표제지

목차

I. 서론 6

1. 연구 목적 6

2. 연구사 검토 7

3. 연구 방법 및 범위 16

II. '지정의(知情意)'의 기제와 '진선미(眞善美)'의 가치 24

1. '덕체지(德體智)'의 강령에서 심리학적 기제로의 전환 24

1) 근대전환기의 시가와 '덕체지'의 강령 24

2) 정치의 상실과 '지정의'의 역할 34

2. 기제로서의 '지정의'에서 가치론으로의 이행 47

1) 문학과 가치론의 결합과 '인생'·'예술'이라는 목적의 등장 47

2) 현실의 부정적 반영으로서의 문학과 근대적 주체의 징후 54

III. 근대시론의 분화와 진선미의 정립(鼎立) 64

1. 1920년대 중반 정치주의의 유입과 시론의 분기 64

2. 계급을 위한 '선'의 추구와 주정주의의 윤리 : 임화 68

1) 프롤레타리아 전위의 눈과 투사적 동일시 68

2) 당파성·객관성의 양립과 낭만적 정신 83

3. 인생을 위한 '진'의 발견과 즉물주의의 지성 : 김기림 102

1) 주관의 움직임과 객관세계와의 교섭 102

2) 주지적 태도와 감각성의 언어 118

4. 민족을 위한 '미'의 모색과 효과주의의 윤리 : 박용철 132

1) 비평가의 직능과 사회적 이상 132

2) 대중성의 수긍과 상이성의 역할 148

IV. 근대시론의 통섭(通涉)과 진선미의 연계 161

1. 1930년대 중반 파시즘의 준동과 시론의 교섭 161

2. 민족을 위한 '선'의 추구와 잉여의 세계 : 임화 165

1) 진실한 낭만주의와 민족적 형식 165

2) 실천적 행위와 시학적 실천 180

3. 현실을 위한 '진'의 발견과 과학의 모럴 : 김기림 197

1) 반성적 지성과 새로운 문체 197

2) 반역의 정신과 사회적 행동 209

4. 시학을 위한 '미'의 모색과 상생(相生)의 무명화(無名火) : 박용철 225

1) 생리적 필연과 시의 기술(技術) 225

2) 시의 포즈와 변용의 원리 238

V. 결론 258

참고문헌 265

Abstract 277

 The purpose of this study was to reconstruct the process of the formation of modern Korean poetics in the 1930s by approaching essays on poetry of Im Hwa, Kim Kirim and Park Yongcheol, from the point of view of specialization and catenation. In addition, this study attempted to identify the connections between these essays on poetry and those of the previous generations, and to explore the links to those of later generations.

Jin Seon Mi (the true, the good and the beautiful) is a modern Western invention. Max Weber understood these as products of modern rationalization. But Jurgen Habermas identified these specialization with reification, and had set forth the free interaction of these areas as a task of modernity. On the other hand, Kant distinguished them as subjects of cognitive ability through series of Critique, but ultimately tried to synthesize them through "judgment". In short, one of the phenomena of reification that the Western modern had produced was the specialization of axiology of Jin Seon Mi, and the task of modernity restores their original appearance. But what is implied in this task is also the perception of the impossibility of this work.

In Chapter II, I studied literature and its surroundings until the 1920s. The traditional literary genre was transformed dynamically by the influx of Western literary style and stood at the crossroads. In this process, the public and the people were called as the citizen, the political subjects, and the poetry with political and social criticism appeared simultaneously. In actual politics, however, Deog Che Ji (virtue, health and understanding) was still promoted in the Sung Confucianism viewpoint of the former. Until the politics was lost by the Eulsa Treaty, the civilian literature and the education of the government were separated, and the nation (nation), the collective subject as citizen, was formed with modernization.

Literature just before Gyeongsul Gukchi could not maintain the same politics as before. The detour was in the literary theory of Ji Jeong Ui (intellect, emotion and volition; Erkenntnis, Gefühl und Begehrung). Shin Chaeho tried to overcome the crisis of the kingdom with the poetry filled with Joeng of negativity. It was for Ui. On the other hand, Lee Gwangsu saw Jeong as a requirement of literature. And although Choi Namseon understood Jeong as the driving force of literature, Choi emphasized Ji meaning "knowledge" and tried to decorate the literature there. His Jeong and Ji were also pointing to Ui.

After Gyeongsul Gukchi Shin had turned to the position to develop positive feelings for patriotism. Although the consensus was reached that the trigger point of literature was Jeong, it was not a denial of possibility that Ji and Ui would be another cause. In the mid-1910s, Lee expressed his view that the Ji Jeong Ui is the pursuit of the value of Jin Seon Mi, and that literature and art are the manifestations of beauty. In this way, literature and art came to the same position as science, religion, and morality, but his idea implied a pedagogical concept of the modern whole man.

