<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<br> <BR><div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div><hr id="stopSpelling">From: werner_sasse@hotmail.com<br>To: hoffmann@koreaweb.ws<br>Subject: RE: [KS] Korean Tea Ceremony and other wonders<br>Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:58:32 +0000<br><br>
<div dir="ltr">
<style><!--
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">Dear all in this wonderful thread</div><div dir="ltr"><br>I am sorry, I should have sent this earlier, although it does not refer to Frank's main arguments ...<br> <br>Rutt gives Song Sun (1493-1583), and the Hanja version starting 百里群山擁野平 is by him .<br>However, my books give somebody else for the sijo 十年을 經營하야 ... (can't find the arae-a) , namely <strong>김장생 </strong>金長生 1548-1631, 호 沙溪...<br> <br>By the way, the MyOnang-jeong ground plan is like many pavillions in Damyang a board of 3 by 2 identically sized areas, the middle one in the back row is an ondol room </div><div dir="ltr"> </div><div dir="ltr">For more I am waiting until I see Franks reply to my last postiong..</div><div dir="ltr"> </div><div dir="ltr">Best,</div><div dir="ltr">Werner<br> <br></div><div dir="ltr"><div id="ecxSkyDrivePlaceholder"></div>> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:40:19 -0700<br>> From: hoffmann@koreaweb.ws<br>> To: koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws<br>> Subject: Re: [KS] Korean Tea Ceremony and other wonders<br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> In this re-written version, I am trying to summarize some minor issues, <br>> but also get to the essential issues later in this posting. For <br>> whatever reason the first version did not get posted. / FH<br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> Quick question:<br>> <br>> Professor Kim, the link you provide to the "original" of the poem shows <br>> it is written in Hanja, not mixed script?<br>> 百里群山擁野平。臨溪茅屋幸初成。此身不繫蒼生望。宜與沙鷗結好盟。<br>> That changes the grammar (no -porira ending), makes even Richard Rutt's <br>> translation with the more 'passive' last line also more appropriate. I <br>> thought that sijo were always composed in mixed script. Not? <br>> <br>> <br>> Second quick question to Professor Sun Joo Kim. You wrote:<br>> <br>> > The thached roof building is none other than the MyOnang-jong, <br>> > MyOnang Pavilion in Tamyang, where Song Sun resided.<br>> <br>> Okay, a "pavilion" then -- Myŏnang-jŏng -- but that seems a bit <br>> strange, as a pavilion, by definition, is a place to meet, to drink <br>> wine, sing, recite poetry, etc. That was such an intriguing concept <br>> that Prussian kings even imported that to Dresden <br>> (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/68305971 ), and others that really look <br>> like East Asian ones). You do not build a pavilion to then say, sorry <br>> it is too small, stay outside my friends, I am enjoying just myself, <br>> the moon and the mountains. For a photo of the rebuild pavilion, <br>> Myŏnang-jŏng, see the last pictures on this page: <br>> http://jungar.tistory.com/115 It makes much more sense if indeed the <br>> object referred to would be a small house (in a similar setting). When <br>> we read such "information" about allocations of places in literature <br>> and poetry to specific, existing buildings and places we should be <br>> suspicious. That pavilion may not have been a pavilion in the 15th <br>> century, and/or the writer may just have had some very generalized <br>> situational setting in mind when writing the poem. The reason I am <br>> pointing into this direction is again the already mentioned <br>> context--interpreting archaeological findings the way they seem <br>> appropriate to make up a good story (but what I saw and mentioned <br>> earlier did relate to tea ceremony). All this is, let me also note <br>> this, NOT at all a Korean-only phenomena. The famous Dresden Cathedral <br>> (Frauenkirche), for example, destroyed during WWII and finally rebuild <br>> and reopened in 2005, never existed. It never existed the way you now <br>> see it rebuild, not for a single day. (I just use this as an example <br>> because I am very familiar with the details of the reconstruction <br>> process, but this is a global scenario.) What you see when you visit <br>> the impressive building are (often idealized and beautified) <br>> projections of how various art historians and archaeologists imagined <br>> how various parts of the building and its interior looked during <br>> *different* historic periods. In many cases the rebuild version of each <br>> room or part of the room (and other details) is a clear reflection of <br>> current (1990s and 2000s) tastes, of what "looks best" and "most <br>> impressive" or most "perfect" to the visitor. You will often see the <br>> very same room at four different periods, each wall in the state of a <br>> different period, and with walls that did not even exist at the time <br>> the opposite wall existed. It is not a reconstruction of the <br>> Frauenkirche during a particular period in time. Nobody did cut the <br>> time, say in 1820, and said, well, that is the state of the building we <br>> now reconstruct. Doesn't matter where to you go … in Japan temples, <br>> for example, are being rebuild (please, Prof. Best help me out here), <br>> was it every 80 years? Or every 200, I forgot. But they ARE being <br>> rebuild on a regular basis, and they do change their looks with every <br>> rebuild, most certainly so, as the "taste" changes, the needs change, <br>> building construction techniques and economics change, and so on and so <br>> forth. In Japan that is perfectly in line with Buddhist concepts of <br>> life, of course (everything is always perfect in Japan). Maybe that's <br>> why today's centuries old Japanese temples get us the feel of black <br>> concrete castles modeled after construction plans from The Cabinet of <br>> Dr. Caligari and German Autobahn bridges.