[KS] Korean Tea Ceremony and other wonders
Frank Hoffmann
hoffmann at koreaweb.ws
Sun Aug 19 19:53:15 EDT 2012
Dear All:
Back to GARDENS and to Soswaewŏn -- at least in this posting.
Here comes my reply to Werner's arguments, trying to summarize things
as much as possible. It has been a little hard to explain my
argument, as several issues and fields intermingle, and each of these
need major revisions. So, my response does not read as streamlined as I
would like it to read, but I see the discussion already shifts to
lighter waters, and so I better post it before everyone has forgotten
what the discourse was about.
1. GARDENS are being studied in various fields, by landscape architects
(as an extension of architecture, of historical landscape
architecture), because any sort of space that is 'cultivated' can as
well be seen as architecture, and also because there are buildings,
walls, man-made ponds, etc. in gardens like Soswaewŏn. Landscape
architects usually look at the history of gardens to then make
suggestions of how to preserve or alter historic gardens. To them
preservation is not equivalent to some stable 'keeping as is' model,
neither to a 'reconstruct as was' model. It's more of a fluid concept,
that takes into consideration both, the original utilization and
aesthetic concept as well as the contemporary needs, their owners' and
visitors' wishes and expectations. Than there are the art historians
who somewhat compete with the historical landscape architects. But art
history was and still is, even in its newer radical version, always
object oriented. That is, we look at the object, here Soswaewŏn, and
try to describe it, try to reconstruct its state (via means of textual
description, maybe drawings) at it was at various times, just as if
time were a tree, and you cut through it and disclose how much or
little it grew in every year, if it was a year with much rain or a
drought where it did not grew, etc. And in order to explain the object
we look at whatever we can find out about society and historical events
at the various times we want to reveal with our time-cut, but then,
ideally, we also again use what we found out about the object to add to
our understanding of how society, religions, etc. worked at a set time.
Furthermore, we have archaeology: archaeologist basically do the same
art historians do, but are usually less interested in particular
objects, more so on material culture (incl. tools) in a wider sense,
that is then used to form our view of life at a certain period. As we
all know archaeologists get their hands dirty in order to also
reconstruct buildings, gardens, entire historic sites. Contemporary
archaeology (other than Schliemann and early founders) does not use
myth, legends, or poetry much at all, but rely more on the hard
sciences like chemistry, physics, paleozoology, etc.--but there are
also many overlaps with other disciplines such as art history. Finally,
there is literature (theme: gardens or landscapes and poetry),
ethnology, geography, anthropology, and religious studies--all of which
also have an interest in gardens. In sum, other than just historical
approaches that, to say it in simple terms, cut the time tree into
slices and then look at each slice in order to describe how social or
material reality looked like in that slice, we also have fields looking
at issues less determined by the dimension of time. Mentioning the last
set of fields I do not want to miss also mentioning a very impressive
book: _Sitings: Critical Approaches to Korean Geography_, eds. by
Timothy R. Tangherlini and Sallie Yea. Honolulu: U of Hawai'i Press,
2008. Please do NOT get confused by the term 'geography' in the title.
It is a book about localities and changing, managed, manipulated,
constructed and reconstructed localities of Korean culture. Soswaewŏn
or Tamyang are not being discussed, but the book still relates to the
kind of discussion we have here. To me this is one of the most
important books on Korea of the past years when it comes to
understanding modern Korea and the entailed relationship between modern
and traditional and what that means for changes in cultural life. From
the point of view of "Korean Studies" as an academic field this seems
to me a very successful, because truly interdisciplinary approach that
aims are asking questions and giving answers to a modernized,
contemporary set of questions of understanding the inner workings of
cultural production and reception that in a locally limited space.
(This, of course, is just my view.)
