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.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This thesis aims to consider the theoretical view of painting and achieve an understanding of the Chinese literary art of Jo Huiryong(1789~1866), a painter of the middle-class literati in the first half of the 19<SUP>th</SUP> century, through his writings. As the literary activities of the middle class gained pace in the 19th century, they also came to play an increasing role in the world of painting, among whom Jo Huiryong was a leading figure. The study of his view of painting is thought to have contributed to the comprehension of the paintings of not only Jo Huiryong but also of middle-class literary society of that time, as well as the painting phenomenon of the nineteenth century in general.
In the 19<SUP>th</SUP> century, Chinese culture reached Korea as a result of more active interchanges with China. The middle classes had the economic and intellectual freedom to learn about and enjoy Chinese books and paintings by themselves. Such conditions provided them with an opportunity to understand the current of Chinese painting and essays on paintings. The raised consciousness of the literary culture of the Ming and Qing Dynasties achieved through such channels helped them to understand the trend of the Joseon Dynasty's artistic milieu. Jo Huiryong was also able to access Chinese books and paintings, something which can be confirmed by many of the comments in his writings about Chinese paintings and the related theories. The Chinese paintings he saw were principally those of the Qing Dynasty rather than those dating from more earlier times, mirroring the exchange that had taken place between Joseon and Qing since the 18th century as a result of the Yeonam circle, as well as the influence of Kim Jeonghui. Jo Huiryong referred to such books on art theory as Xuanhe Huapu(宣和畵譜), Tuhui Baojian(圖繪寶鑑) and Guochao Huahuilu(國朝畵徵錄), all of which were representative books on critical painting including compact biographies of painters. He referred to painters of the pre-Yuan Dynasty as Xuanhe Huapu and Tuhui Baojian, and to painters of the Ming and Qing periods as Guochao Huahuilu. Apart from these books, Jo Huiryong quoted such critical essays on painting as Nigulu(?古錄), which was written by Chen Jiru of the Ming Dynasty, Banqiao Tihua(板橋題畵) by Zheng Xie of the Qing Dynasty, and Pushan lunhua(浦山論畵) by Zhang Geng. The book that Jo Huiryong mentioned most frequently was Chen Jiru's Nigulu. Jo Huiryong also cited many short essays of the Late Ming and Early Qing Dynasty, including Nigulu. Here, we can see that the style of literary culture prevalent during the Late Ming Dynasty, which was brought into the capital by Joseon noblemen during the eighteenth century, survived until the nineteenth century.
What has drawn considerable attention in building up Jo Huiryong's view of painting is how he was affected by and distinguished from Kim Jeonghui from an artistic viewpoint. They had a close relationship in the aspect of literature and painting. According to many records, the relationship between Jo Huiryong and Kim Jeonghui continued throughout their lives, and it becomes clear that this relationship was a major influence on Jo Huiryong's artistic activity. Jo Huiryong's view of painting was even further developed based on Kim Jeonghui's theory.
Jo Huiryong's theory on paintings was explored here in the light of two aspects: namely the usefulness and the creation of paintings. As for their usefulness, Jo Huiryong defined paintings that are valuable as an expression of the artist's thoughts. Jo Huiryong valued the activity of creation in itself as well. He also thought that paintings could contribute to human longevity and that they reflected the Taoist hermit ideologies that were then popular among middle-class society. The discussion of creative activity meant defining how a painter could reveal his or her thoughts through the painting. Jo Huiryong thought highly of “shen-li”(神理), meaning the natural revelation of the artist's mind, which is the boundary beyond a form rather than the beauty of brush and ink embodied by shapes. This idea was appropriated from a poetic theory and applied to painting. To grasp shen-li as it was represented in painting, he emphasized the need for insight and skills. Here, insight is nurtured by reading, which is itself in cohesion with the energy of sentences and studies. To achieve such skill, one required talent and effort, which itself amounts to that talent.
