[KS] 풍토/향토 translation question to literary and philosophy scholars

[Frank Hoffmann]

Dear All, but specifically those working in the area of literature and 
philosophy:

Allow me to ask a translation question, one with a long tail attached.

Art historians and art journalists working on colonial Korea are very 
familiar with the terms "hyangt'osaek" 鄕土色 (향토색) and 
"p'unkt'osaek" 風土色 (풍토색). These have been key terms in the past 
20 or so years when it comes to colonial art policies (as regards to 
modern art) in Korea, and there is an unbelievable high mountain of 
publications piled up that deal with these terms. All of them, as far 
as they concern art, are pretty much giving us the exact same 
information, though ... so much reduplication there, while many other 
essential issues regarding these terms have not really been touched (or 
such studies are hiding under the carpet somehow).

Here my question:
Both terms are usually interpreted or translated the same way, as 
"local color" -- which is then again, in many essays and articles, 
explained as being the English translation of the French "couleur 
locale." This isn't wrong, of course, but it still misses the point: 
the term was introduced by the Japanese -- and in Japan it has the same 
meaning (https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/190420/meaning/m0u/) as it has 
in Germany. The concept of "local color" was indeed adapted from the 
German term "Lokalkolorit" -- a term and concept that is probably more 
German in concept and outview than lederhosen. Yes, the Germans seems 
to have adapted it in the 19th century from the French, as the French 
had a real language and real art, while the Germans had the 
explanations, and contemporary art was until the 20th either century 
French or ignorable in any case. 
I found that the Japanese philosopher Watsuji Tetsurō wrote many 
essays on Japanese art in his early times, many of them quite similar 
if scope and nationalist sentiment than e.g. those writings by someone 
like Yu Hong-jun in Korea many decades later, in the 1990s, going from 
temple to temple, etc. The more texts I see by Watsuji, the more I see 
the impact he had on Korea. But there seems just no research on that, 
and I do not quite understand why not. In terms of terminological sets, 
though, even if I just limit this to the areas of art and folklore, 
there can be no doubt. He adapted many concepts from European 
philosophers, in some areas, in his earlier days, even from early 
German art historians specialized on East Asia (of course, there simply 
were no others he could have adopted any art historical concepts from 
in the first place). When I speak about "adapiting" concepts, by the 
way, this often means he turned things upside-down, "nihon-nized" them 
however he pleased, but still continued to use the same terms as in the 
German texts. In other cases he adopted concepts one-to-one while at 
the same time stating that these were his very own solutions in 
response to European theories. An adaptable guy indeed! (Or, maybe, I 
just again do not understand the fine, fine, fine details again.) In 
the 1930s Watsuji began writing on fūdo 風土 [풍토], "climate," a 
topic he continued to work on until his death in 1960. But the 1930s is 
the period where the "local colors" concept became an essential one for 
cultural production in colonial Korea.
Now, I wonder about these two terms (WITHOUT the -색 part), 鄕土 and 風
土. I'd be very interested to hear what scholars of coloial Korean 
literature and/or philosophy have to say about the use of these terms. 
Are they also, more or less, seen as the same? Were both important, as 
in art? RReally any thoughts on these would be much appreciated, as I a 
trying to "put in all in one basket."

Thanks!
Frank


--------------------------------------
Frank Hoffmann
http://koreanstudies.com