 이끌어 올리는 위대한 업적을 쌓았던 것이다. 하지만 근대성을 서구성과 동일시하여 원근법, 명암법 및 사실성과 같은 서구 근대미술의 방법론을 근대미술의 척도로 설정하는 연구자들의 논리와 그 논리를 뒷받침하는 증거 사료로 저 기라성같은 제자들 가운데 미술 정치가의 길을 걸어간 고희동의 증언을 채택한 연구자들의 관점이 관철됨에 따라 안중식은 봉건성, 보수성에 찌든 수구파 미술인의 한 사람으로 폄훼당하고 말았다. 그런 가운데 1971년 장신영의 석사학위논문으로부터 시작한 생애와 예술에 대한 연구 이래 성과가 점차 풍부해지기 시작했다. 이때 장신영이 안중식에게 부여한 ‘봉건성’은 물론 ‘근대의 가교’ 및 ‘미술교육자’, ‘미술운동가’라는 표현은 이후 안중식의 미술사상 위치와 안중식의 정체를 설명하는데 가장 강력한 영향력을 행사하는 것이었다. 이것은 1959년 이경성이 "일대 분수령"이라고 했던 표현을 뛰어넘는 것이었다. 한걸음 더 나아간 것은 1972년 이경성이었다. 이경성은 안중식의 미술사상 위치를 ‘근대미술의 기점’으로 설정했다. 특히 이경성은 1974년의 논문에서 ‘근대미술의 순교자’인 안중식의 예술세계를 ‘민족운명의 전형’이라고 표현함으로써 그의 예술이 시대양식임을 암시했던 것이다. 이를 바탕삼아 1974년 《한국근대미술사전 편찬을 위한 조사연구》에서는 ‘한국 근대화가의 선각자’이며 ‘당시 동양화의 주류’라는 표현으로 안중식의 미술사상 위치를 표현했다. 특히 1977년 이경성은 근대 수묵채색화 작가를 시대별로 분류하는 이른바 세대 구분법을 제출하고 제 1 세대로 안중식과 조석진, 정학수, 김응원을 설정했다. 이들이 조선조와 교량으로써 ‘근대 동양화의 시발점’이라는 것이다. 이구열의 연구는 복합성을 지니는 것으로 ‘창조적 개성이 미흡한 보수적 수구파’라고 하면서도 ‘직업적 명가, 당대 제1급 화가’라고도 했다. 이러한 평가와 더불어 이단아, 조정육의 석사학위논문 그리고 허영환의 연구가 뒤를 이었다. 끝으로 최열은 ‘세기말 세기초 형식화 경향의 거장이며 그 형식주의 양식은 시대양식’이라고 했다. 지금껏 연구자들이 보수적 수구파라고 규정해 오던 것을 두고 오히려 ‘시대정신의 반영’이라고 한 것인데 여기서 말하는 시대정신이란 곧 ‘자기 정체성을 보수하는 고전성’이라고 보는 관점을 드러낸 것이다. 그러니까 여기서는 실경을 근대의 표상으로 보는 관점같은 것은 불필요한 것이라고 했다. 하지만 그 뒤 박동수는 또 다시 기존의 관점으로 회귀하여 과거의 평가를 반복하였다. 안중식 연구사를 돌이켜 보면 무엇보다도 그 작가가 활동하던 시대를 어떻게 볼 것인가 하는 관점의 문제가 그 작가를 평가하는 데 지극히 중요한 부분임을 알 수 있을 것이다. 안중식의 시대와 그 시대가 나아가야 할 시대의 목표를 서구 근대미술에 두는 관점이라면 안중식은 보수적 수구파로 규정 당하는 게 자연스럽지만 자기 정체성 보수를 목표로 삼아 고유성을 새로이 발현해야 한다는 관점이라면 안중식은 시대정신에 가장 충실한 고전, 신고전파 화가로 규정하는 게 당연스러워지는 것이기 때문이다.

