지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 한국미술연구소 미술사논단 美術史論壇 제59호
- 발행연도
- 2024.12
- 수록면
- 115 - 143 (29page)
- DOI
- 10.14380/AHF.2024.59.115
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Mount Geumgang and Mount Huang are spiritual landmarks for both Korea and China, and both became subjects of landscape painting during the late Joseon Dynasty and the late Ming and early Qing periods. In the early 20th century, paintings of these two mountains experienced a notable resurgence in both countries. This phenomenon, which unfolded concurrently in both countries, is fascinating for its reflection of the shared modernization process in both nations. This process involved the expansion of travel and tourism culture, driven by advancements in transportation, as well as national projects aimed at land development.
The reasons behind the widespread popularity of paintings depicting these two mountains in the early 20th century share several contextual and characteristic factors. First, both mountains underwent a shift in status from “sacred sites” to modern “prominent mountains” due to government policies promoting tourism. Second, despite the mountains’ reemergence as modern tourist destinations under government initiatives, the artists who painted them did so with a strong sense of nationalism. Third, the artistic approach known as “sketching from life” became highly significant in both the Korean and Chinese art scenes during this period. Consequently, the artists of both countries traveled to Mount Geumgang and Mount Huang to observe and capture their landscapes firsthand. Fourth, photography and other visual media were closely linked to this process. With the rise of the tourism industry, the publication of related materials proliferated, spreading photographs of these mountains, which were then reinterpreted into paintings through the hands of artists.
A key point here is that this connection between photography and other visual media led to a transformation in the traditional status of landscape painting. Landscape painting had long reflected the tastes of literati and occupied the highest value among various genres of painting. However, the fusion of landscape painting with modern visual media such as photography resulted in a significant shift, where landscape painting no longer held an exclusive status but was viewed on equal footing with other genres. This reconceptualization of landscape painting is an important modern change.
While both Mount Geumgang and Mount Huang share these commonalities, they also exhibit distinct differences. One clear distinction is the strong traditional continuity in paintings of Mount Huang compared to those of Mount Geumgang. Paintings of Mount Huang from this period typically adhere to traditional landscape formats, including inscriptions and seals and dividing the composition into foreground, middle ground, and background. In contrast, paintings of Mount Geumgang often lack inscriptions or seals, and the landscapes are depicted in expansive compositions that emphasize the foreground. This distinctive characteristic of Mount Geumgang paintings may have been influenced by contemporary Japanese painting, particularly through events such as the Joseon Art Exhibition (Joseon Mijeon). Japanese artists actively painted Mount Geumgang at this time, and their images were widely circulated, distinguishing the depiction of Mount Geumgang from that of Mount Huang.
This difference aligns with the broader distinction between traditional painting in Korea, referred to as “East Asian painting,” and in China, simply called “Chinese painting.” This example highlights how a comparative perspective, considering the socio-cultural and political contexts, allows for a clearer understanding of the contemporary art scenes in both East Asian nations, which appeared to follow similar modernization processes.
The reasons behind the widespread popularity of paintings depicting these two mountains in the early 20th century share several contextual and characteristic factors. First, both mountains underwent a shift in status from “sacred sites” to modern “prominent mountains” due to government policies promoting tourism. Second, despite the mountains’ reemergence as modern tourist destinations under government initiatives, the artists who painted them did so with a strong sense of nationalism. Third, the artistic approach known as “sketching from life” became highly significant in both the Korean and Chinese art scenes during this period. Consequently, the artists of both countries traveled to Mount Geumgang and Mount Huang to observe and capture their landscapes firsthand. Fourth, photography and other visual media were closely linked to this process. With the rise of the tourism industry, the publication of related materials proliferated, spreading photographs of these mountains, which were then reinterpreted into paintings through the hands of artists.
