초기 한국 모더니즘 시사

정병필(Jung, Byung-pil) 전남대학교 한국어문학연구소 2014 전남대학교 한국어문학연구소 학술지 어문논총 Vol.- No.26

한국 시사에서 1930년대는 모더니즘 문학의 출발점으로 지목된다. 정지용, 김기림, 이상 등 현재까지도 한국 문학사에 우뚝 솟은 인물들이 모더니즘 문학에 주축으로 참여한 것만으로 당시 모더니즘의 위상은 대단했다. 그럼에도 1930년대 모더니즘은 서양의 문학 이론을 소개하는 수준을 벗어나지 못했다는 평가 속에 1950년대에 와서야 ‘후반기 동인’으로 그 명맥이 이어진다. 말 그대로 1940년대에 모더니즘은 단절의 역사를 드러낸다. 1940년대에 모더니즘 시가 창작되지 않았던 것도 아니며, 1930년대 모더니스트들이 계속 활동을 했음에도 1940년대의 모더니즘이 단절의 역사를 가지는 것은 1940년대는 초기의 일본의 출판 금지 정책과 해방 후 문학적 이데올로기의 대립, 그리고 단독 정부수립 과정에 있어서의 문학적 헤게모니적 주도권에 의해 모더니즘이 1930년대만큼 더 이상 시단을 이끌어가지 못했기 때문이다. 달리 말하면 1930년대 모더니즘이 도시 문화, 도시 풍경이라는 배경 속에서 이미지즘적 수사법과 언어적 실험의 한계를 보이고 말았으며, 1940년대에는 이러한 배경이 사라지자 더 이상 문단에 위치하지 못했다는 의미이다. 그러나 1940년대에도 1930년대 모더니즘의 연장선이 뚜렷이 드러난다. 이는 근대성(모더니티)이라는 지점에서 설명할 수 있다. 첫째 미적 근대성에서는 이미지즘적 수사법뿐만 아니라, 언어적 실험이 1940년까지도 지속적으로 보이고 있다는 점이다. 물론 이상처럼 형식적 파괴에 의한 실험은 1950년대 "후반기 동인"에 와서야 보이지만, 극단적인 감정이 휘몰아치던 1940년대의 분위기에서 감정을 차단하면서도 언어적으로 감정을 드러내는 모습은 일상생활과 괴리된 1930년대의 언어적 실험을 한 단계 성숙시키는 결과로도 볼 수 있다. 둘째 사회적 근대성(정치적 근대성)은 1930년대 말 김기림의 전체시론의 성격과 모더니스트들이 해방 후 좌익 계열의 문단에 참여한 것으로 볼 때 이행의 지점을 살필 수 있다. 다만, 이러한 이행은 연속적인 흐름이라기보다는 1940년대의 배경에 의한 변화의 모습으로 살필 필요가 있다. 전체시론에서 정치적인 참여가 실천적 행동을 강조하기 위한 하나의 부분이었다면, 해방 후 모더니스트들의 정치적 근대성은 이데올로기에 종속된 부분이 뚜렷함을 부인하기 어렵다. 1940년대를 모더니즘의 단절로 파악했을 때 1930년대의 모더니즘적 지향의 실패와 1950년대에 보이는 1930년대의 반복적인 문제의식은 1940년대의 모더니즘 시사의 구축으로 충분히 해결할 수 있는 지점이다. In the history of Korean poetry, the 1930s are seen as the beginning of modernism. Well known poets such as Jeong Jiyong, Kirim Kim and Lee Sang show how fierce the wave of modernism was at the time. Despite this, modernism of the 1930s are often seen as having just introduced western literary theory, while the true lines of modernist literature is evaluated to have taken off in the 1950s. The 1940s, as a result, is seen as a dark period where the tradition of modernism was not passed on. But this is not to say that modernist poems were not written during the 1940s. Although modernist poets of the 30s continued on their work in the 40s, the 40s is seen as a dark period because of the policies of the Japanese colonial rule that banned certain publications, opposition of various literary ideologies after liberation and the hegemony that ruled while a Korean government was being established. As a result, the poets of the 1930s were not able to take the lead in the subsequent decade. In other words, with urban culture and the city scape as its background, modernism of the 1930s showed a limit to its rhetoric and linguistic experiments. As such backgrounds faded in the 1940s, the poets of the 1930s were not able to find their proper place. However, even so, the extension of modernism can still be found in the 1940s. This can be explained from the point of view of what modernity means. First, aesthetic modernity not only showed through rhetoric focused on images, but also through linguistic experiments which continued into the 40s. Of course, as with Lee Sang, experiments through destruction of form only appear in earnest in the 1950s, but the refrain of emotions in the 1940s can still be seen as the result of matured linguistic experiments from the 30s. Second, social modernity (political modernity) can be traced back to the late 1930s when the overall tone of Kim Kirim’s theory on poetry and his participation in leftist literary groups took off. However, such a progression should be seen as events of changes that took place against the backdrop of the 1940s rather than a part of continuous process. If political participation was a way of emphasizing the importance of acting on one’s thoughts, the political modernity of modernists after liberation cannot be denied that it was part of the ideology. If 1940s are seen as an era where the tradition of modernism was cut off, it can still be interpreted as a time when modernist trends in poetry was established, evolving from the failures of the 1930s and contemplating on the many issues that were posed in the 30s, to progress towards the 1950s.

