식민지 근대성을 통해 본 한국 모더니즘에 대한 비교 연구: 모더니즘 변형에 대한 문학사적 접근

최성우 ( Seong Woo Choi ) 한국비교문학회 2015 比較文學 Vol.0 No.65

본 연구는 1930년대 식민지 상황에서 태어난 한국 모더니즘의 특징들을 호미 바바의 탈식민주의 이론을 빌려 다루고자 한다. 한국의 근대 문학을 알고자 하는 독자들, 특히 영어권 독자들을 위해 한국 모더니즘을 유럽 모더니즘들, 그리고 이들을 한국에 전달하는 중간 역할을 했던 일본의 모더니즘과 비교하는 방법은 유용하고 적합할 것이다. 원래 모더니즘은 19세기 말, 20세기 초 유럽에서 태동한 예술운동을 의미하며 여러 모더니즘들의 공통된 특징은 반전통주의라 볼 수 있다. 이 반전통주의를 기반으로 한 유럽 모더니즘들과 일본 모더니즘에 영향을 받아 한국 모더니즘도 자신만의 반전통적이고 새로운 독특한 문학을 만들어 냈는데 이는 식민지라는 그들과 다른 역사적 문화적 배경이 큰 영향을 준 것이라 볼 수 있다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 한국 모더니즘 문학을 제대로 알고 즐기기 위해서는 식민지 한국이라는 역사적 문화적 배경의 이해가 우선해야 함을 강조한다. 모더니즘 연구뿐 아니라 한국 문학 연구를 위해 탈식민주의적 접근법은 큰 역할을 담당할 것이며 본 연구가 이에 작은 기여를 할 수 있기를 바란다. Influenced by the ideas of postcolonialist Homi Bhabha, this study attempts to show the features of Korean modernism based on colonial modernity, to the readers, particularly to the English-speaking readers, who want to understand Korean modern literature. For this, it will be relevant and useful to compare Korean modernism with other European and Japanese ones. Modernism is an aesthetic movement rooted in the changes in European society in the late 19th and early 20th century. Its most remarkable common feature is anti-traditionalism. Based on the influences of European and Japanese modernisms, Korean modernists formed their own unique style which is pervaded by the features of Korean modernism. Thus, this study emphasizes the role and importance of historical and cultural background to understand Korean modernism which began in colonial Korea in the 1930s. Ultimately, the study aims to contribute to the improvement of how to approach Korean literary studies with post-colonialism that will unveil the unique features of Korean modernism.

