1930년대 윤규섭 비평의 다혈질적 원칙주의 연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the latter half of 1930s, all the critic of Yoon Kyu-Sup is related to non-majority. Yoon Kyu-Sup prescribed his critical core as a living practice about the majority people as a confronting point of view. He also made progress in political practice while criticizing the principle of the central theory. What he re-illuminated journalism as their own training camp regarding readers as political, cultural subjects is a result of non-majority people's consciousness that are going to distinguish themselves clearly with the preexistent writers. The epistemology of Yoon Kyu-Sup is composed of these two. While fixing literature to social ethics as a 'ought to be', what sharpens its blade of the majority critic is epistemology. That is the most strong non-majority discussion which is disregarding literature. Emphasis on practical living without literature, readers and journalism as a political culture, and epistemology as a ethical critic, all these contents reveal themselves to be hot-tempered aspects of social critici which are far away with literature.
In that point, the critic captured in his critic clearly has been made and used at the outside of literature after all. The reason why Yoon Kyu-Sup's utterance of the day had not taken fame depends on drawing the critic at the outside of literature too excessively. Since his critic has not caused in its inner logic, it had not shown literary alternatives and causes, that is why he couldn't avoid to carry out ethical critic.
Despite of this limit, literary critic of Yoon Kyu-Sup doesn't have less meaning to it. To insist on correct recognition takes more healthy nature than any polished literary logic in the present circumstances which literature weighed down by the political situation. Even though epistemology of Yoon Kyu-Sup inclines too heavily toward dogma deviated from the literature, his critic doesn‘t come into being meaningless, as such. Creative methodology based on aesthetic epistemology disregarded the real situation of the Joseon Dynasty period and at the same time it made an offer a moment moved on deviation from a view of the world. At this point, we rather can see a theoretical crudeness as purity in that it has not the theory of betrayal. Although a hot-tempered fundamentalism of Yoon Kyu-Sup seems rather to be imprudent, his critic speaks for itself. Because he was a non-majority people, he doesn't fear later troubles. So, he asserts himself without hesitation.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김영민, "한국문학비평논쟁사" 한길사 459-499, 1992

2 김혜니, "한국근현대 비평문학사연구" 월인 158-159, 2003

3 민병덕, "한국근대문학비평에서의 독자론에 관한 연구" 충남대학교 문리대학 국어국문학과 6 : 286-289, 1990

4 김윤식, "한국근대문예비평사연구" 일지사 391-437, 1976

5 박영균, "철학의 실천 실천의 철학" 1 : 129-, 2003

6 이현식, "일제 파시즘체제하의 한국 근대문학비평" 소명출판 70-281, 2006

7 최명표, "인식의 비평과 비평의 인식" (여름) : 36-53, 2006

8 최명표, "인식론적 비평과 문학" 새미 1-301, 2003

9 김종철, "인문적 상상력의 효용 In: 외국문학" 봄 113-, 1987

10 역사신문편찬위원회, "역사신문" 사계절 103-107, 2003

11 김선희, "비판, 파르헤지아 그리고 아이러니" 17 : 242-245, 2007

12 전영선, "북한의 민족문학이론가·문학평론가 윤세평" 192-201, 2000

13 니체, "반시대적 고찰" 책세상 271-, 2005

14 신재기, "문학과 생활 실천의 통일 In: 한국근대문학비평가론" 월인 248-279, 1999

15 오하근, "김환태의 인상비평과 윤규섭의 경향비평" 57 : 381-396, 2006

16 윤지관, "근대사회의 교양과 비평" 창작과비평사 97-129, 1995

17 임경석, "국내 공산주의운동의 전개과정과 그 전술(1937～1945년) In: 한국역사연구회 1930년대 연구반, 『일제하 사회주의운동사』" 한길사 218-, 1991

18 오태영, "‘향토’의 창안과 조선문학의 탈지방성" 한국근대문학회 (14) : 229-259, 2006

19 신재기, "1930년대 한국문학비평에 적용된 ‘미적 반영론’ 연구" 23 : 31-32, 2001

20 허 정, "1930년대 중후반 임화 시와 비평의 관계" 한국문학회 (45) : 337-363, 2007

21 남송우, "1930년대 전환기 비평의 해석학적 연구" 부산대 1990

22 전승주, "1930년대 순수문학의 한 양상" 356-358, 1996

23 고봉준, "1930년대 비평장(場)과 휴머니즘 - 김오성의 네오휴머니즘론을 중심으로" 한국문학이론과비평학회 12 (12): 485-510, 2008