It was frustration to rule literature after the March 1st. Acceptance of decadence was caused by the loss of faith in historical progress. What stood out at that point was the two horizons of the literature that it was the private and public realms. The coexistence of these two is the general theory of oriental poetry and the specialty of decadence. However, the decadence was not narrowed beyond a certain distance to the literary men of that time. Lee's denial of the art for art (the artistic superstition) was in this context. But Kim Eok and others accepted it although critical. For them, it was literature that originated in the private realm and connected to the public realm.

In Chapter III, I reviewed the works of Im Hwa, Kim Ki-rim and Park Yongchul, which were submitted to the early 1930s. After the March 1st, the transition from Forced Rule to Cultural Politics could be implemented because Japanese imperialism had built the dominant infrastructure. This political transformation divided interest in the public realm of literature into several branches, in the mid-1920s, the confrontation or disagreement between these branches was materialized by the formation of the KAPF (Korea Artist Proletarian Federation). Thus, national literature and class literature occupied the concept of "life" and "livelihood" respectively. On the other hand, it was Modernism literature that emerged in response to modernity and civilization. It was true that this was less interested in the public realm than the previous two literary inclination.

In the expression of "class self", Im Hwa declared that literature was a means for the interests of the proletarian class and that the poet was not an individual. He asked the poets not a temporary projection to the public but a constant projective identification. This was the ethics of literature for him. Since about 1933, Im had strived to establish a theory that will secure the position of proletarian literature. He introduced the term "real-world processes", referring to "the concreteness of form", and juxtaposed the partisanship and objectivity, which are incompatible. However, he thought that these two could be compatible through literary action driven by "conscience of art", which grasps this process as a improvement of history. For him who would impersonate the concreteness of form was an individual as a social human being representing class social whole, and he thought that the power of this individual, the hero who should realize socialist realism, came from revolutionary romanticism. Thus, he set up "emotionalism" on the other side of the intellectualism. He sought to pioneer the path of proletarian literature by combining emotion as the "romantic" and principle as the "spirit".

To Kim Kirim during this period, the creation of poetry was to create and construct a new reality. What was asked for this was the subject who negotiated with the objective world. He regarded the still subject as just nature as "Sein", just like the objective world. The activity of the moving subject which gives value to existence was his intellectualism. He considered the "reaction of life" that emerged when the subject and object were negotiated, but he decided that modern poetry had neglected this process. On the other hand, he realized that after symbolism, "livelihood" appeared as a main topic of modern poetry in the early 20th century. However, livelihood was already sick, and the contradictions, deceptions, and malice that it revealed caused self-destruction of modern poetry. But livelihood he used were somewhat abstract. Kim did not affirm the classes, but he recognized the reality of the nation. At this level, he argued that the poet should be a value creator who is conscious of the development of culture. And he proposed "image" as a way to reveal "concrete reality of life". It was here that his claim that the poet should be an advocate of "thingism", and his rejection of sentimentality and ideality. His thingism meant to select the "most essential unique word" to capture concrete reality. He thought that one short poem "to represent all reality" was possible with thingism and intellectual attitude.

Hannatjonjae (just one existence) and "agglomeration" emerged as a central concept that became a deepening opportunity in later times, but the review of efficacy showed that Park Yongcheol's poetics did not ignore the social and political problems. He envisioned a poetics that covers up the process of creation and enjoyment. The "art embryology" emerged in the process of emphasizing "the function of the critic" led to criticism of the Marxist literary theory which react sensitively to socio-political problems. And the "artistic path" was the reason for denying bourgeois literary theory. Although he did not understand the social effects of art directly, he thought that criticism should be done in the light of social ideals. For this reason he grasped the quality of literature on two levels. So he had also taken a positive attitude to the situation where his literary ideals and orientations are different or not up to scratch. The perception of the liberation movement and nationalism in a narrow sense called for a revision of the prejudice against him. Until this time, he understood that creative works originated from imitation, and he thought that creation is to find "dissimilarity" through similar repetition of the classics. For him, dissimilarity was to play a role in bringing the subject of creation to the rank of literary.

As mentioned above, Lim, Kim and Park tripled their values in the early 1930s with Jin Seon Mi's intention. Although Im was based on Seon, he set up the principle of emotionalism and had built up poetics. It was based on qualitative romanticism contradictory to intellectualism. In the case of Kim, he intended to go to Jin in a intellectual attitude. In other words, his intellectualism was the method chosen by the intellectual planning to discover the true face of reality embedded in it. Keeping an eye on Seon and Mi, Park grasped reality and art. He can be regarded as a successor to traditional aesthetics in that he sought both the private realm and the public realm.