1980년대 민중미술론의 기원과 형성

최열,Choi, Youl 한국미술이론학회 2009 미술이론과 현장 Vol.7 No.-

The theories of Korean Public Art originated by the artists who were against dictatorship and they associated with democratic politicians. They criticized the Fine art that were supported by the dictatorship and gave their efforts for restoration of 'resistance paintings(against dictatorship)', 'proletarian painting', 'realism painting'. In addition, they participated new social ideology(democracy) movement and demonstrated for their rights in arts. These became the main kernel the public art theory was initiated. The public artists splitted into several different parts and participated in the democratic social movement as well as the art movement for freedom. They opened various art exhibitions within different genre, diverse space for various art section such as an exhibition hall, a factories, a university, or a congregation square. Furthermore, the public art theorists published their divergent views through newspaper/broadcasting or unauthorized printed materials. Most of the public artist and the theorists kept their relationship strongly until 1985, the time when 'National Arts Association' started. In 1983 and 1984, they were clearly separated into two parts; artists(move only in art museums) and activists(move in public spaces like school, convention square etc). Their ideological separation also took out national problems. The division; professional artists and armatures, became the social issue as a social stratification matter. And in creating method, there are also other conflicts; critical realism, and public realism as well as western painting and traditional one. These kinds of separation and conflicts made different Public artists associations, under divergent names; 'Reality and Speak'(R&S), 'KwangJu Art Association', 'Durung', 'Dang(Land)', and 'Local Youth Students Association'. In addition, their ideology and pursuit toward art movements were very difference. However, the differences and conflicts weakened When the oppression of democratic education from new dictatorship(Pres. Jun, Doo Hwan) came out. In August. 1985 the government opened to the public so called, 'The draft of School stabilization law'(Hankwon Anjung Bup) to control the teachers' rights and that initiated bigger street demonstration and conflicts between police and educators. In November.1985, assembly meeting of National Arts Association in democracy opened as 'ONE' combined organization. In this presentation, I'd like to summarize the stream of art movement until 1984, and clarify the main art theories that lead the Public Art Movements in 1980s. The main theories in 1980s are crucial because they become the origin of public art theories. This presentation started with O,youn's "Hyunsil Dong In the first declaration" and explained the absent of practice in 1970s. In addition, Won, Dong Suk 's theory was mentioned as all over struggles in theories before 1980s. GA and R&S 's founding declarations in 1970s were the start of public art theorists' activities and this article reported the activities after the declarations. First, realism base on the consciousness of reality. Second, practice art democratization based on the ideology. Third, the subject of public art movement based on understanding people's social stratification structure. Fourth, the matters of national forms and creative ways in arts based on showing reality. Fifth, the strong points in arts that the practitioners accepted. About the public art theories around 1984, I discussed the dividing point of public art theories that were shown in 'generation theory', 'organization theory', and 'popularization theory' by the practitioners. The public realism theory that subjects the contradiction of reality and point out the limits of critical realism not only showing the new creative ways but also giving the feeling of solidarity to the public art activist groups. After that, public art movements expressed 'Dismentlement of Capitalism' and 'Public revolution'. In addition, the direct

근대미술사 서술의 관점과 그 기원

최열(Choi, Youl) 한국근현대미술사학회 2006 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.17 No.-

조희룡의 미술사학

최열(Choi, Youl) 인물미술사학회 2006 인물미술사학 Vol.- No.2

한국 근현대미술 기점에 관한 인식

최열(Choi Youl) 한국근현대미술사학회 2011 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.22 No.-

