지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The Japanese art-historian Hamada Gosaku wrote an article under the
title of ｢Concerning on the Greco-Indian Buddhist Art (希臘印度式佛敎美
術について)｣ in the first art-history journal of Japan named 『Kokka (國華)』 in
1906. The word of Greco-Indian is an important perspective of how the
intellectuals at those periods viewed Asian Art History. Originally, the term
希臘印度式 in Japanese, is a translation of the words ‘Greco-Indian’ or
‘Indo-Greek’, which were used by Western researchers. The concepts of
‘Greco-Indian’ art were not clear in their substances, but they were well
comprehended by the Western scholars with prejudice in the 19th century.
Japanese scholars used the pure translation of the term ‘Greco-Indian’.
This means that the Japanese were largely depending on western concepts
for the construction of the history of Japanese art. However, the images
that the Japanese imagined about the Indian art differed from those of the
Western’s. It was because the western point of view, based on the
Orientalism towards India, was different, while the Japanese had to make
the concept of the ‘East’.
Okakura Tenshin emphasized the influence of India on the mural
paintings of the Horyu-ji (法隆寺) Kondo, and the arts in the Shosoin (正倉院). He paid special attention on the cave temples and wall paintings in
India like Ajanta, treated them as the important origin of Japanese art. In
1893, Ito Chuta claimed the applications of entasis on the columns in
Horyu-ji as a result of the cultural exchange between the East and the
West. And he named them ‘Greek Doric’ order. During the Meiji Era, the
Japanese researchers fully accepted the Western point of view about the
Indian art rather than creating their own perspective, and actively
researching the arts. As a result, they understood Indian arts with an
obscure angle of Greco-Indian art, and tried to explain their arts on that
basis.
The Japanese in the Meiji Era argued India as the origin of the Oriental
spirits, while explaining the Indian Buddhist art under the Greek
traditions. And they highly estimated the Indian art influenced by the
Greek. This vague understanding of India resulted from remarkably
subjective creation of the Orientalism, which was spread at Meiji times.
Though the Indian art was evaluated as the very origin of the Eastern
culture, India was only imagined by the Japanese. It was inevitable for the
Japanese, who thought the Indian Buddhist art was the origin of theirs, to
focus more on the Gandharan art than Indian subcontinent art. This
period, in which several regions of Gandhara were excavated and
investigated, was also same time that Japanese started to pay attention to
the Indian art. Considering from the point of World History, Japan’s
focusing on India coincided with the movements of the West.
In Taisho era, after the Meiji, Japanese more widely noticed and
researched Indian art. Taki Seichi, who had visited the West in 1911,
understood the new trend of Western scholars, and showed us how much
the Japanese were sensitive to the Western scholars’ research methods. He
pointed out that it was natural to discuss the influence of Gandhara on the
eastern regions. As he mentioned, it is persuasive since Gandhara is located
in the north-west region of India, and is a gateway to the Silk Road area
and China. His concrete works are easily compared with those of the
antecedents who abstractly understood Indian art on the basis of
Gandharan art. Even if the way to research on Indian art had been
developed to be more precise and specific until Taisho times, their
intention, to find out the origin of Buddhist art from India, was not
changed. The method of study was accordingly dependant on the similarity
of the external shape between Indian and Japanese art.
The Japanese tried to raise the value of Japanese art by showing the
Greek art influence on Japanese art, which was importantly regarded in the
West. Since they were not free from the paradigm of the Buddhist art
penetrated into Japan, they focused on the certain art forms which were
transmitted to the Silk Road and China from India. Therefore they chose
some kind of art according to their necessity. Gandharan sculpture, Sanchi
stupa, and Ajanta murals were considered as the main objects to be
compared. Since modern Japanese still accept this idea as considerable until
today, it is worth discussing to research the Japanese attitude to Indian art
in the early 20th century.
