'폐허'의 시간 - 1920년대 초 동인지 문학의 미적 세계관 형성에 대하여

Abstract

On every point of the 'Beginning', the 'longing' and the 'negation' operate together in general. In order that any action or utterance has a meaning as the 'Beginning', then some ontological and/or epistemological breaks must be premised, and so that is the ‘negation'. And in sofar as it ought to be bear in mind the predictable results, this action in Beginning' contains the 'longing' too. Then, the ‘'Creation'[Chang-jo(創造)] and the 'Ruin' [Pye-huh(廢塊)], or the 'longing' and the 'negation' may become symbolic signs from which interpretations on the fundamental characters of aesthetic world-view of Dong-in-ji’ literature in early 1920s can find some clues. This concern about the 'Dong-in-ji’ literature in early 1920s leads me to consider to the consciousness about socio-historical time. The concepts of ‘closed experienced-space' and the 'open expectedhorizon'(the concepts by Reinhart Koselleck) is useful for studying the consciousness and writings of 'Dong-in-ji' men of letters. A large majority of them was students abroad during early colonial periods. They stood on a situation in antinomy. They experieced the modernity through concrete institutions of Japan in an imperialist phase. So, on one hand, they got intoxicated with representations of the modernity and, the other hand, were discouraged in stagnation of conventions in Korea. In the light of my concern, the former might correspond with the ‘open expected-horizon' and the latter the ‘closed experienced-space' . It is the matter that these two constitutive concepts of socio-historical time were represented as spatial by them. In the middle of these two oppositional conditions (open/closed, modern/traditional, imperialist Japan/colonial Korea etc.), they could not help leaping into the domain of the Beauty' and the 'Art'. They wanted to get to the universality and contemporaneity in the domain of the 'Beauty' and the 'Art' , and endeavoured to fill that domain with all that valuable to them: for instance, love, real-self, absoluteness, infiniteness, sacredness, etc. One can name these phenomena as the 'pan-aestheticism' or 'art fetishism' as a kind of world-view. Their leap or transcendence might perhaps be necessary. But their aesthetic world-view expresses an obsession for universality and contemporaneity, and moreover, it puts the object in brackets and then looks at the world aesthetic. Their attitude may correspond with a dominator's pity for colonial people. And their aestheticism is a moment of modern and rational domination.