법원에서 금지한‘한국화’명칭의 사용과‘한국화’의 정체성

최광준 한국기초조형학회 2023 기초조형학연구 Vol.24 No.5

The purpose of this study is to examine the issue of the use of the name ‘Hangukhwa(Korean Painting)’ and to explore the identity of ‘Hangukhwa(Korean Painting)’ in modern times and after liberation. In the 1980s, an administrative lawsuit was filed against the use of the name ‘Hangukhwa(Korean Painting)’ and the court upheld the objection to the use of the name. Since then, the name ‘Hangukhwa’ has disappeared from textbooks since the 5th curriculum in 1988, and the terms traditional painting, ink painting, and color painting have been used instead. In South Korea, many people are reluctant to use the term ‘Hangukhwa(Korean Painting)’ and prefer to use the term ‘Dongyanghwa(Oriental Painting)’, which was adopted from Japan. If ‘Dongyanghwa(Oriental Painting)’ is a symmetrical concept to ‘Western Painting’ and can encompass paintings from Korea, China, and Japan, it is not necessary to oppose its use just because it was unilaterally introduced during the Japanese occupation. However, there is a problem with using ‘Dongyanghwa(Oriental Painting)’ as an alternative name for ‘Hangukhwa(Korean Painting)’. If we continue to use ‘Dongyanghwa(Oriental Painting)’ as a substitute for ‘Hangukhwa(Korean Painting)’, we may eventually forget the name and content of ‘Hangukhwa(Korean Painting)’. It may be that we are experiencing a more severe identity crisis of ‘Hangukhwa(Korean Painting)’ today because we have relied on this umbrella term for so long. Based on this recognition, this study, after an introduction in Chapter 1, examines the issue of the name ‘Hangukhwa’ in Chapter 2, and then examines the identity of ‘Hangukhwa(Korean Painting)’ by period in Chapter 3. Each era creates its own traditions, and those traditions come together to form a certain identity. As a result of examining the development of ‘Hangukhwa(Korean Painting)’, it can be concluded that ‘Hangukhwa(Korean Painting)’ has developed steadily without losing its roots while adapting to the times.

‘보편회화’ 지향의 역사 - 20세기 전반기 동양화 개념의 형성과 변모에 대하여

김경연 한국근현대미술사학회(구 한국근대미술사학회) 2019 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.38 No.-

Oriental painting, which was created as a genre of modern art symmetrical to western painting of the early 20th century, contains in its name the desire of calligraphers and painters in the modern transitional period to become a university entity. Under the circumstances of failing to construct a modern nation, painters wished to participate in the universal art world as part of paintings of a new civilization centered on Japan, or in other words, as part of Oriental painting. ‘Oriental painting’ was also given the role of succeeding traditional paintings and calligraphy. As Joseon/Korean art was divided not into ‘painting’ but ‘Oriental painting’ and ‘Western painting’, Oriental painting gained the contradicting identity of a 'universal' painting containing national ‘uniqueness’, in other words, having to become both ‘special’ and ‘universal’. At this time, there were tendencies for the ‘Koreanity’ and ‘Oriental’ to overlap, thus having unclear borders. Oriental painters recognized scientific realism of western painting as the universality of modern painting, and based on this, sought to transform into universal painting. Therefore, Japanese painting styles that used nature-derived realism and abundant colors contained two different meanings in that it was art of the colonial country, as well as the universal painting styles of modern times. Coming into the late 1930s, trends of exploring the possibility of ‘mental expression of artists’ without going beyond recreation of objects also began to appear. This can be said to be a different mode compared to western painters of Joseon in which Orientalism was spreading. After liberation, the movement of reestablishing Oriental painting, which collapsed together with Japan’s defeat in the war, as Korean painting surfaced. This was carried out in a method that excluded the existence of ‘Japan’ that played the central role in the scope of the ‘orient’. In addition, the realism tendencies in the colonial period were criticized as remnants of the colonial period, and therefore, pre-modern Joseon and Chinese cultural paintings became the new universal traditions of Oriental painting.