The Japanese art-historian Hamada Gosaku wrote an article under the title of ｢Concerning on the Greco-Indian Buddhist Art (希臘印度式佛敎美 術について)｣ in the first art-history journal of Japan named 『Kokka (國華)』 in 1906. The word of Greco-Indian is an important perspective of how the intellectuals at those periods viewed Asian Art History. Originally, the term 希臘印度式 in Japanese, is a translation of the words ‘Greco-Indian’ or ‘Indo-Greek’, which were used by Western researchers. The concepts of ‘Greco-Indian’ art were not clear in their substances, but they were well comprehended by the Western scholars with prejudice in the 19th century. Japanese scholars used the pure translation of the term ‘Greco-Indian’. This means that the Japanese were largely depending on western concepts for the construction of the history of Japanese art. However, the images that the Japanese imagined about the Indian art differed from those of the Western’s. It was because the western point of view, based on the Orientalism towards India, was different, while the Japanese had to make the concept of the ‘East’. Okakura Tenshin emphasized the influence of India on the mural paintings of the Horyu-ji (法隆寺) Kondo, and the arts in the Shosoin (正倉院). He paid special attention on the cave temples and wall paintings in India like Ajanta, treated them as the important origin of Japanese art. In 1893, Ito Chuta claimed the applications of entasis on the columns in Horyu-ji as a result of the cultural exchange between the East and the West. And he named them ‘Greek Doric’ order. During the Meiji Era, the Japanese researchers fully accepted the Western point of view about the Indian art rather than creating their own perspective, and actively researching the arts. As a result, they understood Indian arts with an obscure angle of Greco-Indian art, and tried to explain their arts on that basis. The Japanese in the Meiji Era argued India as the origin of the Oriental spirits, while explaining the Indian Buddhist art under the Greek traditions. And they highly estimated the Indian art influenced by the Greek. This vague understanding of India resulted from remarkably subjective creation of the Orientalism, which was spread at Meiji times. Though the Indian art was evaluated as the very origin of the Eastern culture, India was only imagined by the Japanese. It was inevitable for the Japanese, who thought the Indian Buddhist art was the origin of theirs, to focus more on the Gandharan art than Indian subcontinent art. This period, in which several regions of Gandhara were excavated and investigated, was also same time that Japanese started to pay attention to the Indian art. Considering from the point of World History, Japan’s focusing on India coincided with the movements of the West. In Taisho era, after the Meiji, Japanese more widely noticed and researched Indian art. Taki Seichi, who had visited the West in 1911, understood the new trend of Western scholars, and showed us how much the Japanese were sensitive to the Western scholars’ research methods. He pointed out that it was natural to discuss the influence of Gandhara on the eastern regions. As he mentioned, it is persuasive since Gandhara is located in the north-west region of India, and is a gateway to the Silk Road area and China. His concrete works are easily compared with those of the antecedents who abstractly understood Indian art on the basis of Gandharan art. Even if the way to research on Indian art had been developed to be more precise and specific until Taisho times, their intention, to find out the origin of Buddhist art from India, was not changed. The method of study was accordingly dependant on the similarity of the external shape between Indian and Japanese art. The Japanese tried to raise the value of Japanese art by showing the Greek art influence on Japanese art, which was importantly regarded in the West. Since they were not free from the paradigm of the Buddhist art penetrated into Japan, they focused on the certain art forms which were transmitted to the Silk Road and China from India. Therefore they chose some kind of art according to their necessity. Gandharan sculpture, Sanchi stupa, and Ajanta murals were considered as the main objects to be compared. Since modern Japanese still accept this idea as considerable until today, it is worth discussing to research the Japanese attitude to Indian art in the early 20th century.