In the 19<SUP>th</SUP> century, Chinese culture reached Korea as a result of more active interchanges with China. The middle classes had the economic and intellectual freedom to learn about and enjoy Chinese books and paintings by themselves. Such conditions provided them with an opportunity to understand the current of Chinese painting and essays on paintings. The raised consciousness of the literary culture of the Ming and Qing Dynasties achieved through such channels helped them to understand the trend of the Joseon Dynasty's artistic milieu. Jo Huiryong was also able to access Chinese books and paintings, something which can be confirmed by many of the comments in his writings about Chinese paintings and the related theories. The Chinese paintings he saw were principally those of the Qing Dynasty rather than those dating from more earlier times, mirroring the exchange that had taken place between Joseon and Qing since the 18th century as a result of the Yeonam circle, as well as the influence of Kim Jeonghui. Jo Huiryong referred to such books on art theory as Xuanhe Huapu(宣和畵譜), Tuhui Baojian(圖繪寶鑑) and Guochao Huahuilu(國朝畵徵錄), all of which were representative books on critical painting including compact biographies of painters. He referred to painters of the pre-Yuan Dynasty as Xuanhe Huapu and Tuhui Baojian, and to painters of the Ming and Qing periods as Guochao Huahuilu. Apart from these books, Jo Huiryong quoted such critical essays on painting as Nigulu(?古錄), which was written by Chen Jiru of the Ming Dynasty, Banqiao Tihua(板橋題畵) by Zheng Xie of the Qing Dynasty, and Pushan lunhua(浦山論畵) by Zhang Geng. The book that Jo Huiryong mentioned most frequently was Chen Jiru's Nigulu. Jo Huiryong also cited many short essays of the Late Ming and Early Qing Dynasty, including Nigulu. Here, we can see that the style of literary culture prevalent during the Late Ming Dynasty, which was brought into the capital by Joseon noblemen during the eighteenth century, survived until the nineteenth century.
What has drawn considerable attention in building up Jo Huiryong's view of painting is how he was affected by and distinguished from Kim Jeonghui from an artistic viewpoint. They had a close relationship in the aspect of literature and painting. According to many records, the relationship between Jo Huiryong and Kim Jeonghui continued throughout their lives, and it becomes clear that this relationship was a major influence on Jo Huiryong's artistic activity. Jo Huiryong's view of painting was even further developed based on Kim Jeonghui's theory.
Jo Huiryong's theory on paintings was explored here in the light of two aspects: namely the usefulness and the creation of paintings. As for their usefulness, Jo Huiryong defined paintings that are valuable as an expression of the artist's thoughts. Jo Huiryong valued the activity of creation in itself as well. He also thought that paintings could contribute to human longevity and that they reflected the Taoist hermit ideologies that were then popular among middle-class society. The discussion of creative activity meant defining how a painter could reveal his or her thoughts through the painting. Jo Huiryong thought highly of “shen-li”(神理), meaning the natural revelation of the artist's mind, which is the boundary beyond a form rather than the beauty of brush and ink embodied by shapes. This idea was appropriated from a poetic theory and applied to painting. To grasp shen-li as it was represented in painting, he emphasized the need for insight and skills. Here, insight is nurtured by reading, which is itself in cohesion with the energy of sentences and studies. To achieve such skill, one required talent and effort, which itself amounts to that talent.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 趙熙龍繪畵觀의 형성배경
Ⅲ. 趙熙龍繪畵觀의 특성
Ⅳ. 맺음말
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
趙熙龍의 회화 창작관과 逸格的 창작성향
미술사논단
2012 .12
-
又峰 趙熙龍의 梅花圖
미술사연구
2007 .12
-
조희룡의 임자도 유배시절 회화 창작의 의미와 기능
미술사학연구(구 고고미술)
2020 .03
-
趙熙龍의 梅ㆍ蘭ㆍ竹ㆍ石圖 연구
미술사학연구(구 고고미술)
2006 .12
-
죽화(竹畵)의 유형과 분류체제의 정립을 위한 시론
미술사논단
2018 .12
-
藹春 申命衍의 繪畵
미술사연구
2007 .12
-
Decoding the Modern Fantasy of `White People, Korean` : An Analysis of Images from `the King Young-jo & Jung-jo` to `the open port era`
한국색채학회 학술대회
2006 .01
-
조양규의 조형 이미지 연구 : 전위적 방법으로서의 정치성
한국근현대미술사학
2009 .12
-
회화의 위기, 회화의 대안
미술이론과 현장
2004 .01
-
조선 후기 남종화풍 문인산수화의 모방과 창작 : 화보의 분류 체계와 그 수용
미술사논단
2016 .06
-
명대 궁정화조화의 원형과 새로운 화풍
미술사연구
2012 .12
-
화문과 화제의 분류체제
미술사논단
2018 .06
-
근대기 지방화단 연구 : 서울화단과의 영향관계를 중심으로
한국근현대미술사학
2009 .12
-
개화기 화단의 신경향과 잡화병
미술사논단
2008 .12
-
고려 중기의 북송과의 회화 교류
미술사논단
2019 .12
-
운계 조중묵(雲溪 趙重默, 1820 ~ ?)의 산수화 연구
미술사와 문화유산
2017 .11
-
19세기 후반과 20세기 초 韓國 人物畵에 보이는 海上畵派 畵風
미술사학연구(구 고고미술)
2007 .12
-
19세기 「朝鮮書畵傳」을 통해 본 韓日 繪書交流
미술사학연구(구 고고미술)
2012 .03
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-650-016264125