To ask a question and find out the answer about how the starting point of modern and contemporary Korean art is recognized by the academic experts on modern Korean art history, I am going to infer the researchers’cognizance by looking over many papers in the 21 editions of Korean modern art history journal and modern and contemporary Korean art history journals1) published from 1994 to 2010 and examining how they reflected the various points of viewing the history as having been severed, continued, exogenously shocked, or immanently developed to distinguish the time periods of Korean art history. Only the papers discussing the Korean art history prior to 1910 and after 1953 have been the objects of this writing. What was the criterion for defining the starting point of modern and contemporary Korean art history? Lee Kyung Seong stipulated it as ‘the evolution through negation and resistance based on spiritual and creative mind’ allegedly. Lee derived two standards from the West, as he wrote ‘one is modern Dadaism and the other one is contemporary Informel’ and ‘repetitive cycles of These and Anti-These is the art historical regime, which should be acknowledged as an aspect of development’. The researchers agree that 1910’s and 1950’s are the starting points of modern and contemporary Korean arts, respectively, because Korean artists began to use the Western painting materials and styles adopting Impressionism in 1910’s and adopted the Western Informel in 1950’s. Furthermore, they commonly and consistently define the starting points of modern and contemporary Korean arts by focusing on the facts that the ruling power was shifted in 1910’s as the Chosun Empire collapsed and was forfeited as a part of colony, and that the regime was changed in 1950’s as the country was separated into two governments, i.e., two political systems after the Korean War. Such view on the starting points of modern and contemporary Korean arts seems like reflecting the dynasty-based perspective of history. Although the researchers easily set the starting point of contemporary Korean art based on the previously stated facts, there has been a fierce contention of ‘skewed contemporary‘ because transplanting and accepting can be regarded as neither self-renewal nor revolution with legitimacy and inevitability. In the western region, the demeanors and methods like Impressionism, Dadaism, Informel set as convincing standards to classify each time period can be regarded as the process of evolving self-renewal. Nevertheless in the West, it may be a possible to establish such demeanors and methods like refer Impressionism, Dadaism, and Informel as convincing standards to classify each time period as parts of the process of transforming self-renewal. However, in the Non-western region, applying the Western standard will result in only biased classifications due to the dual-structure of coexisting flows of transplanted art history and traditional art history. Moreover, if the transplanted arts are placed at the center of art history only because it constitutes the mainstream, the traditional arts will be forced to degenerate into the periphery so that it becomes inevitable to describe the Western influences and the traditional methods, unevenly, as mainstreams and peripheries, respectively. Can any standard rule indeed be derived to distinguish each time period evenly for the two different styles of art coexisting in the same area and a time unit during the same period? Despite of the various research results discussed above, the difficult dual structure problem has not been properly dealt with. Neither has the problem of dualizing and ordering the time periods of modern and contemporary Korean art been resolved as pointed out by Kim Hyunsook2) and Mok Soohyun3) in their writing “Bicameral and ranking systems in Korean art history”. Thus, in the real situation where “nothing like reconciliation or harmonization has still been ma

망각 속의 여성 : 1910년대 기생출신 여성화가

최열(Choi Youl) 한국근현대미술사학회 2013 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.26 No.-

