학술
식민지 시기 "예술" 개념 수용과 문학장의 변동; 홍명희의 "예술", 개념과 운동의 지반 -일본 경유 톨스토이의 비판적 수용-
저자 이예안
참여구분 HK연구인력(HK교수)
저자수 1
학술지명 한림대학교 개념과 소통 12권
발행처 한림대학교 한림과학원
게재일 2013.12.31
초록
특집 : 식민지 시기 "예술" 개념 수용과 문학장의 변동; 홍명희의 "예술", 개념과 운동의 지반
-일본 경유 톨스토이의 비판적 수용-
Hong Myeong-hee`s Concept and Practice of "Art"
-His Critical Accommodation of Tolstoy, via Japan-
본고는 근대 한국의 예술 개념 수용과 형성을 살펴보기 위한 하나의 시도로서, 메이지 시기 일본에서 ‘인생을 위한 예술’의 주창자로서의 톨스토이 수용을 검토하고 그러한 기반에서 벽초 홍명희가 톨스토이를 어떻게 이해했는지, 그 이해의 변천에 따라 어떠한 예술 개념을 구축했는지 검토한다.
근대 일본의 예술 개념의 형성과 전개를 생각하는 데에는 ‘미술’의 제도화, 정제화와 병행하여 나타난 일본 정부의 ‘미학’에 대한 관심을 고려할 필요가 있다. ‘미’에 대한 관심의 증폭과 더불어 문단에서 예술의 자율성에 관한 논의가 나왔으며, 한편으로 ‘예술을 위한 예술’론이 다른 한편으로는 이에 대한 안티테제로서 톨스토이의 ‘인생을 위한 예술’론이 등장했다.
메이지 전기의 톨스토이 수용은 도쿠토미 로카에 의해 강한 기독교적 색채를 띠게 되는데, 그러한 톨스토이상(像)이 이후 일본의 톨스토이 수용을 특징짓는다. 수용 주체에 따라 크게 종교계, 사회주의사상계, 문학계로 나눌 수 있다.
이러한 일본 톨스토이 수용의 세 측면에 따라 그 각각에 대한 반응으로서 홍명희의 톨스토이 이해를 검토할 필요가 있다.
홍명희는 톨스토이에 대해 일본에서 부각된 종교적인 면에 비판적인 입장을 견지하는 한편, 톨스토이사상에 촉발된 일본의 초기 사회주의사상을 접하고 있었지만 그에 대해서는 명확한 비전을 갖고 있지 않았던 듯하다. 또한 동시에 톨스토이 예술론의 의의를 재발견하고 그에 공감했으나, 그 예술론이 지향하는 종교적 측면에는 여전히비판적 시선을 보내고 있다.
홍명희의 이러한 톨스토이에 대한 다층적인 비판은 이어지는 시기에 홍명희를 마르크스주의, 프롤레타리아 예술론으로 견인하는 원동력이 된다. 주목하고 싶은 점은 홍명희가 의거하는 마르크스주의 예술론의 골조에서 레닌에 의해 수정된 톨스토이사상과 마르크스주의의 접합을 발견할 수 있다는 것이다.
즉 레닌 식으로 수정된 톨스토이의 이해에 공감하며 마르크스주의 예술론을 제시했던 것인데, 민족협동전선으로 노선을 변경하면서 그와는 일정한 거리를 두고 톨스토이를 재검토한다. 그렇기에 그는 ‘조선 민족’ 전체를 아우를 수 있는 공통 기반으로서 또 다른 예술 개념을 모색한다. 여기에서 톨스토이는 한편으로는 ‘러시아 국민 이상’을 리얼리즘 기법을 통해 표현한 ‘예술가’로서 새로이 평가해야 할 대상이지만, 다른 한편으로는 ‘조선’의 자장에서 ‘문학’, ‘예술’을 모색할 때 부정된다. 마르크스 사회주의이론에 입각한 프롤레타리아 예술운동에서 한 걸음 물러선 홍명희가 조선의 자장에서 민중·예술·운동을 지향하려 할 때, 톨스토이에 대한 긍정과 부정은 최대치로 교차되면서 그 틈사이로 ‘조선문학’의 여지가 열렸다. 하지만 ‘조선적’인 것은 여전히 기대 지평이며 ‘예술’은 유보되어 있다.
