2000년대 현대시조 담론 고찰 - 장경렬의 논의를 중심으로 -

초록

This paper focuses on “Modern Sijo and Modernity,” and examines the argument of Jang Gyungryul, who is actively making discourses about contemporary Korean Sijos. For this purpose, I intensively reexamine Choi Namsun, who proposed the revival theory of Sijo in 1926, and Kim Donghwan, who suggested the rejection theory of Sijo in 1927. It is my claim, however, that the modernity of modern Sijos is still in need of serious thematic discussion and practice in the 2000s. This is due to the fact that Choi Namsun and Kim Donghwan failed in making their opinions logically consistent, as well as not elucidating the problematic items to be clarified, such as the content, form, and genres coherence of the modern Sijos. Rather, they overly stated their extreme views with vague affirmation and dis-affirmations. These two extreme views extended to the “theory of negation,” the “theory of uselessness,” the “theory of ignorance,” and the “theory of indifference” with respect to the modern Sijos. The year 2006 was declared the 100th anniversary of the modern Sijo, and various attempts have been made to find ways of stimulating and practicing them. However, 10 years after the declaration, it seems that the modern Sijos are not yet enhanced in their status and situations, and are still in trouble. Jang Gyungryul is now conducting meaningful studies to solve the above-identified problems. He finds the identity of Sijo and modern Sijo through the use of temporality and allegory. For instance, he consistently applies the "poetry of tension" between the changed and the unchanged to judge modern Sijos as good or bad. It can be supposed that Jang Gyungryul might tap new possibilities, enabling modern Sijos to gain a deeper appreciation and more fruitful inquiry as modern poetry.

키워드