It was not easy to escape from ignorance on Gisaeng(妓生, 藝妓). It was mid 1990s that I have gained my knowledge on gisaeng for the first time. It was because ‘The History of Gisaeng(朝鮮解語花史)’by Yi Neung-hwa(李能和, 1869-1943) was translated into Korean. The book was first published in Hannamseorim in 1927, republished in 1968 and publicized from Dongmunsun in 1992. The book offered a chance to look at the realities of the history. However, the perspective on gisaeng, based on after the studying feminism simply was not the solution. The years passed, and from one day, I was able to see and observe the actual calligraphies of Ham Juk-seo and Oh Gui-sook but also that of Min Woon-cho, Won Geum-hong and Gang Ja-sook. Most of them are the ones who devoted their livesas gisaeng in Korea under Japanese rule, but still their lives are hardly known so that it is impossible to leave any specific comments on the artists and the work. Here, the research was held based on the previous studies as well as the works, literatures and records were also included but I have limited the period just for1910s, so that this can become the base of the studies later. The fact that gisaeng as an artist and an artist as a gisaeng is the history that cannot be denied and still there are some works that continued their lives, but the history of gisaeng artist was excluded in art history. After three gisaeng artists- Jukhyang, Jinhong, Somi were introduced in the Geunyeokseohwajing by Oh Se-chang in the line of art history, a few gisaeng artist started to be revealed their presence but still,it is very difficult to find works that come down through the generations, above all, gisaeng artist still do not have their position in among any professional researchers. So far, the giseang was regarded just as aliens who always exist as the object of the outside. In the past, they have gained attention but only as "models" of the paintings and of the photographs, and this remains the same today. The works of gisaeng artists here, of course, cannot be literati paintings, nor the creations of the royal painters: solely they were standardized as just simple amusementfull of techniques, the result of followings of imitations, so the formativeness, creativity and individuality were inevitable to be rejected. Even more, during whole time under Japanese rule, the culture of gisaeng was corrupted and the decorativeness of works of gisaeng artist was denied- which led their works to be considered as the ones that have no artistic and historic values. As aresult, they were excluded from acquisitions of collections at the institutions including art museums, as well as the main subject that needs to be explored, in history of art and culture: even, in general, they gained no interest at all, and were dismissed as pieces doodle with no value. However, gisaeng and giseang artists are the truth of history which had unique tradtion and identity in human culture and art community. The negative impression still remains, in contemporary society, where no social status and class, solemn sexual discrimination are broken, this of course, must be overwhelmed. This is reinstatement of gisaeng artist in history but in the opposite, this is also the process of breaking the notion of social class discrimination that still continued in art history today. For this, in the process of eliminating ideas of social class, status and sexual discrimination, respect towards gisaeng as the creator, and the inner values of the works of gisaeng must be explored.

문화학원의 조선인 학생

최열(Choi Youl) 인물미술사학회 2012 인물미술사학 Vol.- No.8

근대미술 기점 연구사

최열(Choi youl) 한국근현대미술사학회 2004 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.13 No.-

지역미술계 형성과 연구사

최열(Choi, youl) 인물미술사학회 2020 인물미술사학 Vol.- No.16

하나의 국가에서 지역미술은 커다란 가치가 있다. 미술문화의 다양성을 실현시키는 거점이기 때문이다. 미술은 지배계급에 의해 끊임없이 변화한다. 지배계급은 도시에 모여있기 때문에 미술의 발전도 도시 중심으로 일어난다. 지배계급의 미술은 조성형, 심미성이 최고 수준이다. 그러나 소수 지배계급의 취향에 따라 미술은 오히려 다양성을 상실했다. 뛰어난 미술가와 수요자가 집중되는 대도시는 최고 수준의 미술을 실현해 나갔다. 그러나 지방은 후퇴를 거듭해야 했다. 지역만의 독자한 생산과 유통, 소비 체제가 붕괴되었기 때문이다. 도시와 향촌의 차별이 심화되었으며 미술은 다른 길을 걸었다. 이 글의 목적은 최근 30년 동안 지역미술에 관한 연구 성과를 살펴 보는 것이다. 연구 방법은 첫째 지역미술의 형성 과정을 살펴보는 것이다. 둘째 지역미술을 대상으로 연구해 온 과정을 살펴 보는 것이다. 끝으로 지역미술연구소와 같은 기관 창설을 제안했다. In one country, local art is of great value. This is because it is a hub for realizing the diversity of art culture. Art is constantly changing by the ruling class. Because the ruling class is concentrated in the city, the development of art takes place around the city. The art of the ruling class is the highest in composition and aesthetics. However, depending on the tastes of the minority ruling class, art has lost its diversity. Large cities, where outstanding artists and consumers are concentrated, have realized the highest level of art. However, the provinces had to retreat. This is because the independent production, distribution, and consumption system of the region have collapsed. Discrimination between cities and hometowns intensified, and art took a different path. The purpose of this article is to examine the achievements of local art research in the last 30 years. The first method of research is to look at the formation process of local art. Second, we will look at the process of studying local art. Finally, he proposed the establishment of an institution such as a local art institute.