As part of an effort to clarify the acceptance and formation of the modern concept of art in Korea, this essay considers, first, how Japan accepted Tolstoy as an advocate of ‘art for life’ in the Meiji period, and then examines how Hong Myeong-hee made use of this in his understanding of Tolstoy and how this influenced his concept of art. In the early Meiji period, the Japanese understanding of Tolstoy became strongly tinged with Christianity through the influence of Tokutomi Roka, and this has characterized the Japanese image of Tolstoy ever since. Tolstoy was assimilated into Japan in three distinct ways by religious, socialist, and literary circles, and this essay considers Hong`s understanding of Tolstoy in terms of these three categories. Hong was quite critical about the religious attitudes prevailing in Japan, while he had no clear vision about the early Japanese socialism inspired by Tolstoy. He rediscovered the significance of Tolstoy`s concept of art and appreciated it, but at the same time, he remained sceptical of its religious aspects. Accordingly, this nuanced critical attitude toward Tolstoy led him to accept the Marxist proletarian concept of art in the following years. Hong initially relied on a conceptual framework of art which was a combination of Marxism with Tolstoyism as revised by Lenin; that is, he adopted a Marxian concept of art while sympathizing with the Tolstoyan stance modified in the style of Lenin. He subsequently came to re-consider Tolstoy, however, by distancing him from Lenin`s ideas, as he changed his views in line with those of the National United Front. He was groping for a different concept of art which could provide a common basis for the entire Joseon people. At this point, Hong considered Tolstoy as an artist who expressed the Russian ideal of ‘the people’ through realism, yet when Hong sought for a new concept of ‘literature’ and ‘art’ relevant to Joseon he had no role for Tolstoy. Then he took a step backward from the proletarian art movement based on Marxian socialism, however, looking for a way to integrate ‘people, art, and movement’ on a national level, and the tension between his positive and negative responses to Tolstoy finally opened a space for “Joseon Literature” to emerge. Hong had still to establish “what is proper and peculiar to Joseon”, however, and his concept of ‘art’ was also not fully formed.
As part of an effort to clarify the acceptance and formation of the modern concept of art in Korea, this essay considers, first, how Japan accepted Tolstoy as an advocate of ‘art for life’ in the Meiji period, and then examines how Hong Myeong-hee made use of this in his understanding of Tolstoy and how this influenced his concept of art. In the early Meiji period, the Japanese understanding of Tolstoy became strongly tinged with Christianity through the influence of Tokutomi Roka, and this has characterized the Japanese image of Tolstoy ever since. Tolstoy was assimilated into Japan in three distinct ways by religious, socialist, and literary circles, and this essay considers Hong`s understanding of Tolstoy in terms of these three categories. Hong was quite critical about the religious attitudes prevailing in Japan, while he had no clear vision about the early Japanese socialism inspired by Tolstoy. He rediscovered the significance of Tolstoy`s concept of art and appreciated it, but at the same time, he remained sceptical of its religious aspects. Accordingly, this nuanced critical attitude toward Tolstoy led him to accept the Marxist proletarian concept of art in the following years. Hong initially relied on a conceptual framework of art which was a combination of Marxism with Tolstoyism as revised by Lenin; that is, he adopted a Marxian concept of art while sympathizing with the Tolstoyan stance modified in the style of Lenin. He subsequently came to re-consider Tolstoy, however, by distancing him from Lenin`s ideas, as he changed his views in line with those of the National United Front. He was groping for a different concept of art which could provide a common basis for the entire Joseon people. At this point, Hong considered Tolstoy as an artist who expressed the Russian ideal of ‘the people’ through realism, yet when Hong sought for a new concept of ‘literature’ and ‘art’ relevant to Joseon he had no role for Tolstoy. Then he took a step backward from the proletarian art movement based on Marxian socialism, however, looking for a way to integrate ‘people, art, and movement’ on a national level, and the tension between his positive and negative responses to Tolstoy finally opened a space for “Joseon Literature” to emerge. Hong had still to establish “what is proper and peculiar to Joseon”, however, and his concept of ‘art’ was also not fully formed.
키워드 | |
| 첨부파일 | 식민지 시기 예술개념 수용과 문학장의 변동.pdf (463.4KB)  |
| 비고 |
