There are two reason to choose Wongyo's calligraphy as subjects to study on this thesis. First, I have desired to ascertain the truth the phrase, 'Calligraphy is Life itself'. Calligraphers prefer to say that 'Calligraphy is Life itself.' However, the... There are two reason to choose Wongyo's calligraphy as subjects to study on this thesis. First, I have desired to ascertain the truth the phrase, 'Calligraphy is Life itself'. Calligraphers prefer to say that 'Calligraphy is Life itself.' However, they would be sacred it saying because the art could not be described with words, or hesitate and avoid to respond when they face a basic question why they regard so. I have decided that Wongyo is an appropriate person to study because his calligraphy had been revealed among his though life which is ordinary people even could not imagine it, also he had written his theory of calligraphy. My point of view is the phrase, 'Calligraphy is Life itself' will be proved if it is possible to link and connect resonable between his life and calligraphy. Second, because of the calligrapher's attitudes which is neglecting their self-contradiction. Calligraphers are apt to emphasize that ' Calligraphy is an expression of a spirit.' or 'Calligraphy could not be separated with study.' However they consider as a stranger for a person who makes a profound study of the spirit or a quest of knowledge. These Calligraphers' contradictory attitudes is revealed on their perspective for Chusa's criticism against Wongyo. Most of calligraphers regard Wongyo is inferior to Chusa, although they recognize Wongyo is the representative calligrapher together with Chusa. Wongyo is inferior to Chusa because of Chusa's criticism against Wongyo, and calligraphers perceive Chusa's criticism which was a superiority based on the Bibliographical study of Chinese classics. I regard it as a illusion. Wongyo had written ��Seo Gyeol�� even though his circumstances was as transient like morning dew. ��Seo Gyeol�� had been a major breakthrough in a theory of calligraphy of the Joseon dynasty. Although Chusa severely criticized for Wongyo, it was an opportunity for Wongyo's calligraphy to become a leading role of Joseon dynasty's literature. The Joseon dynasty's literature could make a change from 'The inclusion of morality by writing' to 'The separation of morality and writing' by Chusa's criticism against Wongyo. In a word, Chusa's criticism against Wongyo was a healthy affair which was shown inner dynamics of our culture. Unfortunately, Chusa's criticism against Wongyo has been distorted by analysis with external factors not internal ones. This is because of the literature study which is Western modern values get the upper hand, therefore Chusa's criticism was understood as a conflict between our tradition and the Western value. It is discribed on our literature studies, during the 17, 18, and 19th centuries that the Joseon Dynasty's existing literature engaged in subversion by introducing 'Bibliographical study of Chinese classics' of the Qing dynasty. The Chusa's criticism against Wongyo has been a direct proof to be shown these aspects. Most people understand Chusa's criticism to counter Wongyo as a exposure that Wangxizhi's calligraphy is a forgery against Wongyo's assertion to have Wangxizhi's calligraphy as a basis of calligraphy, based on the theory of the Bibliographical study of Chinese classics which had dominated the international stage. Then Wongyo and Chusa were strived for superiority by this, also have been regarded Chusa's criticism which was a superiority of the Bibliographical study of Chinese classics against Wongyo's antiquated theory of calligraphy. It is widely know that Chusa was well acquainted with the Bibliographical study of Chinese classics through studies of the Japanese scholar, Fujitsuka Chikashi. However, on this thesis it is insisted that there are two divided opinions, one is a forgery was unfeasible even though Wangxizhi as a paragon of Chusa's calligraphy, the other is Wongyo's forgery was possible by practice with various methods. It is for example, there can be other interpretation such as a confliction between Chusa who based on 'Gyoukmulchizi' of orthodox Neo-Confucianism and Wongyo who is based on 'Chiyangzi' of the doctrines of Wang Yang-ming, therefore it has been emphasized that Wongyo and Chusa's criticism should be regarded as not subversion of tradition because of external factors, but our internal dynamic factors. Further more, although 'On Northern Steles and Southern Letters'(Beibeinantie lun The theory of BukbiNamcheop) is the theory which was developed on the spirit of the Bibliographical study of Chinese classics, it is a theory which is intervened likes or dislikes that distinctly different with the study, and also the study is not a study that suddenly have introduced in the Chusa's age, these are why it is insisted that this is a fallacy to deicide a superiority of the Bibliographical study of Chinese classics with Chusa's criticism against Wongyo. It is not my interest whether it is appropriate to study the literature with considering the Western morden value is supremacy, or not. Therefore it is also not my concern if the Chusa's criticism is a foundation of literature which shows a superiority of the Bibliographical study of Chinese classics. The reason that I have regard it as a problem is the contradiction of incumbent calligraphers who refer to Chusa's criticism. Calligraphers who consider the continuation or abolition of their career do not pay attention to their contradictions and deplore the difference of the general public, saying that the calligraphy is the essence of the Eastern culture. These days, it is quite unusual to see calligraphers who do not believe Chusa's criticism that 'Wongyo's name as a calligrapher hit the world even if he didn't know how to use arms, also could not distinguish how to use a brush and ink. However, it is rare for calligraphers to believe that a calligrapher can be highly reputed without the knowledge of how to use arms or can not distinguish how to use a brush and ink. If calligraphy is available to get it's reputation without the capacity to distinguish how to use arms, a brush and ink, is it deserve to be named as the essence of the Eastern culture? The most calligraphers refuse to acknowledge toward the contradiction of Chusa's criticism against Wongyo due to the authority of the Bibliographical study of Chinese classics. The Bibliographical study of Chinese classics is valued highly because of its scientific rationality which is considering an objective actual proof. Now it is time to confront superiority or inferiority by the Bibliographical study of Chinese classics with an attitude by the Bibliographical study of Chinese classics. ，韩语论文范文，韩语论文题目 |
