위항(衛恒) 《사체서세(四體書勢)》의 역사적 의의 ― 허신(許愼)의 서체론(書體論)에서 위항(衛恒)의 서세론(書勢論)으로 ―

선주선 ( Sun Joo Sun ),염정삼 ( Yum Jung Sam ) 한국중국어문학회 2014 中國文學 Vol.79 No.-

The writing style and the power of strokes in the sphere of writing Chinese characters, respectively 書體shuti and 書勢shushi, developed their own theories from 漢 Han dynasty to 魏晉Weijin dynasties. In Shuowenjiezi說文解字, Xushen許愼 explained eight styles of Qin秦 and six styles of Wangmang王莽. In Sitishushi四體書勢, Weihang 衛恒 explained current four styles and the power of strokes depending on the style. This paper aims to investigate the process that how the transition from shuti to shushi came true, and how the theory of shushi was established.

추사 김정희의 불교의식과 예술관 연구

선주선(Sun, Joo-Sun) 한국서예학회 2004 서예학연구 Vol.5 No.-

Choosa(秋史:金正喜, 1786-1856), the representative calligrapher all through Korean history , had a profound knowledge of the methodology of historical research, the exegetical studies, the practical science, the epigraphy, the Buddhism, theories in paintings and calligraphies. Especially he was a man of wide knowledge about the Buddhism, and had a unique view about Zen. He totally denied Kanhwasun(看話輝), which was widely practiced by Zen priests. He pointed out the vices of Zen s tyle and tried to present the right attitude and means of meditation. His mistrust and criticism of Zen Buddhism came from his belief about realism, and he believed that nirvana could be perfected by scriptures of Buddha. He also thought Zen Buddhism unorthodox. 1n some perspective, Choosa’s view of the Buddhism is regarded excellent, for he had a ideological consistency about realism, but it is too much to reject all Zen Buddhism after Dharma. If he accepted Zen Buddhism and also insisted a necessity of his thought, his theory could have been more persuasive. On the other hand, Choosa was a Buddhist devotee of Shinhaeng Buddhism, for he regarded calligrphy, publication of the Buddhist scripture , prayer and charity great, and he also stayed at the temple doing publication and repentance. Choosa’s view of art is very unique, too. He was a man of virtue based on poetry, calligraphy, painting , and the unity of Zen and principle . He had this belief all along, and he encouraged to read 5000 books , and he insisted that paintings and calligraphies without th is !i terary spirit. is evil and the art from one's heart is real. But he also saind that this reading is only essential to build up one’s fine characters , and true subject should dwell in the Four Gracious Plants ' true heart. Also he said that you have to forget about yourself to have a good command of art, and as an artist, you have to be persistent to discuss the profound secrets of heaven throughout all work of art. This original view of Choosa about the art is based on the views of the art after the Song Dynasty and the systemized thinking of precedents, adapting the Buddhism and Zen. So his buddhism helped him to give values to metaphysical inner world of an work of art, not to the format itself. His manner of calligraphy is mysterious and roughly cut. Its mysteriousness is well known. The basis of his calligraphy is Haeseo(階害) by Chodang, and he added Rye(錄) of Xj-Han(西漢), and also grafted the manner of great masters such as Wong, Hee-jje(王義之) and Ahn, Chin-kyoung(顔眞卿). lt hasn’t been found enough to investigate how he developed his calligraphy. Anyway, his mysteriousness shows innovative states which only can be achieved by an aesthete , and he also created unique world which commoners cannot fully understand. On the other hand, his theories and techniques have some defects. It is odd that his work shows some contact with Kanhwasun, which he totally rejected. The extremes meet, and it is understandable that works of Choosa embrace the mysteries of Zen priests. 1n this manner, his calligraphy can be regarded as Zen. By the way, his calligraphy works stand out too much, and as a result, his techniques ended up cannot be learned, shouldn’t be learned, and shouldn’t be judged. On the other hand, some scholars overestimated his works and even deified him, which happened in the atmosphere that enabled to ruminate and find out ’what is good and what is bad’, but his literatures and philosophy of religion was examined just as it is. It might be reasonable to say that Choosa’s works have both merits and demerits. The awe to him won’t end, but revaluation of him will be needed too and also an expectations and suspicions whether his genealogy to follow his techniques will flourish or not will be an issue, too.

