[KS] Percival Lowell
Frank Hoffmann
hoffmann at koreanstudies.com
Tue Apr 21 21:04:35 EDT 2015
Maya Stiller wrote:
> In the late Chosŏn period, lettered people were avid collectors of
> Chinese luxury items (...)
Yes, and yes ... in past few years there has been some research and
some publications on COLLECTING in Korea, very late, but good, very
good to see this.
My question to Maya and others, with the publications you have seen,
has there been made a clear connection to the "opening" of Korea since
1876? (Obviously this is a very essential question, so we can
understand if this relates to the modernization and westernization
process and how.) Sure did scholars in earlier centuries also "collect"
items from China -- and we do sometimes have the exact lists of what
exactly they received. Much of that shows some parallels to beginning
of Renaissance Italian "collecting: and 'Wunderkammer' museums of the
medici etc., in that it was not just "art objects" as we define them
today but "curiosities" and books, etc. So, apart from the fact that a
DEALERS and MARKETS evolved in that opening period, the beginning of
capitalist society, what other changes were happening (if you had to
nail that down in a sentence)?
Maya wrote:
> As for "kura", the Korean elite was perhaps not interested in the
> long-term preservation of their collections, and we therefore don't
> find a "kura" culture in Korea. However, late Chosŏn ch'aekkŏri
> culture clearly evidences the urge to display one's collection, and
> illustrates the prestige associated with owning luxurious foreign
> items.
In that sense there was (the elite displaying valuable scripts,
paintings, etc.) -- as far as I can see, but I might be wrong -- no
basic change to earlier periods of the Chosŏn period. I do not mean to
repeat what all know, but just to make my point: in medieval Europe the
culture of display had been essentially different from East Asia in
that 'nice and interesting stuff' got displayed in glass curios or hung
on the wall. And since the Renaissance this also started to be common
for upper class and later middle class citizens (the bourgeoisie), not
just the church, royalty and aristocracy. But in East Asia, that 'nice
and interesting stuff' was taken out at special occasions, meetings
scholarly (male, of course) friends, festivities, ritual celebrations,
etc. It was not around and hung at the walls -- at least not until the
late Chosŏn period. .... And here is where I am lost as for the
possible differences with Japan (where this area is very well
researched) and Korea. Trade and art markets appeared in Japan much
earlier than in Korea. But many of the details (for Korea) are still
cloudy in my own knowledge -- and the sort of articles and research
Maya just mentioned have only started to appear recently. But these are
VERY essential parts in the puzzle when we try to understand the
creation of the concept of "art" in the modernizing Korea (late
Chosŏn), and it, the market and modes of display and trade relates
really to the aesthetics also!!! Till now, the usual works published in
Korea and elsewhere thus discuss "modern" works of art (from the very
late Chosŏn period or the colonial period) AS IF these were produced in
an environment similar to that of Europe, the U.S., or Japan. That,
though, completely disregards the just mentioned modes of trade,
collecting, and display at the particular time these were produced.
That again makes both an analysis of the aesthetics of these works
(which is hardly ever discussed in detail) just as invalid and crooked
and logically inconsistent as an analysis of the sociopolitical
implications. THAT has been one of the major problems with the
"research" on early modern Korean art. If AT LEAST the writers would
have pointed out the problem (of a lack of information in that area),
but that has generally not happened, and Korean art works were
described as if they had been produced in Paris. So, in short (imagined
smiley here!), we really need to understand far more about e.g. those
65 + 20 Korean hat styles and details about collecting around 1900 (and
before) to then come up with a useful analysis of say 1910s paintings,
and where it goes from there.
As for the 'kura' question:
>> the Korean elite was perhaps not interested in the long-term
preservation of their collections <<
Well, yes, well, no. That might not be the question or answer that
HELPS understanding the situation. Jonathan Best, I think, already put
his thumb right on it: the question is *why* they were not interested.
I might have used this story before (sorry, but it helps the argument):
many years ago, first time in my life seeing the traditional wooden
houses in Cambridge, East Coast USA, where it gets really cold in the
winter, with lots of snow, I could not comprehend why they would not
use brick stone houses, or whatever means to isolate the houses, such
as double-glass windows. Where they waiting since the 17th century for
a climate change? Never answered that for myself, until my wife said
many tears later: "an issue of setting priorities" - and that was
certainly it, yes! Americans do not life the entire life in one place,
Europeans usually do (or did, until recently). OTHER things are higher
up in the things-to-do list, higher than sealed windows in a house one
may move out of in a year or two. Applied to the 'kura' question the
answer might be found by looking what the priorities were, for all
social classes, at a given time.
Best,
Frank
--------------------------------------
Frank Hoffmann
http://koreanstudies.com
More information about the Koreanstudies
mailing list