중요무형문화재 전승자 명칭 및 선정에 관한 연구

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate problems accompanying the change of titles for initiates along with the current status of intangible cultural asset transmission. As the study method, this study employed a method of exploring various literary data on primary and secondary historical materials, and following are the conclusions：First, it is necessary to reexamine archetype preservation of intangible cultural assets. Not depending on archetype maintenance and preservation, it is essential to think over how to preserve the archetypes, collecting reliable sources, and through which way to have them applied. Second, it is necessary to reexamine ‘holder (保有者),’ a representative initiate for intangible cultural asset. According to the cultural asset protection law, a title named as ‘a holder of intangible cultural asset’ is used, but since the title of ‘holder’ is only a legally named one, it is not broadly used in reality. This is the right moment to reexamine the title for intangible cultural assets in order to get rid of the conflict between a legal name and a broadly used name by changing it into the title of ‘human cultural asset’ which is broadly well known, Third, it is necessary to classify the titles for the transmission teaching assistant of intangible cultural asset by the level according to the number of years. Different from the beginning that given a holder of intangible cultural asset designated, titles were divided into such as a holder candidate, a transmission teaching assistant, a finisher, a apprentice by their level in a descending order, the tiles were currently unified as a holder and a transmission teaching assistant, bringing about various problems. A minute classification of apprentice titles could prevent from pleas of conflicting problems rather than unifying them into ‘the transmission teaching assistant.’