추사 김정희의 실심적(實心的) 불학관(佛學觀)과 서화미학(書畵美學)의 상관성(相關性) 연구

선주선 ( Joo Sun Sun ),전상모 ( Sang Mo Jun ) 한국동양예술학회 2015 동양예술 Vol.28 No.-

추사는 조선 후기를 대표적인 서예가일 뿐만 아니라 고증학·훈고학·실학·금석학·불교학·서화론 등에 조예가 깊은 인물이다. 특히 불교에 해박한 지식을 가지고 있었으며 또한 독특한 禪觀을 견지하고 있었던 까닭에 ‘見性한 先生’ 또는 ‘海東의 維摩居士’라고 불리었다. 추사는 당시에 禪門에서 두루 행해지고 있던 看話禪을 철저하게 부정하였다. 당대 선종에 대한 불신과 비판은 실사구시 정신에 기인한 것으로 부처님의 경전을 통해서만이 부처님의 경지에 들 수 있다고 여긴 것이다. 특히 당대 禪宗을 佛門의 이단으로 여겼고 達磨의 禪觀까지도 僧肇의 아류로 치부하였다. 그 대안으로 추사는『安般守意經』을 선의 바른 안목의 귀결 처로 삼아 선풍의 폐단을 지적하면서 참선의 바른 자세와 방법을 제시하였다. 또 寫經이나 佛經刊行그리고 念佛功德을 크게 여겼음은 물론, 특히 晩年에 봉은사에서 지내면서 鉢盂供養과 刺火懺悔까지 하였던 신행불교의 큰 居士였다. 추사의 예술관은 선비정신에 입각한 詩理·書理·畵理·禪理一體의 관념을 견지하였다. 이러한 추사의 예술관은 송대 문인들의 예술 정신과 이를 수용한 우리나라 선인들의 예술 정신을 바탕으로 해서 자신의 불교관과 선의 원리를 채용한 것이다. 그러므로 그의 선리적 서화경지는 외재적인 작품형식보다는 그 내재적인 정신세계에 가치를 둔 것이었다. 추사의 서화경지는 怪·奇·險絶하다고 할 수 있다. 그는 철저하게 看話禪을 부정했지만 살상 善知識의 話頭나 棒喝같은 것을 함부로 평할 수 없듯이 추사의 서화도 그것과 방불한 점이 있다. 결론적으로 추사의 문학과 불교와 서화 모두 장점 단점을 공유하고 있다. 다만 지금까지도 그랬듯이 앞으로도 외경의 추사가 될 수밖에 없을 것이라는 점은 분명하다. 아울러 그에 대한 ‘재평가’ 같은 운운도 사라지지 않을 것이다. Chusa was a representative calligrapher in late Joseon dynasty and had profound knowledge of documental archaeology, exegetics, realistic school of Confucianism, epigraphy, Buddhism and the theory of calligraphy and paintings. He was called ‘a master with realizing his nature’ or ‘Weimojushi(維摩居士, Vimalakirti grhapati) in the East’ because he especially had an extensive knowledge of Buddhism and a unique perspective on Zen. Chusa thoroughly denied Kanhuachan(看話禪, Zen-Buddhist meditation through dharma topic) which was commonly conducted in Zen-Buddhism in those days. Distrust and criticism of Zen-Buddhism resulted from the spirit of seeking truth from fact, and he believed that he could only achieve the stage of Buddha though Buddhist classics. He considered Zen-Buddhism as a heresy of Buddhism and treated Dharma’s perspective on Zen as an imitation of Sengzhao(僧肇, a famous Buddhist master of the Eastern Jin dynasty). Alternatively, Chusa regarded anbanshouyijing(安般守意經) as a sequence of a correct perspective on Zen and suggested a correct posture and a means of Zen-Buddhist meditation with indicating a negative effect of the atmosphere of Zen-Buddhism. Also, he highly appreciated Xiejing(寫經, copying Buddhist classics), Fojingkanxing(佛經刊行, publication of Buddhist classics) and Nianfogongde(念佛功德, to practice good deeds through an invocations to Buddha). He was a big grhapati of Buddhism who has practiced Boyugongyang(鉢盂供養, monastic meal) and Cihuochanhui(刺火懺悔, repentance receiving the commandments of Buddhism) when he stayed in Bongeun temple in his latter years. Chusa`s perspective on art adhered to the thought of regarding all the principles of poetry, calligraphy, paintings and Zen as one based on the spirit of classical scholars. His perspective on art was systematized, applying his perspective on Buddhism and the principle on Zen, based on the art spirits of literati in Song dynasty and Korean ancestors who have accepted those of literati in Song dynasty. Therefore, his stage of calligraphy and paintings of the principle of Zen had more values on internal world of spirits than external form of artworks. Chusa’s stage of calligraphy and paintings could be strange, abnormal and extraordinary. He thoroughly denied Kanhuachan(看話禪, Zen-Buddhist meditation through dharma topic), but his calligraphy and paintings resembled closely as Huatou(話頭, dharma topic) or Banghe(棒喝, to rebuke with a rod) of a Buddhist priest of high virtue could not be thoughtlessly evaluated. In conclusion, Chusa’s literature, Buddihsm, calligraphy and paintings have both advantage and disadvantage. However, it is obvious that Chusa would be awed and respected as he has been so far. The reassessment about him would not be disappeared. Finally, whether or not Chusa`s calligraphy and paintings would be established as a characteristic of Korean beauty with supports of contemporary calligraphers and painters left for further discussion.