1990~2000년대 한국의 산수화 : 진경(眞景) 신화의 해체와 재구성

이민수(李旼修) 한국미술연구소 2020 美術史論壇 Vol.- No.51

This analysis of the Korean landscape painting in the 1990s and 2000s focuses on three issues in particular. First, its relation to true-view landscape painting (Korean: Jinkyoungsansu-hwa), which has been mentioned ever since modern times. Second, the dismantling of dichotomies between tradition and modern, Koreanity and contemporaneity, East Asian landscape painting (Chinese: shanshui-hua, Korean: sansu-hwa) and Western landscape painting, which was driven by pluralization in postmodern perspective. Third, the geographical change between the landscape paintings of the 1990s and 2000s. When the Europeans first encountered the traditional landscape painting of East Asia, their frame of reference was set to Western standards. On the basis of Eurocentrism, they regarded the East Asian concept of landscape in the same light as the Western landscape and diluted its original philosophical and ethical context. This might have been the natural consequence of cultural differences. However, East Asian landscape painting has a much longer history and shows both similarities and differences with the Western landscape painting. On the other hand, East Asians are prone to understand the Western landscape painting in the context of their own landscape painting, but this approach obviously has its own limits as well. The most critical problem was created during the Japanese occupation period in Korea. Around that time, the traditional Korean landscape painting went through the modernization process and the cultural and aesthetic concepts from the Western world, Japan, and Korea got mixed together within it. The influence of that incident prevailed in the 20th century and is still valid today. However, continuity does not always guarantee permanency. In conclusion, this paper suggests “deconstructing and reconstituting” as a keyword to explain landscape painting around the 2000s.

1970~1980년대 신형상 세대의 한국화 - 극사실 경향에서 민중미술까지

이민수 한국근현대미술사학회(구 한국근대미술사학회) 2020 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.39 No.-

After the mid-1970s, a new atmosphere was created in the Korean art world by the formation of a unique figurative art. This stream is represented by the so-called Hyperrealism, which was mainly spread out through consecutively held large-scale private sponsored exhibitions such as The Grand Art Exhibition of Korea, Donga Art Festival, and Joongang Fine Arts Prize. These exhibitions all claimed to support ‘originality’ and ‘figuration.’ To begin with, they carry repellent meanings toward Informel, Dansekhwa, and other abstractive tendencies. These events were also called as ‘new figuration’ to be distinguished from existing and unchanging conceptions spread by The National Art Exhibition of The Republic of Korea. I highlight that the emphasis on this ‘new figuration’ brought great differences to trends in Hangukhwa (Korean painting). Artists who sought for their direction to modern Hangukhwas from traditional paintings were awarded not only in private exhibitions, but also in The Grand Art Exhibition of The Republic of Korea by submitting numerous hyper-real Hangukhwas. The combination of Hyperrealism and Hangukhwa seems incompatible in an instant, then what does this fusion mean? Such phenomenon cannot be interpreted solely by focused discourses on the existing combination of ink wash painting and abstraction. Therefore, this study retraces Hangukwha with the flow of ‘figuration’. In other words, it will compare and contrast how figure is expressed in traditional and modern Hangukhwas. This examination should be started from the hyper-real Hangukhwas. By this, the study analyzes and understands Real-Scenery Landscapes and urban landscapes in the 1970s, the ink painting movement in the early 1980s, and Hangukhwa affiliated with Minjung Art in the context of art of the same period. 1970년대 중반 이후부터 우리 미술계에는 독특한 구상(具象)(figurative) 미술이 하나의 기류를 형성했다. 이른바 극사실주의로 대표되는 이 흐름은 당시 잇달아 개막한 《한국미술대상전》, 《동아미술제》, 《중앙미술대전》과 같은 대규모 민간 주최 공모전(이하 민전)을 통해 주로 전개되었다. 이들 민전이 표방한 것은 ‘새로움(New)’과 ‘형상성(Figuration)’이다. 여기에는 우선, 1960년대와 70년대 전반까지의 앵포르멜, 단색화와 같은 추상 경향에 대한 반발의 의미가 깔려 있었다. 또한 기존 《대한민국미술전람회》에서 만연한 구태의연한 구상과 구별하기 위해 ‘새로운 형상’으로 지칭되었다. 필자가 주목하는 것은 이 ‘새로운 형상성’의 강조가 당시 한국화의 경향 변화에도 많은 영향을 미쳤다는 점이다. 전통회화에서 현대 한국화로의 방향을 모색하던 화가들은 민전뿐만 아니라 《대한민국미술대전》에 극사실 경향 한국화 작품들을 대거 출품해 입상했다. 언뜻 봐도 어울리지 않는 듯한 극사실기법과 한국화의 결합은 무엇을 의미하는가? 이 같은 현상은 기존의 수묵과 추상의 관계에 집중된 논의를 통해서는 결코 설명될 수 없다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 ‘형상성’의 흐름으로 한국화를 다시 기술한다. 즉 전통회화에서의 형상 표현과 현대 한국화에서의 그것이 갖는 공통점과 차이를 극사실 경향 한국화를 기점으로 살펴본다. 이를 통해 1970년대 실경산수화와 도시풍경화, 이후 1980년대 전반기의 수묵화운동, 그리고 민중미술 계열 한국화를 동시대 미술의 문맥에서 분석하고 파악한다.