<br>> <br>> Prof. Kim wrote:<br>> > [I] do not want to (...) make any comment whether there was any <br>> > unique garden culture in Choson<br>> <br>> What kind of question would such a comment have to precede, a <br>> whether-or-not question? All that points into a strange direction then. <br>> That should not be the issue. The EMPHASIS should really not be on <br>> "unique" (yes, of course were Korean gardens unique!) One of the main <br>> questions is rather how important or how marginal gardens were in <br>> Chosŏn Korea for cultural production (and that can only be answered in <br>> relationship to whatever else was going on in Korea and what "garden <br>> culture" meant in neighboring China, Japan, and also in the West. <br>> "Garden culture" as we talk about it for these other cultures is not <br>> about just gardens! Garden culture is, as pointed out before, as a huge <br>> package of cultural production, in the arts, literature, and political <br>> and social life. In Europe and Japan and in early China it could have <br>> that role because it constituted 'high culture' and not 'low culture,' <br>> came from the top of the power base or, in the Japanese case, was <br>> instrumentalized to represent a new upwards moving merchant class. Now, <br>> in Korea (this is a question, not the final answer), if indeed as <br>> stated by Professor Sasse, garden design and architecture was informed <br>> by ('low culture') geomancy and not by (as in old China or in early <br>> modern Japan) Buddhist philosophy and related culture, and also not by <br>> neo-Confucian ideas, then we would already have a very major difference <br>> there to the neighboring settings. That is also expected, of course. <br>> But my doubts are that in a neo-Confucian state low culture geomantic <br>> practices can lead to a whole culture. See, again, this is not just <br>> about gardens … you would then see literature, philosophical <br>> discourses, you would see lots of ceramic wares and other handicraft <br>> production, changes of social life etc. all circling around the garden, <br>> and being reflected in garden designs. I have NOT seen that in Korea. <br>> And it makes NO sense to me, would not expect that with any low culture <br>> anywhere, not until the 20th century (or maybe the French Revolution, <br>> if we talk about Europe). In that context it then also makes sense that <br>> the few treatises by Korean scholars we do have come from early <br>> Chosŏn--still close to the Koryŏ period, a time where gardens were <br>> bound into philosophical concepts and were they still represented <br>> aristocratic culture, both in China and Korea. So, my second set of <br>> doubts is with all these over and over emphasized "geomantic" <br>> principles etc. when it comes to later period gardens in Korea. What <br>> that indicates that to me is that, all over, representatives of the <br>> upper class, scholars, etc., did not anymore care much about gardens, <br>> and that there was not much of a related culture left. Gardens could <br>> NOT s easily be bind into neo-Confucian concepts of thought (quite <br>> opposite to Buddhist societies, and also opposite to the European case <br>> where power structures and resulting aesthetics were represented in <br>> very direct ways … as e.g. in North Korea today). Bamboo and the <br>> flowers mentioned before … yes, scholars may have discussed those, BUT <br>> NOT within the context of garden, garden planning, garden architecture, <br>> etc., just the way that they do play symbolic roles and the way they <br>> appear e.g. in painting. Gardens themselves where, as compared to other <br>> periods and other countries, at a low burner all through the Chosŏn <br>> period, and if today you interpret their layout as geomantically <br>> influenced than that is an indication of exactly -- we do see no <br>> reflection of the ideologies of the state there, nor (!) was whatever <br>> was done in gardens handed down from the aristocracy to a wider <br>> population to again (a) propagate state ideology or ideologies of <br>> important power brokers, (b) and there was no imitation of upper-class <br>> culture either. The way I read Werner's description then rather means <br>> lower and upper class culture were the same when it comes to gardens <br>> (geomantic principles). That is an overly clear indication there there <br>> was no importance put to gardens whatsoever. I would, however, further <br>> extend my doubts to the "geomantic influences" part--it sounds too <br>> 20the century Western 'esoteric.' Aren't geomantic practices always (a) <br>> very concrete? And (b) this is never an entire philosophy either, but <br>> the grand master plan such as Buddhist or Confucian models, but rather <br>> limited in that sense. That again means, when it comes to gardens, then <br>> there is no such "concept" of how to construct a garden, is there? <br>> Rules may have been applied, mostly rules of what NOT to do. But <br>> geomancy, although we use that term, was never anything like ONE