<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'>
Dear Frank and list members,<BR>
I just noticed that the link that I provided in my earlier post for the poem 經營兮十年。作草堂兮三間。明月兮淸風。咸收拾兮時完。惟江山兮無處納。散而置兮觀之 leads to some other poem (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), which is also titled "MyOnang-jOng". I guess some online glitches. The poem under discussion can be found in MyOnang-jip, kwOn 4, chapchO (Han'guk munjip ch'onggan, vol. 26, 237c). As for Frank's question, I assume that this poem was originally a sijo and composed in the Korean or mixed script (as in Professor Kim-Renaud's post, beginning with 十年을 經營하야 草廬三間지어내니...) and then later written in hanmun (經營兮十年...) as we see now in MyOnang-jip, Song Sun's collected works. But I am not certain. <BR>
I believe MyOnang-jOng (whether it was one 3-kan hut or a compound of several buildings with sorrounding gardens, I do not know) was built by Song Sun back in the sixteenth century. I am sure that the pavilion must have gone through numerous repairs and possibly total reconstructions, thereby might have lost its original 16th century state. <BR>
Best,<BR>
Sun Joo Kim<BR>
<BR> <BR>
<DIV>
<DIV id=SkyDrivePlaceholder></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></body>
</html>