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.

모더니즘 이후의 모더니즘들: 신(新)모더니즘 연구의 가능성과 당면 과제

송정경(Song Jung-gyung) 한국외국어대학교 영미연구소 2017 영미연구 Vol.39 No.-

모더니즘 담론에서 일반적인 연구 대상은 20세기 초반에 유럽과 미국에서 나타난 실험적 문화 예술 운동이다. 그러나 현대화로 인한 변화를 모더니즘의 주요 원인으로 보는 만큼, 현대화가 일찍 진행된 서구 국가들과 달리 시기적으로 뒤늦게 등장한 국가들의 모더니즘은 연구에서 제외되거나 타자의 형태로 작품 속에 존재하였다. 이후 일부 모더니즘 작품에 나타나는 제국주의에 대한 연구가 활발해지고 서구 이외의 국가들의 현대화가 진행되는 가운데 20세기 후반부터 세계화로 인한 범세계적 연구가 가능해지면서 새로운 모더니티와 모더니즘 연구의 판이 짜지는 계기가 마련됐다. 새로운 모더니즘의 경향을 통합적으로 살펴 보는 데는 여러 난제가 있으나, 1999년에 설립된 ‘모더니즘연구 학회’가 이러한 방향을 설정하는 기준을 구축하는 노력을 하고 있는 중이다. 이 학회는 1994년 Modernism/Modernity라는 학술지 창간에 이어서 설립된 학술단체로, 시들해져 가던 모더니즘 연구를 부활시킨 계기를 마련했다. 서구 중심을 탈피한 모더니즘 연구는 아직 상대적으로 부족하지만, 이 학회에서 주요 행사 중 하나인 모더니 즘연구 학회 학술상의 최근 수상작은 주로 새로운 관념의 모더니즘들과 관련된 저서들이 강세를 이루었다. 2015년 수상작은 자넷 풀(Janet Poole)의 『미래가 사라진 때』로, 한국의 모더니즘에 관한 연구서이다. 외국 작가에 의한 일본 식민지 상황의 한국 모더니즘 작가 연구가 시사하는 바는, 이러한 새로운 모더니즘 연구가 비단 기존 모더니즘 연구의 지형도를 바꿀 뿐 아니라 한국 문학 연구의 판을 새로이 짜기도 한다는 사실이다. 새로운 모더니즘 연구로 인한 변화가 긍정적인지의 여부, 그리고 새로운 모더니즘이 공통된 특징을 명시 가능한 새로운 문예사조로서 기능하는지의 여부는 조금 더 시간이 지나야 알 수 있겠으나 서구 중심을 탈피하여 아직 ‘모던’이라고 불리는 시기에 세계 각국의 모더니즘을 발굴하고 재조명 한다는 데에서 유의미하다고 할 것이다. This paper aims to introduce the new modernist studies and investigate its significances and contradictions. In the 1990s, the genealogy of modernism and modernity reached an entirely new phase under the influence of globalization and postcolonial studies. Scholars began to expand the study of modernism and modernity in terms of space and time, modifying the scope of their research from a Western-centric modernism/modernity to that of other regions and periods. The new modernist studies enlarges the field without restricting its object to high culture, and thus achieved temporal and spatial diversity in its discourse. The movement was accelerated with the establishment of the Modernist Studies Association (MSA) in 1999 and the ensuing publication of its journal, Modernism/Modernity. However, such approaches have the potential to distort domestic scholarship, for which Janet Poole serves as a good example when she wrote When the Future Disappears: The Modernist Imagination in Late Colonial Korea (2014), awarded in the following year by MSA. For she is quite different from Korean scholars in terms of the object of study. The new modernist studies are still important as they build the foundation for the expansion and diversification of modernism, but their follow-up studies will also be significant.

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.

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.