school <br>> (or religion) that would provide a whole toolset (like Buddhism, <br>> Christianity) of symbolism; there are no grand master narratives that <br>> someone could have taken up, it cannot be utilized for the grand <br>> planning of gardens (for scholars and the upper class). <br>> <br>> A last note--let me come back to the issue of the "uniqueness" of <br>> gardens (or garden culture, which I would not use). Uniqueness is out! <br>> And right so, we should really stop talking about and thinking in terms <br>> of uniqueness when we discuss, describe, talk about national or local <br>> culture, even when we talk about individual cultural production. I know <br>> that there are still people out there at anthropology museums and <br>> museums that have East Asian art collections, and other such places, <br>> where efforts are put into providing proof of national uniqueness of <br>> this or that, but well, I think it has been at least two decades that <br>> adjectives such as 'unique' started to get disqualified and to be <br>> ignored at international contemporary art exhibitions. Although these <br>> mummy terms in wheelchairs were never declared dead and replaced by <br>> something else (but that's seldom the case with any cultural models and <br>> belief systems, they do not get replaced, they co-exist until everyone <br>> has forgotten), they were just disregarded and left alone in their <br>> isolated chambers to dream of the olden days when they had received so <br>> much attention. I see no reason why there should be any difference in <br>> how we discuss traditional art and how modern and contemporary art and <br>> art objects. Objects may have been produced under very different <br>> circumstances, but we do evaluate them and their meaning to us today. <br>> OUR concept of uniqueness and the still mainstream understanding that <br>> 'good art' has to be 'unique,' that is basically a left-over from the <br>> early and mid-20th century art scene and the way modern art, and more <br>> specifically abstract painting and Informal, took care of propagating <br>> themselves through pamphlets and declarations, and how it was later <br>> advertised as the final and last stage of human art development by <br>> entire governments, as the final (or at least strongest) legitimate <br>> expression of individualism in the arts. All of that is yesterday's <br>> talk now, all that has been dropped. Uniqueness and originality, as <br>> concepts, are not even meaningful anymore for designers, as was still <br>> the case in the 1980s and maybe up until into the 1990s. Then we had a <br>> new emphasis coming in on "authenticity" and "the local" as a result of <br>> and parallel to postmodern movements. But now that's gone also, and not <br>> even corporate advertisement companies work with such concepts anymore. <br>> When we see Apple vs. Samsung in court over a cell phone design, then <br>> that is an expression of how far behind the court system is, not an <br>> expression where our society and artists are. Neither designers nor <br>> artists would care about "originality" and "uniqueness" much anymore, <br>> and if they are soon out. The very obscure part comes in when we remind <br>> ourselves that those engaged in East Asian art and culture have for <br>> decades tried so hard to explain that "uniqueness" and "originality" <br>> are modern Western concepts that traditional cultures in Asia did not <br>> go by. Look e.g. through all the literature from or about Japanese art <br>> of the 1970s, no matter if traditional or modern art. It's full of <br>> originality discourses, that is the main focus. Korea, a few decades <br>> years later, has these now, at least the official organizations <br>> (National Museums, ARKO, etc.) all reproduce them, is at the hight of <br>> it. So you see all these explanations on how and why "originality" <br>> concepts had not been enacted in traditional Korean art, and a few <br>> lines later it is explained to us how and why Korean national culture <br>> is the most "unique" and "original" one (AND that is not even wrong in <br>> the sense of factually incorrect). Be-au-ti-ful! So, while in <br>> traditional art almost everything relies on models, patterns, and <br>> repetition, all the modern national institutions in Korea never get <br>> tired to advertise nothing but national-level uniqueness and <br>> originality (Bauhaus and European modernism ideologies send their <br>> greetings!); all the while the international art scene has moved on <br>> into other directions. Try to explain that logic to your students, <br>> please. That will likely take you a full semester of intense <br>> brain-washing to communicate. But museum folks and other institutional <br>> representatives are usually really skilled at turning all these <br>> left-over approaches into a tasty pindaettŏk. And who knows, if you buy <br>> their coffee table book for your art and culture class, they might get <br>> you a free Samsung Galaxy S3 in unique Korean design right on top of <br>> it. <br>> <br>> <br>> I come to the modern Tamyang gardens later (maybe tomorrow) … and to <br>> the various very interesting points Werner made. But seriously, I thing <br>> the main disagreements are not about the actual gardens but about how <br>> and where to situate the discourse.<br>> <br>> <br>> Best,<br>> Frank<br>> <br>> --------------------------------------<br>> Frank Hoffmann<br>> http://koreaweb.ws<br></div>
</div></div> </div></body>
</html>