2. With these different fields and the different research interests and
various "production" interests, we should ideally have plenty of
studies at our fingertips that analyze all kinds of aspects of a place
like Soswaewŏn. That should result in an all-over discourse and
field-specific sub-discourses. That is not the case, and that is what I
indicated earlier. Certain to-be-expected discourses never happen. I do
argue here that this is the result of what we usually call
institutionally dominant art history--and not just art history but also
state and corporate dominated archaeology and other fields. Art objects
and cultural objects are in Korea understood as a visual representation
of the entire society. That is basically a very Eurocentric and
outdated concept of culture (maybe best represented through the works
of art historians like Gombrich). Same as Gombrich was concerned about
a canon of valuable artworks that would represent certain periods and
entire cultures, Korean state and corporate institutions are interested
in celebrating and ever expanding a canon or cultural objects that
represent the nation. [NOTE: I always also mention 'corporate' because
the big corporations have such a special role in Korea.] The outcome of
this desire is that the sub-text, the pressure, call it what you want,
that these institutions create by how research sponsoring, job hiring,
direct and indirect censorship, etc. works, pre-formulate major
research results. As an archaeologist, for example, or as a conservator
in a museum, the work on historical artefacts entails anything from
indexing and cleaning over repairing to radically reconstructing
objects. Archaeology in Korea, at least for the sites seen to have
major importance, often apply later textual sources and myth and
legends, if the outcome would otherwise not substantiate the expected
outcome, and when it comes to reconstruction we are far more often than
in other places also in an extreme situation of radically reconstructed
objects that are aimed at producing a pre-defined interpretation of the
nationalized past. I can just encourage you to talk to any foreign
archaeologist or historian of urban development having had projects in
Korea to get critical details. (As I also mentioned--see my Dresden
example--this happens not only in Korea. But the role that assumptions
and judgements play in how historical artefacts are being analyzed and
reconstructed, and the artificially limited discourse that informs such
decision making processes, this seems to make Korea one of the extreme
sample cases.)
3. When I look at Soswaewŏn from an art historical point of view and as
someone into the social history of art history (art historiography)
also, I would want to talk about at least three historical cuts: (a)
early-mid Chosŏn (the planing and construction period), (b) any cut
within Chosŏn period, and (c) 1990s to present. We cannot talk about
(a) and (b) without discussing (c), because (c) determines what we know
and how we evaluate the past. The 1980s generation of ongoing young
Korean critics and art historians had alternative concepts to interpret
Korean culture. But their aspirations crumbled rather faster than
slower after they had themselves integrated into the new more
democratic government with the same old, renamed institutions, now
being in charge of cultural policies (which had not been reformed at an
institutional level). The off-center creation of the Kwangju Biennale
in the mid-1990s and the government-sponsored restoration and
functional remodeling of Soswaewŏn into some sort of a theme park for
mass tourism, with Bamboo Museum, wellness center, and other related an
unrelated constructions in its neighborhood were at the time model
projects of the new government.They were also a result of this shift in
personal and part of the new governments' effort to decentralize
culture--some sort of reparations payments to the Ch'ŏlla-do region. I
remember very well that bus loads of retirees and school children of
all ages--we talk almost a million people here--from Seoul and
elsewhere were unloaded at the Kwangju Biennale compound to see my
friend Su-en Wong hanging bare-breasted on a laundry line. After having
been told to admire the great contemporary art they were then pushed
back into the waiting busses that drove them to Soswaewŏn to celebrate
the nation's great culture of "typical" Chosŏn period gardens and
countryside culture. The Tamyang area had around 50 or 60 pavilions,
and Soswaewŏn has about ten structures, including the family villa,
most of which had completely been destroyed; these were reconstructed
at the time. Major parts of the garden itself had been in bad shape and
were reconstructed in the 1990s also. In spite of looking into various
PhD and even M.A. theses, and articles on Soswaewŏn, I could not find a
single work that would clarify exactly what was reconstructed when, and
on what basis (archaeological work seems never to have been done
there). Anyone who knows better, please correct. I myself did not see
Soswaewŏn until 2000; have you seen it before the 1990s? Without
verifiable data--I could not even find older photos of the entire
garden--it is hard to say anything about that reconstruction process,
and how much the garden's current state reflects today's needs and
concepts (ready for mass tourism), or how "authentic" it might be. What
state is the garden supposed to reflect, the 16th century, the 18th
century? No specific time then? Possibly rather, as the Frauenkirche in
Dresden, idealized bits and pieces of historical stages and designs,
plus completely new arrangements?
Every single reference to Soswaewŏn states that it would be
"representative" for mid-Chosŏn period scholar gardens. However, to me
that sounds like an exaggeration: the Tamyang area and Soswaewŏn seem
rather outstanding, and I have not found any proof for similar
non-court and non-temple gardens during the Chosŏn period that would
compare. If indeed the Chosŏn period would have had any sort of
energetic garden culture with all that belongs to it, then we would see
more such gardens remaining, and far more textual sources that relate
also. While there seem to be neither archaeological nor serious art
historical studies, a lot of papers deal with Soswaewŏn as a meeting
place for scholars and with the poetry that was written there. These
studies state that during the very early years, the 16th century,
nature and gardens themselves were also a subject in the poetry that
was composed there, while in later periods there were only more
generalizing references to nature. That is on more indication that
there was still some interest in gardens left in the early years as a
left-over from the Koryŏ period, but that this disappeared later. Let
us please recall that Buddhism has a master narrative, and gardens can
symbolize parts of that, while, as mentioned before, geomantic beliefs
are rather passive in character and have no organizational form.