모더니즘의 결절과 계기

이영미(Lee, Young Mi) 구보학회 2006 구보학보 Vol.1 No.-

한국의 근대문학사를 인지하는 데 있어 ‘리얼리즘/모더니즘, 내용/형식’ 중심의 대립 관계를 벗어나기란 어렵다. 남한에서는 모더니즘이 근대적 리얼리즘을 벗어나는 새로운 기법으로 문학의 현대성을 실현하였다는, 단절적 인식을 보인다. 그러나 북한에서는 현대성 문제보다 정치성에 기준을 두면서 리얼리즘을 사회주의 리얼리즘으로 숭배하고, 모더니즘은 부르조아 리얼리즘으로 규정하여 공격의 대상으로 삼는다. 문학적 계보의 연속성 속에서 남한의 퇴폐적 산물로 대립하여 적대적으로 인식하는 것이다. 어쨌든 이것은 모두 분단논리의 이분법적 자장에서 머무르는 정태적 분석 동향을 보이고 있었다. 그래서 본고는 문학사의 동태적 해석을 지향하여, 일제 강점기 타자로서 한층 필연적일 수밖에 없는 ‘문학의 저항적 속성’이라는 운동성 속에 모더니즘 역시 놓이고, 리얼리즘에서 모더니즘으로의 운동성 이행(패러다임) 관계에서 그 이행의 주체를 비평과 창작의 헤게모니 변동과 그 전환(에피스테메)으로 추정하는 가설을 제안하였다. 한국문학사에서 모더니즘에 관한 기존 해석의 반복 재생산은 매듭을 짓고 새로운 계기를 만들어야 한다는 문제 제기에서 시작되었다. 근대문학사에서 모더니즘이 서구문화의 이식에 불과한 퇴폐론 이라거나 카프의 내용 위주 리얼리즘에 대한 반동의 소산-결국 이식문화론의 연장-이라는 결론에 그치지 않고, 문학사적 맥락을 통해, 서구에서 모더니즘이 오랫동안 생성되어온 사유체계로 구조의 급진적 변동을 야기하듯, 문학(지식, 지성) 권력 투쟁 양상의 ‘깊게 구조화된 변동(에피스테메)’일 수 있다고 상상했다. 통사적으로 문학의 ‘자발적 힘’에 의한 지식의 재생산 혹은 지식구조의 변동 원리(문학사상적 전환)를 통해, 고전문학사와 현대문학사의 연속성을 구축하려는 시고(試考)이다. 사실 ‘박태원과 그 시대 모더니즘 작가’들의 역사적 행보는 매우 중요한 자산이다. 긍정적 혹은 부정적 해석 여부를 떠나, 그들의 내적 변동에 관한 다각적 구명은 오히려 한국문학사의 자생력-문학의 자발적 시대구분을 위한 힘-을 입증할 수 있는 기반으로서 충분히 의미가 있다는 것이다. 본고의 가설이, 1930년대 모더니즘은 내부적 저항성의 강화, 서구 현대성의 기반인 ‘계몽주의’를 ‘이용’하여 새로운 세계로 나아가려는 지식인-특히 작가-해방 운동의 일환이라는 논의로까지 확대되어, 근대문학사의 모더니티가 결코 완전한 ‘이식’-수동적 타자성, 열등한 민족성으로 고정시키는-의 역사가 아니었다는, 문학의 본질적 저항 정신-내재적 발전론의 확언일 수도 있을 자생적 틀로서, 문학이 사회를 결정하는-을 한층 드러내길 바란다. 나아가 향후의 담론적 전환, 그 역사적 구조 변동-빛을 잃어가는 창작을 대신할 그 무엇-에 추진력이 생기길 기대하였다. It’s hardly possible to escape from the confronting relations between ‘realism and modernism or contents and formats’ in understanding the modern literary history of Korea. In South Korea, modernism demon- strates some discontinuous perception that it has implemented the moder- nity of literature with a new technique escaping from modern realism. But things are different in North Korea, where the focus is placed on political matters rather than modernity, realism is worshiped as socialist realism, and modernism is under attack being regarded as bourgeois real- ism. In other words, they are confronting and showing hostile attitudes towards modernism as the degenerative product of South Korea in the continuity of literary lineage. No matter the differences, however, they share a common feature that they are adopting a stationary analysis ten- dency staying in the dichotomous field of separation. Thus this study attempted to put modernism in the movement of ‘the resistant attribute of literature’ that is absolutely inevitable as a typewriter during the Japanese rule, pursuing the dynamic interpretations of literary history. It also hy- pothesized that the subjects of the kinetic execution(paradigm) from real- ism to modernism would be the changes to the criticism and creation hegemony and the transition(episteme). The repetitions and reproductions of the old interpretations about modernism in the history of Korean liter- ature derived from the act of voicing the need for tying a knot and creating a new opportunity. In the history of modern literature, modernism didn’t remain at the conclusion that it’s nothing but a degenerative theory from the western culture or that it’s mere a product of reaction to the content-oriented realism by KAPF(in the end, it’s an extension of the transplantation culture theory). It rather caused radical changes to the structure via the thinking systems that have been created for long in the western world in the context of literary history. Such facts were reflected in the imagination that modernism could be ‘deep, structured changes (episteme)’ to the power struggle patterns of literature(knowledge or in- tellect). From a syntactic perspective, the imagination is a trial thinking to establish continuity between the old and modern literary history through the reproduction of knowledge by the ‘voluntary power’ of literature or the changing principles of knowledge structure(conversion of literary ide- ology). As a matter of fact, the historical steps that ‘Park Tae-won and his contemporary modernism writers’ took make very precious assets. It doesn’t matter their interpretations were positive or negative. Their multi- lateral investigations into the internal changes have enough significance as the foundation to prove the autogenous power of Korea’s literary his- tory(or the power to divide the voluntary periods of literature). It’s also hoped that the hypothesis would be expanded to discuss that modernism in the 1930s was part of the movement to liberate those intellectuals(or writers) trying to enter a new world by ‘using’ the ‘Enlightenment’ that worked to reinforce the internal resistance and paved the way to western modernity. It will be able to demonstrate that modernity in the modern literary history was not a history of complete ‘transplantation’(fixing the Koreans onto passive alterity and inferior character as a people) but re- flected the essential spirit of resistance of literature(literature can decide a society as an autogenous frameworks to confirm the intrinsic development theory). The results will hopefully offer some driving force to the dis- course conversion and the changes to its historical structure(something to replace the fading creations).

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.

