표제: 흰눈집주인 이 영 재(1930~)
Major Fallacies in the study of Jeong-Hee Kim (Chu-Sa 秋史, 1786-1856)
混沌 (CHAOS)とand 選択(CHOICES)
- 李 庸 銖
The Moam Collection
The achievements of Jeong-Hee Kim, a well-known scholar based artist, have been recognized by many Koreans and Kim still has strong influence on people in Korea and Korean art society. Resulting from this, Jeong-Hee Kim has become one of the most popular and favorite artists in Korea. On the contrary to this, however, considerable drawbacks lie in the study of Jeong-Hee Kim.
Up until now, a variety of exhibitions of Jeong-Hee Kim's collection have been organized by various institutions, such as a series of exhibitions with several publications including Chu-sa Jib (Hyunamsa, 2014), “Ink Rubbings of Chu-Sa (Chu-Sa Tak Bon Jeon)”, “Wan-dang and his wind” in company with the publication “Biography of Wan-Dang (Wan-dang Pyoung Jeon, Hakgojae, 2002)”, and so forth. As a result of these exhibitions with publications, many Koreans have become keenly interested in Jeong-Hee Kim’s works.
Although large numbers of shortcomings were in the publications above, interestingly enough, Wan-dang Pyoung Jeon has received much interest. " Wan-dang Pyoung Jeon and Chusajib" are significant as the first in-depth and overall research about Jeong-Hee Kim and his works. Those books present Chu-sa's personal life and the whole range of his works by period and works of art. These books are regarded as required texts for studying Chu-sa and his works by scholars and students.
However, in spite of two Korean scholars' significant contributions, numerous misrepresentations exist in their books and in the exhibitions mentioned above. Even though I do understand we need a very careful and deliberate approaches, treatments and I totally recognize it might be an inappropriate approach to study art history at some points, I would like to point out that a major problem is many inauthentic works are (still) in those books as well as in the exhibitions. Besides, those authors misunderstood the works of Jeong-Hee Kim’s students, such as Don-In Kweon, Hwi-Yong Cho, Jeong-Hyun Yun, and Ha-Ung Lee, for the works of Jeong-Hee Kim. In addition, some misunderstandings and fallacies in translation and anecdotes of Jeong-Hee Kim have frequently appeared in other primary book resources. In my point of view, this is problematic now that it could make people all around the world including Korea confused. And scholars, students, and general public might regard the inauthentic works as the genuine ones, and they might study Jeong-Hee Kim and his works based on these incorrect materials and resources.
In this section of my thesis or dissertation(publication) I would like to focus much more on the source of confusion between Jeong-Hee Kim’s works and that of his students’, especially Don-In Kweon. For this I will demonstrate that the pen names, “Yeum(髥), Yeum-Na(髥那), Na-Ga(那伽), Na-Ga-San-in(那伽山人), Guo-Sa(居士), Byung-Guo-Sa(病居士)” formerly accepted to be that of Jeong-Hee Kim are in fact not the case. Rather these pen names are Don-In Kweon’s by the study of Wan-Yeum-Hap-Byuk(阮髥合璧) which is the album made mostly by Jeong-Hee Kim and Don-In Kweon. To do this I will select Jeong-Hee Kim’s works from “Wan-dang Pyoung Jeon & Chusajib” and explain why these works are not Chu-Sa’s.
ⓒ 모암문고 茅岩文庫 The Moam Collection www.moamcollection.org
무단전재 및 도용 재배포금지 | 저작권문의