Neo-Confucianism again asks for actions, and its is also development
and technology oriented (that is, it would not advocate to "leave
nature as is"). Although, as we all know, Korea is unique in how
various belief systems and religions coexist and intermingle,
neo-Confucianism became the leading ideology, and we should not forget
that those scholars who were exiled to the Tamyang area or retired
there, were all former chief ideologists, so to say, government
ideologists trained in the finest details of neo-Confucianism. These
yangban would not actively take on geomantic ideas, discuss these and
create gardens--that would have opposed neo-Confucian concepts. Quite
the opposite to Japan or Europe, this must have been, as Professor Best
suggested, a rather passive process. Passive in the sense that
geomantic ideas had always been widespread and were completely adapted.
4. Language--we should also talk about language:
Below is a reproduction of the 1755 woodprint that Werner had
mentioned, followed by a modern vertical cut through the garden
(1983, reproduced in many publications on Soswaewŏn).
Soswaewŏn Map 瀟灑園圖 (woodcut, original printing stock was from
1755), 35.3 x 25.5 cm:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Soswaewo?n_1755.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 241649 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20120819/18442b76/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
Soswaewŏn, vertical cut:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Soswaewo?n_vert_cut.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 121148 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20120819/18442b76/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
I like to come to LANGUAGE now. Lets start with pictorial language. The
1755 woodprint "map" presents indeed a kind of aerial view from bird's
eye perspective. It is of course more than a "map" in the modern sense
as it includes simple drawings (not just symbols) of the buildings,
walls, plants, a brook, and is that two men playing paduk in the
center? As you know from other such maps there is no linear
perspective, but we are presented with four different perspectives
united in one image: from above, and then from three sites (e.g. the
trees at the bottom appear either upside-down or seem to grew left to
right). We see these traditional renderings of landscapes in Korea
until well into the 1910s. It is noteworthy that this map does not have
any geomantic symbols! Werner, you may remember that e.g. Gernot
Prunner, long before you came to Hamburg, was researching this field
(Cheju-do geomantic maps, for example). David J. Nemeth did a lot of
research on that also, also with Cheju-do as focus. Anyway, this map is
no different from any official maps that could have made for the court
in Seoul, for example. I can well imagine that the actual garden
landscapers (whatever the term would have been in the 16th. cent.) may
have drawn a geomantic map. Fact is, the owner and his family seemingly
did not associate with Daoism and geomantic principles to the degree,
on an intellectual level, that a written or pictorial statement would
have been made. If we consider this to be a geomantic garden, then this
again means we cannot talk about "garden culture" as that would need to
involve a continuous strong intellectual discourse around the
structuring of the garden, and thereby obviously with geomantic
principles. That was never the case, not for the owner and the other
sonbi invited there.
The lower drawing shows a vertical cut through the garden. Vertical
cuts through space are probably the primary means for contemporary
architects and designers to visualize and represent their work to the
public. I found various versions of this architect's drawing in almost
every work on Soswaewŏn. Also to be found in all the works I got are
special note on that tight valley with the brook, and on how and why
that is meaningful for the up and down views the visitor has, explained
within the context of geomancy.
I'll give you here a typical excerpt (slightly edited) of how all the
Korean works analyse the cultural landscape of Soswaewŏn, *independent*
of the field of study:
(QUOTE A:) "It could be found that the opening and closing of Soswaewŏn
shows the continuous stream of Yin and Yang from the entrance to
Kwangpunggak and then creates the polar change of Yin and Yang whenever
one or two spaces are passed. The entrance is composed in a way the
sound of the bamboo forest and of water and the yin-yang of shade may
cause polar changes. Taebondae causes the polar change of Yin-Yang of
shade and light and water sound in the narrow space of 2x2m. Aeyangdan
is the space of ultimate Yang of light, whereas Chewŏldang is the space
of ultimate Yin of light. Kwangpunggak, again, is the combined space of
ultimate Yang of water sound and of ultimate Yin of light."
The above text does not draw any line between content of the
ideological belief system that is said to have informed the planning
and construction of the garden and the language of the analysis--both
melts into each other. In addition, it does not describe geomatic
principles as an underlaying cultural context but as a belief system
that is very actively being applied, just as it would have been the
case with e.g. Buddhist or Christian symbolism and story-telling. I
found that all the academic works on Soswaewŏn that I could locate,
with no exception, used this same faulty approach.
Now a description by a British architectural student (James Decent)
from London, here the part on the walls at Soswaewŏn:
(QUOTE B:) "Soswaewon's walls make confident spaces in the landscape.
