李思訓과 北宗畵의 再考究

Abstract

Lee Shahoon has been regarded as the founder of Landscape Painting of Northern School. And Northern Painting has been regarded not so much valuable comparing Southern Painting, of course the name itself was based on the opponent concept. But there are some points we can It easily understand in above general concept which is mostly unfair and unsatisfactory So in this report, I tried artistic re-valuation of Lee sha-hoon's paintings in various ways escaping from the generally biased concept that he was the founder of Northern School. Also I tried to find the reason why Northern Painting has been neglected for more than 300 years in Chinese Painting history and it was convincing or not. First of all, in order to get Lee Shahoon' s exact position and his characteristics in Chinese Painting history, I tried to research the historical progress process process of Chinese Landscape Painting before himself and the situation of the painting groups in those days and his life and the influence to his paintings by that environment, and his paintings precisely and concretely. In short, it is a conclusion that a realistic style succeeded from the Six Dynposties by traditional techniques was his pictorial characteristic in his paintings especially by various and abundant colours and exquisite delineation. But as we found that most of his paintings had been made under traditional techniques, although he effected and led the contemporary painting circles by his excellent talents, it is hardly to say that the new - main branch of family (Landscape Painting of Northern School) was originated from him. Therefore it was arbitrary insistence of the members of Northern and Southern Division Theory of Landscape Painting that he had been the founder of Landscape Painting of Northern School. As the name 'Landscape Painting of Northern School' was originated from Northern and Southern Dvision Theory. I tried to draw the reason why there could exist Northern and Southern Division Theory at the end of Myeong Dyrasty and the circumstances of the painting circles of those days through contemplating the historical situation, and after that researched their insistences for the division theory. And in spite of aboves, I tried to find whether their insistences are correct or not by exwnining how nearly the characteristics of the remaining painters of Northern School corresponded to the ones that were insisted by Northern and Southern Division Theory. The Characteristic of Northern Painting was adopted by the members of Northern and Southern Division Theory for the ground of their division theory is 'exquisitely and precisely coloured realism not including intellectual civil spirit'. But the theory is not being brought out illogical and biased through itemized studying. The characteristic that was insisted for the division theory was not only for Northern Paintings which results it becomes to difficult to say there still exists any special reason for insisting the division itself. With the result, we can see their insistence was made intentionally, in a sense not fairly, in order to admire only Southern Painting and oppress Northern Painting in respect that Southern Painting has intellectual civil spirit by being painted with India Ink in order to express something behind the painting. After all, they used to express the words 'intellectual civil spirit,'. 'non-intellectual civil style' in order to express Southern Paintings were far superior to Northerns not only in painting itself but also in painters' social position and precisely coloured realism Was a humble style which brought out far more prejudice. In spite of aboves, this theory had dominated the Chinese Painting Circles after that time for about 300 years, it was inevitable to have been brought out so many confusions and preJudices. I believe this is the important historical subject to be studied and corrected from now on.;李思訓은 흔히 北宗畵의 始祖로 認識되어 왔다. 또한 北宗畵는 南宗畵와 相對되는 槪念으로써, 南宗畵에 비해 저속한 繪畵로서 賤視되어 왔다. 그러나 이러한 一般的인 槪念은 다분히 偏頗的이고 석연치 못한 점이 적지않다. 때문에 이 論文에서는 李思訓과 그의 繪畵에 대해 단순히 北宗畵의 始祖라는 일반적인 觀念의 틀에서 벗어나, 多樣한 측면에서의 繪畵的 評價를 시도해 보고자 하였다. 아울러 北宗畵가 근 300여년 동안이나 中國畵壇에서 賤視되어온 까닭을 살펴봄으로써 그 根據가 과연 합당한가를 밝혀보고자 하였다. 먼저 李思訓의 繪畵에서 나타나는 特性과 그가 繪畵史上에서 차지하는 위치를 올바르게 파악하기 위해, 李思訓이전의 山水畵의 발달과정과 當時의 畵壇의 狀況, 그의 生涯 및 生活環境이 그의 繪畵에 미친 영향, 그리고 그의 作品의 구체적인 분석을 통하여 그러한 점들을 考察해 보았다. 요컨대 그의 繪畵的 特性은 六朝以來의 傳統的인 技法을 계승한 寫實主義的 繪畵라는 점으로 압축되며, 豊麗한 色彩의 使用과 精致한 描寫가 그 主를 이룬다고 하겠다. 그러나 그의 繪畵의 傳統的인 特性이 말해주듯, 그가 비록 뛰어난 才質로 인해 當代의 畵壇을 이끌어 나가는 영향력을 발휘하기는 하였으나, 그가 독자적으로 새로운 종파(北宗畵)를 創始했다고는 보기 어렵다. 따라서 分宗論者들이 李思訓을 北宗畵의 始祖로 推戴하는 주장은 독단적인 見解라 생각된다. 北宗畵란 名稱은 分宗論에서 비롯됐다. 따라서 먼저 分宗論이 發生한 明末의 時代的인 狀況과 當時 畵壇의 狀況을 검토해 봄으로써 分宗論의 動機가 어떤 것이었는가를 추측해 보고자 하였으며, 다음으로 分宗論者들이 北宗畵 槪念의 根據로 내세운 주장을 검토해 보았다. 그리하여 그것을 토대로 하여 흔히 北宗畵家로 알려져 있는 畵家들의 作品이 과연 分宗論者들이 내세운 北宗畵의 특징과 어느 정도 부합되는가를 분석하여 그들 理論이 타당한 것인가를 밝혀 보고자 하였다. 그들이 내세운 北宗畵의 分宗의 根據는 着色의 精工한 寫實主義로서 非文人的 畵風이란 特徵으로 요약된다. 그러나 그 內容을 조목별로 연구분석한 결과 그것은 상당히 편벽되고 非合理的인 주장이라는 것이 드러나고 있다. 그들이 分宗의 根據로 내세운 요소들이 반드시 北宗에만 專有된 것은 아니었기 때문에 分宗의 구분이 불분명하기 때문이다. 결국 그들의 그러한 北宗畵에 대한 주장은 南宗畵의 特色(文氣를 띈 水墨의 寫意的인 繪畵)을 강조하기 위한 相對的인 방편으로서, 尙南貶北의 結論을 유도해내기 위한 偏頗的인 見解라는 인상이 짙다. 文氣니 非文人風이니 하는 用語를 사용하여 구태여 身分的 優越을 과시하고자 한 것도 그러하며, 客觀的인 繪畵요소들마저 그 優劣을 가려 着色이나 精工의 寫實主義는 俗된 것으로 인식함으로써 繪畵에 대한 偏見을 조장시킨 것도 그러하다. 그러나 分宗論은 그러한 모호하고 편벽한 주장에도 불구하고 以後 300여年間이나 中國畵壇을 지배해 옴으로써 적지 않은 혼란과 폐단을 낳아 왔다. 때문에 이것은 앞으로 조속히 청산되어야 할 繪畵史上의 과제라고 생각하는 바이다.