A key point here is that this connection between photography and other visual media led to a transformation in the traditional status of landscape painting. Landscape painting had long reflected the tastes of literati and occupied the highest value among various genres of painting. However, the fusion of landscape painting with modern visual media such as photography resulted in a significant shift, where landscape painting no longer held an exclusive status but was viewed on equal footing with other genres. This reconceptualization of landscape painting is an important modern change.
While both Mount Geumgang and Mount Huang share these commonalities, they also exhibit distinct differences. One clear distinction is the strong traditional continuity in paintings of Mount Huang compared to those of Mount Geumgang. Paintings of Mount Huang from this period typically adhere to traditional landscape formats, including inscriptions and seals and dividing the composition into foreground, middle ground, and background. In contrast, paintings of Mount Geumgang often lack inscriptions or seals, and the landscapes are depicted in expansive compositions that emphasize the foreground. This distinctive characteristic of Mount Geumgang paintings may have been influenced by contemporary Japanese painting, particularly through events such as the Joseon Art Exhibition (Joseon Mijeon). Japanese artists actively painted Mount Geumgang at this time, and their images were widely circulated, distinguishing the depiction of Mount Geumgang from that of Mount Huang.
This difference aligns with the broader distinction between traditional painting in Korea, referred to as “East Asian painting,” and in China, simply called “Chinese painting.” This example highlights how a comparative perspective, considering the socio-cultural and political contexts, allows for a clearer understanding of the contemporary art scenes in both East Asian nations, which appeared to follow similar modernization processes.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 20세기 전반 금강산과 황산의 관광지화
Ⅲ. 20세기 전반기의 금강산 그림
Ⅳ. 황산과 황산 그림
Ⅴ. 맺음말
참고문헌
ABSTRACT
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
근대 유럽에서 풍경화의 발흥과 진화
미술사논단
2022 .12
-
아시아의 ‘또 다른’ 회화(繪畫)에 대하여
미술사논단
2023 .06
-
mount
한국기초조형학회 작품집
2024 .07
-
해악전신(海嶽傳神): 정선의 1712년 금강산도 제작에 관한 재고
미술사와 시각문화
2020 .01
-
한국 개화기의 ‘풍경화’ 유입
미술사논단
2021 .06
-
죽화(竹畵)의 유형과 분류체제의 정립을 위한 시론
미술사논단
2018 .12
-
근대미술의 선구자 고희동의 회화세계 연구 서양화 - 요소를 절충한 한국화를 중심으로
기초조형학연구
2017 .02
-
일제강점기 이상범의 신문 휘호 작품 연구
한국근현대미술사학
2022 .12
-
고려 중기의 북송과의 회화 교류
미술사논단
2019 .12
-
고려 초기 회화의 조명
미술사논단
2019 .06
-
조선 후기 남종화풍 문인산수화의 모방과 창작 : 화보의 분류 체계와 그 수용
미술사논단
2016 .06
-
화문과 화제의 분류체제
미술사논단
2018 .06
-
Chinese Ancient Painting of Architecture and Its Traditional Environmental Aesthetic Conception
한국기초조형학회 학술발표논문집
2019 .11
-
고려 말기 인물화의 제 양상 (1)
미술사논단
2020 .12
-
한국 전통회화의 국제성과 독창성 역사와 근현대의 수묵채색화
미술사논단
2024 .12
-
1920년대의 조선미전과 풍경화의 발흥
미술사논단
2024 .06
-
7-8세기 山水畵 표현법의 발전 및 分化와 水墨 인식의 기초 －敦煌壁畵를 중심으로－
미술문화연구
2022 .04
-
19세기 한·중 개항장 풍속화의 기능과 특징
한국근현대미술사학
2015 .07
-
현대 한국 서양화 사조 연구 : 국전 화풍을 중심으로
한국근현대미술사학
2015 .12
-
이용우(李用雨, 1902-1952)의 ‘묵로’시대 회화 연구 : 인물화와 화조화를 중심으로
한국근현대미술사학
2018 .12
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-151-25-02-092309146