The overlapping walls and tiers stagger the typography. Whereas the
landscape ungulates naturally, the stone walls contrast with their
right angles, straight horizontal and vertical lines. This contrast
does not mean they are out of place or context. After so many years
they define and make the place; make the context. Their geometry is
interesting because it is obvious they are human interventions. They do
not mimic nature. Their logical forming of geometric spaces means we
notice the contrast of the found/existing and natural. We read the
natural more clearly. Of course these walls are not perfectly straight
in their construction. The stone used to make them is rough/uncut,
unshaped. This creates an imperfection that ties it back to the
natural. It also humbles the confidence/boldness of the architecture.
The walls stop without enclosing anything. The gate does not form any
functional separation, it is purely spatial/experienced."
So, in this second description we see a more technical description,
with some evaluation, that succeeds to describe and appreciate the
object (the garden as architecture) without ever mentioning the
religious or ideological system that it is said to be informed by. To
me, this is a far more helpful approach in explaining the object than
the one given in QUOTE A, which ends up as a sort of esoteric outburst
where we do not even have a reliable description of the object. Every
field has its specific methods and terminology. What we see happening
with Soswaewŏn in Korea though, is a strange reduction to the same kind
of non-field-specific language (although not always as extreme as the
quote given). This again is yet another clear indication to me that
there never was any garden culture. If there was, then there would just
so much to be said and described (art historical, about literature,
about special architecture, about the manpower and related jobs) that
these geomantic terms would be used in relation to describe their VERY
concrete applications.
Let me finish this with a third quote from the already mentioned book,
a longer quote from David Nemeth' chapter in there. It gives you an
idea of what is otherwise possible, of how p'ungsu and related
terminology can be discussed in the context of tradition and
modernization, AND what other discourses would be possible when
discussing Soswaewŏn (the quote is not about Soswaewŏn).
----p.87-------
P'ungsu and Enlightened Underdevelopment Thinking
While difficult to articulate in words, cosmological diagrams, p'ungsu
(Chinese feng-shui) maps, and humanized landscape paintings by
traditional East Asian artists have often captured in their idealized
images and arrangements the perfect outcomes of prolonged enlightened
underdevelopment thinking. What is striking about the neo-Confucian
natural village and is revealed in East Asian landscape paintings is
the achievement of human productivity in splendid isolation. This
natural village in turn is seen as the ideal subsistence society, where
"everything produced locally is consumed locally." The "sincere"
neo-Confucian landscape should be seen as an ideological construction.
Artifacts of the "sincere" cultural landscape were "architectures of
ideology" constructed as didactic (teaching) and mnemonic (memory)
devices that influenced farmers as they negotiated the landscape. They
reproduced the dominance of neo-Confucian ideology, in cyclic fashion
with the seasons, year upon year. P'ungsu practices played a major role
in this reproduction process.
Despite this long historical construction of the "sincere"
landscape, modernization theory systematically destroyed it, through
the sacrifice of the neo-Confucian natural villages. Although my
critique is directed at developmental ideology in South Korea for its
violence against natural village manifestations constructed by
neo-Confucian ideology, Korean neo-Confucian ideologues were in their
heyday no less harsh in wresting space from shamanism and Buddhism in
order to construct neo-Confucian space. (...)
----END OF QUOTE----
We can very well discuss art objects, aesthetics, religion and belief
systems, and economics and social history all in one text or one
book--and the volume edited by Tangherlini and Yea is successfully
demonstrating that, and I also see quite a lot of rather sophisticated
literature on Japanese gardens and art that does so. Just from Korea I
see mostly self-limitations of discourses, and what remains aims at a
sanitized history in which shiny happy people hop around to drink tea
in colorful synthetic designer costumes all through the Koryŏ and
Chosŏn periods.
A few, just a very few, artists have taken on such corporate and state
discourse limitations already--see e.g. the ARIRANG video by Young-Hae
Chang Heavy Industries (http://koreaweb.ws/videos.php ). On the other
site we have Korean state organizations and 'private' corporates with
their well-financed toolbox of censorship, power networking, and art
and research sponsoring. See e.g. the lovely, sugar-coated art videos
sponsored by the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, such as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRKp0nxiTX4 Yummy! What a visual feast,
and even with sound! I fear that's not even comical anymore. Yet, a
whopping 83 views on YouTube also demonstrates that money cannot always
buy success overseas. All this comes as all-inclusive package.
Frank
--------------------------------------
Frank Hoffmann
http://koreaweb.ws
More information about the Koreanstudies
mailing list