미국의 법모더니즘

한상수 한국법철학회 2013 법철학연구 Vol.16 No.2

This article aims to examine the nature and characteristics of American Legal Modernism. Legal Modernism is the projection of general modernism into the area of law. Modernism is a theoretical and practical response to modernity in the modern society. Therefore, modernism reflects modernity and attempts to solve the problems involved in modernity. Modernity is characterized by trust in reason, demystification of nature, belief in progress, the rise of nation state, and free market economy. These characteristics of modernity are reflected in Legal Modernism. Legal Modernism is a legal-philosophical position of legal scholars who believe that humans can discover objective and universal truths about the world and find right answers to the all the legal problems by applying the truths. Legal Modernism contributes the rule of law by establishing the legal constraint of state power. Legal Modernism in general is based on the philosophical foundations such as logocentrism, anthropocentrism, Eurocentricism, foundationalism, and representationalism. American Legal Modernism is divided into two mainstreams. One is legal formalism which was derived from Langdellian Legal Science and the other is legal instrumentalism which evolved from Holmes's legal theory. American Legal Modernism has contributed to the development of American legal thought by attempting to locate the foundations of law not in traditional authority and religion but in human reason and experience. However, American Legal Modernism is faced with the task of solving the problem of legal indeterminacy raised by legal postmodernism. 이 논문은 미국의 법모더니즘의 본질과 특징을 고찰하기 위한 것이다. 모더니즘은 근대사회에서 나타나는 모더니티에 대한 이론적⋅실천적 대응으로서, 모더니티를 반영하면서도 모더니티에서 드러나는 다양한 문제들을 해결하기 위한 노력이다. 모더니티는 이성에 대한 신뢰, 자연에 대한 탈신비화, 진보에 대한 신념, 국민국가의 등장과 자유로운 시장경제 등을 특징으로 한다. 이러한 모더니티의 특징을 반영한 모더니즘이 법의 영역으로 확산된 것이 법모더니즘이다. 법모더니즘이란 인간은 이성을 통해서 세계에 대한 객관적이고 보편적인 진리를 발견할 수 있으며, 이러한 진리를 바탕으로 모든 법적 문제들을 해결할 수 있는 정답을 찾아낼 수 있으며, 이에 따라 국가권력의 자의적인 행사를 통제하는 법의 지배가 가능하다는 법철학적 관점이다. 법모더니즘은 이성중심주의, 인간중심주의, 서양중심주의, 기초주의, 재현주의 등을 철학적 기초로 한다. 미국의 법모더니즘은 랭델의 법과학에서 비롯되는 법형식주의와 홈즈의 법이론에 기반을 둔 법도구주의라는 두 가지 흐름을 형성하고 있다. 법모더니즘은 전통적인 권위나 관습이 아닌 인간의 이성이나 경험에서 법의 기초를 확립하려고 하였다는 점에서 미국법철학의 발전에 중대한 기여를 하였다. 하지만 포스트모더니즘에 의해 법모더니즘의 철학적 전제인 기초주의와 재현주의가 도전을 받으면서 법모더니즘은 법적 불확정성의 문제를 해결해야 할 과제를 안고 있다.

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.

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.

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.

1960-1980년대 한·중 모더니즘 시의 지향성 비교연구 - 《현대시》와 《오늘》 동인을 중심으로 -

이미옥(Lee, Mi-Ock) 동북아시아문화학회 2020 동북아 문화연구 Vol.1 No.64

This thesis compared the directivity of Korean and Chinese modernism poetry of the 1960s to the 1980s focusing on the coterie 《Modern Poetry》 of Korea and the coterie 《Today》 of China. Behind the comparison of these two motives are the April 19th Revolution of Korea and Tiananmen Square protests of China, which were important turning points in the preparation of modernity. The two revolutions were the first democratic revolutions since liberation and they had a symbolic effect on modern history and literary history and this connected with movements for modernism of the West and gave birth to unique thoughts of modernism. The coterie magazines 《Modern Poetry》 and 《Today》 were created to allow people to voice their thoughts and establish their literary positions after the first democratic revolution failed after liberation in an atmosphere of national censorship. Their greatest role was to create autonomous literary fields in which attempts could be made for pure poetic explorations in a time when realistic participation was desperately needed and to secure diversity. Modern poetry coteries particularly pry into the unconscious, or in other words, the inner consciousness and their goal was a combination of lyricism and modernity. Their internal world was in the form of individual illusions created through language and the illusions they pursue were progressed with as explorations into pure individual unconsciousness and not as reflections of reality or participation. Also, they accept modernism techniques but establish their own poetics instead of settling for a single form of esthetics and they promoted active language experiments. The psalms of coteries can be distinguished from the ‘internal worlds’ of previous poems of modernism from aspects that they are the acquisition of self-sustaining internality that possesses modernistic material foundations. Compared to this, modernism poetry of China actively utilized modernism from aspects of technique but there are many aspects of reality reflection from aspects of content. Chinese poets read books related to modernism in secret through underground reading and this became nourishment for the creation of modernism poetry. They borrowed various modernism techniques such as metaphors, montages, and automatic techniques to reveal the contradictions of suppressed realities and this was called “misty poetry” and appeared as contemporary literary thought. Ultimately, misty poetry is another name for engagement poetry that borrows modernism techniques and its modernism is similar to historical modernity that is based on historical reality.