In Chapter IV, I first looked at the status of literary circles since the mid-1935s, and examined Im, Kim and Park's poetics. After the collapse of KAPF, the Congress of Writers "for the defence of culture" and the Comintern 7th Conference, held in June and July respectively, demanded the Right and Left Wing Coalition like Singanhoe in the 1920s. Another cause of this change was the fascism of the Japanese imperialism, which had gradually been outlined since the early 1930s. However, the issue of conflict was too deep for the coalition.

Im Hwa knew exactly what was going on in the international situation and decided that it was impossible to change in Korea in the old way. In order to call the nation instead of the class, language had to become an important mediator. In his view, the language of the technicalism depended on the same esthetic appreciation and senses as art for art's sake. He excluded the remaining literary orientations by defining national literature as a ethnic form. Im regarded the process of creation as "practical action" not only reflecting the objective process of reality but also recognizing it and giving a hint to it. In this respect, the pessimistic romanticism and the reappearance realism of the old KAPF became objects of reflection. The ethnic form was not just a slogan, but it embodied it. The form had to be the effect of practical action, not objective. By the way here is the point where the leap of his poetics occurs. He advanced the idea that the result of artistic creation could be an ideology, and then found a "divine surplus" and assumed three worlds: the world that the artist intended; the world of surplus; the world of criticism. These are all based on reality, but depending on the attitude of the artist, the surplus world may or may not be realized as a work. In his view, it is the latter when critics intervene. Thus, in the field of literature, he evolved materialistic dialectic into a practical poetics.

In the same period, Kim Kirim attempted to reflect on the intellect and to elevate the status of humanism to activism and socialism. His reflection was aimed at intelligence, technicalism and contentism. He thought that these biases had to be overcome for a new poetic order. So he named romanticism and classicism as qualitative concepts, "burning human spirit" and "active poetic spirit", and placed them under the control of reflective intelligence, the "active spirit". He bought the spirit that originated from emotion as "active" romanticism, which, in his view, was the power to organize a new style against the times. The "active spirit" was later renamed to "scientific attitude". He considered the functions of science, poetry, and criticism the same in terms of a willingness to fix the reality by grasping and exploring causality of reality. In the late 1930s, he denied the ontological and teleological approach to poetry, preparing poetics for young people and their future. His new poetics aimed to identify the way and manner in which poetry exists. As a result, poetry became a means of communication, the infection of poetic spirit became a psychological phenomenon, and language became a social behavior. The reason he asked for "the principles of the day" for a new era was that he expected the era of the nation states to take place after the Second World War.

In two articles published in 1935, Park Yongcheol introduced the poetry of the Auden Group in England, which had been inclined to Marxism in the 1930s, and denied "sheer nationalism" and "internal classism". While these were closely related to the value of Seon, he was clinging to Mi as a literary man. This was the reason for the controversy about technicalism. The concepts used in this debate served as reference points for his progress. He judged that the true pose of contemporary poetry was in helplessness and self-loathing, and he expressed his concerns about national language in a roundabout way. The last article on this study was a stopover for his poetics. His exploration of poetry's technology found that the very point of rejection of the law and its transmission was the essence of poetry. So he had no choice but to speak in parables. The first parable to be noticed is Yeo-pyo-ji-wol (如標指月; Look at the moon, not your fingers). This means that the poet should lose his original form without being bound to himself. The second, more important, parable is Mu-myeong-hwa (無名火; Unnamed fire). If the former is a process and a method of transformation, this is the principle of transformation. This is "preceding poem" because the poet changes before and after the creation, so he can write a new poem, and this process is repeated. Thus, Mu-myeong-hwa is a flame that coexists with poet. So it was impossible for Park to name this flame which is constantly changing.

In the early 1930s, Im Hwa, Kim Kirim and Park Yongcheol established the axiology of Jin Seon Mi in modern Korean poetics. But by the mid-1930s, the divided axiology system was shaken, and in the late 1930s it was interconnected. External factors were great, but there were already indications in their early poetics. On the one hand, their literary responses are similar to the responses of the poesy in the Transitional Period to Modern Era in Korea, before Gyeongsul Gukchi, and just after the March 1st. The point at which their fidelity to the situation of the times revealed is in this commonality. Literature was rooted in the private realm, but always looking at the public realm. It can be said that the works of Lim, Kim and Park were not merely external factors in this respect. Im came close to Mi from Sun and Kim got close to Sun from Jin, so the modern poetics of Korea got wide horizon. And Park added depth to this by getting closer to the essence of Mi By keeping Seon and Mi together. The accomplishment of the poetics he reached might have been possible because he was not tied to Mi in some way. Im had evolved materialistic dialectic from a practical level to an aesthetic level. Kim can be regarded as a representative example of our literary history in which the intellect that does not ignore the reality goes toward Seon. As such, they each aimed at different values, but introduced new values into the poetics by not restraining themselves. In short, they can be regarded as carrying out the task of modernity as the practice of poetics.