디자인 융,복합 현상에 따른 모던함의 언어적 사용 모호성에 대한 연구

김준형(Kim Jun, Hyung) 한국전시산업융합연구원 2020 한국과학예술융합학회 Vol.38 No.4

디자인이 표면적으로 지향하는 점은 유니크함과 트렌드 선도적인 외형미이다. 유니크함은 디자인소비자로 하여금 이전에 접하지 못했던 자극에 대한 니즈이며 트렌드 선도적 외형미는 시장소구를 위해 필요할 것으로 예측되는 외형의 미적 아름다움으로 요약할 수 있다. 일반 소비자의 디자인 가치 평가과정에서 전문성이 강조된 근거는 차치되기 쉽다. 본 연구는 일반 소비자의 디자인 지향의 기저에 전술한 양 측면이 융, 복합적으로 작용할 수 있다는 문제의식에서 비롯되었다. 본 연구는 트렌드 선도적인 면을 강조하기 위해 사용되는 모던함에 대한 고찰을 중심으로 하고 있다. 이를 위하여 서론에서 모던함과 모더니즘에 대한 이론적 정의와 이를 통한 각각의 공통점과 차이점을 알아보았으며 사례를 통한 모던 이미지의 디자인적 소비경향을 알아보았다. 이를 바탕으로 본론에서 모던함과 모더니즘을 명확하게 구분하기 위한 실증 연구 모델을 구상하였다. 이렇게 만들어진 실증 실험을 통해 모던함과 모더니즘을 구분할 수 있는 언어적 기준과 조형적 기준을 제시하고자 하였다. 연구 결과 현재 디자인에서 모던함과 모더니즘이 혼재되어 사용되고 있는 현상을 규명하였다. 연구 결과 모던한 디자인은 모더니즘 디자인의 연장선에 있는 유사성을 가지고 있으며 모더니즘 디자인의 이미지가 모던 디자인에 비해 명확한 이미지적 인식 차이를 보이고 있는 것으로 조사되었다. 본 연구를 통해 디자인 개발 의도 또는 결과로서의 디자인 평가 과정에서 사용되는 모던함에 대한 구체적인 기준을 바탕으로 최종 디자인 소비자에게 소구하는 것의 중요성을 제안할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다. What the design aims for on the surface is its uniqueness and trend-leading appearance. Uniqueness is the need for stimulus that design consumers have not encountered before, and the trend-leading appearance can be summarized as the aesthetic beauty of the appearance that is expected to be necessary for market appeal. In the process of evaluating the design valuation of general consumers, it is easy to dismiss the evidence that emphasized expertise. This study originated from the awareness of the problem that the above-described two aspects can act fusionly and complexly on the basis of the general consumer’s design orientation. This study focuses on the consideration of modernity used to emphasize trend-leading aspects. To this end, the theoretical definition of air modernity and modernism, the commonalities and differences between them, and the design consumption trends of modern images were examined through examples. Based on this, an empirical research model was devised to clearly distinguish between modernism and modernism in the main body. Through the empirical experiments created in this way, it was intended to present a linguistic standard and an image standard that can distinguish between modernism and modernism. As a result of the study, it was found that modern design has similarities in the extension of modern design, and the image of modern design shows a clear difference in image perception compared to modern design.As a result of the research, it was investigated that modernity and modernism are mixed and used in the current design. Through this study, it is expected to be able to suggest the importance of appealing to the final design consumer based on specific criteria for modernity used in design development intention or result design evaluation process.

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.

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.

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.

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.

20世紀 中國詩의 國際性

朴正元(Park, Jeong-weon) 한국외국어대학교 외국문학연구소 2005 외국문학연구 Vol.- No.21

If seen from the historical viewpoint, under the effect of western modernism, symbolical poetry (in the 20's), Modernism (in the 30's), Jiuye poetry (in the 40's), Menglong poetry (in the 70's and early 80's), Post-Menglong poetry (in the late 80's) appeared in modern China. Chinese Modernism was achieved through the inflow of modernism poem of western and direct of poets. Introducing the poems of Paul Verlaine, Gemy de Gourmout, Francis Jammes, Baudelaire, T.S. Eliot, Yeats, Stéphane Mallarmé etc. acted as an important role. Mudan's modernism poem developed Chinese modernism poetry world through William Empson's effect and the contact of English and American modern literature. Mudan accomplished notable accomplishment that is differentiated with other poets: First, through resisting traditional idea, created new modern poem's esthetics. Second, expressed modern's survival environment which is placed absurdity and estrangement. Third, refuse the idea of perfect self which appears in the traditional poems and express disrupted self. Fourth, selected usual poetic language and refuse rhythm at tradition poem, sought free prose poem. Mudan's modern poem was unfamiliar thing in Chinese poetry world at that time, but, through modernism, it is the right example that shows internationalism of the 20th century Chinese poem. Mudan accommodates Chinese culture heritage critically, and accommodates western's modernism actively. His modernism poem caused much effect to Menglong poetry that appeared in the late 70's.

한국 모더니즘 시의 전통 인식 양상

이혜원(Lee, Hye-won) 고려대학교 한국학연구소 2014 한국학연구 Vol.50 No.-

본고에서는 한국 모더니즘 시에 나타나는 전통에 대한 인식을 통해 한국적 모더니즘의 구체적인 양상을 살펴본다. 모더니즘의 대립 개념이라고 할 수 있는 전통에 대한 반응을 검토하여 모더니즘이 당대의 현실과 어떻게 충돌, 또는 조응하며 한국문학에 내재화되었는지를 추적할 수 있다. 본고에서는 한국 모더니즘 시를 대표하는 시인들이자 전통에 대한 예리한 자각을 보여주는 이상과 김수영의 시를 대상으로 1930년대와 1950-60년대 모더니즘 시에 나타나는 전통에 대한 인식의 변화를 살펴본다. 이상이 활동했던 1930년대는 서구 모더니즘이 수용된 지 얼마 되지 않은 데다 식민지의 특수성으로 인해 모더니즘의 외양을 모방하기에 급급했던 시기이다. 이상의 시는 현실과 유리된 미적 자율성의 극한을 추구하며 서구 모더니즘을 흉내 내는 데 그쳤던 식민지 모더니즘의 한계를 보여준다. 김수영은 1950년대 전후 모더니스트로서 출발하며 현실에 대한 투철한 인식에 기반을 둔 모더니즘을 추구한다. 그는 소외된 기층민중의 역사를 살아있는 전통으로 재발견하고 거기에서 후진국의 모더니티가 존립할 수 있는 생명력을 찾아낸다. 두 시인은 모두 당대의 선구적인 모더니스트들이었지만 시대적 차이로 의해 전통에 대해 인식하는 데 있어 뚜렷한 차별성을 보인다. 이상은 자신이 추구하는 모더니티에 끊임없이 침투하는 전통을 의식하면서 착종된 모더니즘에 봉착할 수밖에 없는 식민지 현실에 대한 뚜렷한 자각을 드러낸다. 김수영에게 전통은 파기해야할 과거의 시간이 아니라 자기 혁신과 새로운 발견의 가능성을 가져오는 카이로스적 시간이다. 모더니즘과 전통에 대한 두 시인의 인식 차이는 그들의 미학적 특성과도 밀접하게 관련된다. 이상은 모더니티의 극단적 표현으로 수학이나 과학적 용어와 같은 인공어를 과감하게 사용하여 미적 자율성을 극대화한다. 이상의 인공적인 언어에 비해 김수영은 일상어와 거침없는 구어체로 현실에 밀착된 시를 쓴다. 일상어의 질감과 역동성을 새로운 미학적 차원으로 끌어들인 그의 시에서 전통의 재발견은 미적 모더니티의 새로운 동력으로 작용하고 있다. In this paper, I studied on the specific aspects of Korean modernism through the awareness of tradition appeared in Korean modernism poetry. Yi Sang and Kim Soo-young were not only representative poets of Korean modernism but also showed keen self-awareness about tradition, so I looked deep into aspects of awareness about tradition of the 1930s’ and 1950-60s’ modernism poetry by their poems. Yi Sang was active in 1930s when most of Korean poets were busy imitating Western modernism because of the uniqueness of the colony. His poetry showed the limits of colonial modernism that pursued the ultimate aesthetic autonomy and imitated western modernism. Kim Soo-Young came forward as a postwar modernist of 1950s, and pursued modernism which based on clear perception of reality. He rediscovered the history of the people as a living tradition, and rooted out the vital power in it. Both of the poets were the leading modernist of their age, but showed the clear differentiation in their awareness of tradition. Yi Sang was conscious of tradition that constantly permeated into modernity, and revealed clear awareness of the reality of the colony that could not help meeting the self-contradictory modernism. Kim Soo-young realized the fact that tradition is not merely past time, but time of Kairos that brings possibility of selfreform and new discovery. The difference between the two poets about modernism and awareness of tradition were also closely related their aesthetic properties. Yi Sang expressed extreme modernity by the artificial language, such as mathematic or scientific terms, and drastically maximized the aesthetic autonomy. Unlike Yi Sang, Kim Soo-young wrote poetry closer to reality with everyday language and inexorable spoken language. In his poetry, everyday language was inspired new aesthetic dimension, also rediscovery of tradition was militating as a new power of aesthetic modernity.