The Japanese art-historian Hamada Gosaku wrote an article under the title of ｢Concerning on the Greco-Indian Buddhist Art (希臘印度式佛敎美 術について)｣ in the first art-history journal of Japan named 『Kokka (國華)』 in 1906. The word of Greco-Indian is an important perspective of how the intellectuals at those periods viewed Asian Art History. Originally, the term 希臘印度式 in Japanese, is a translation of the words ‘Greco-Indian’ or ‘Indo-Greek’, which were used by Western researchers. The concepts of ‘Greco-Indian’ art were not clear in their substances, but they were well comprehended by the Western scholars with prejudice in the 19th century. Japanese scholars used the pure translation of the term ‘Greco-Indian’. This means that the Japanese were largely depending on western concepts for the construction of the history of Japanese art. However, the images that the Japanese imagined about the Indian art differed from those of the Western’s. It was because the western point of view, based on the Orientalism towards India, was different, while the Japanese had to make the concept of the ‘East’. Okakura Tenshin emphasized the influence of India on the mural paintings of the Horyu-ji (法隆寺) Kondo, and the arts in the Shosoin (正倉院). He paid special attention on the cave temples and wall paintings in India like Ajanta, treated them as the important origin of Japanese art. In 1893, Ito Chuta claimed the applications of entasis on the columns in Horyu-ji as a result of the cultural exchange between the East and the West. And he named them ‘Greek Doric’ order. During the Meiji Era, the Japanese researchers fully accepted the Western point of view about the Indian art rather than creating their own perspective, and actively researching the arts. As a result, they understood Indian arts with an obscure angle of Greco-Indian art, and tried to explain their arts on that basis. The Japanese in the Meiji Era argued India as the origin of the Oriental spirits, while explaining the Indian Buddhist art under the Greek traditions. And they highly estimated the Indian art influenced by the Greek. This vague understanding of India resulted from remarkably subjective creation of the Orientalism, which was spread at Meiji times. Though the Indian art was evaluated as the very origin of the Eastern culture, India was only imagined by the Japanese. It was inevitable for the Japanese, who thought the Indian Buddhist art was the origin of theirs, to focus more on the Gandharan art than Indian subcontinent art. This period, in which several regions of Gandhara were excavated and investigated, was also same time that Japanese started to pay attention to the Indian art. Considering from the point of World History, Japan’s focusing on India coincided with the movements of the West. In Taisho era, after the Meiji, Japanese more widely noticed and researched Indian art. Taki Seichi, who had visited the West in 1911, understood the new trend of Western scholars, and showed us how much the Japanese were sensitive to the Western scholars’ research methods. He pointed out that it was natural to discuss the influence of Gandhara on the eastern regions. As he mentioned, it is persuasive since Gandhara is located in the north-west region of India, and is a gateway to the Silk Road area and China. His concrete works are easily compared with those of the antecedents who abstractly understood Indian art on the basis of Gandharan art. Even if the way to research on Indian art had been developed to be more precise and specific until Taisho times, their intention, to find out the origin of Buddhist art from India, was not changed. The method of study was accordingly dependant on the similarity of the external shape between Indian and Japanese art. The Japanese tried to raise the value of Japanese art by showing the Greek art influence on Japanese art, which was importantly regarded in the West. Since they were not free from the paradigm of the Buddhist art penetrated into Japan, they focused on the certain art forms which were transmitted to the Silk Road and China from India. Therefore they chose some kind of art according to their necessity. Gandharan sculpture, Sanchi stupa, and Ajanta murals were considered as the main objects to be compared. Since modern Japanese still accept this idea as considerable until today, it is worth discussing to research the Japanese attitude to Indian art in the early 20th century.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (44)
참고문헌 신청
Banerjee, Gauranga Nath / 1920 / Hellenism in Ancient India
Chandra,Pramod / 1983 / On the Study of Indian Art / Harvard University Press
Cunningham, Alexander / 1871 / The Ancient Geography of India / Trubner
Cunningham, Alexander / 1879 / The St?pa of Bharhut: A Buddhist Monument Ornamented with Numerous Sculptures Illustrative of Buddhist Legend and History in the Third Century B.C., W.
Fenollosa, Ernest / 1912 / Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art / Dover Publications, Inc.
Chandra,Pramod / 1983 / On the Study of Indian Art / Harvard University Press
Cunningham, Alexander / 1871 / The Ancient Geography of India / Trubner
Cunningham, Alexander / 1879 / The St?pa of Bharhut: A Buddhist Monument Ornamented with Numerous Sculptures Illustrative of Buddhist Legend and History in the Third Century B.C., W.
Fenollosa, Ernest / 1912 / Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art / Dover Publications, Inc.
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Thoughts on the Arts in Korea Today
Korea Journal
1972 .08
-
[서양미술사] 국내 서양미술사학의 확장
역사학보
2011 .09
-
Blavatsky’s Theosophical Influence on Yeats’s Poetry
한국 예이츠 저널
2017 .01
-
Buddhist Art
Korea Journal
1977 .04
-
예술의 변화와 문화콘텐츠의 의의
인문콘텐츠
2003 .12
-
The Art of Building
Korea Journal
1965 .05
-
[한국미술사] 인문학적 미술사의 가능성 : 한국미술사 연구(2009~2010)의 회고와 전망
역사학보
2011 .09
-
셔만 알렉시의 파트타임 인디언의정말로 진실한 일기: 패러디로서 유머
영어권문화연구
2015 .01
-
[인도] 다양성의 확대와 담론 형성의 기반 구축
역사학보
2014 .09
-
근대 일본의 공예교육과 동아시아 예술의 특수성
일어일문학
2018 .08
-
[동양미술사] 외연의 확장, 그리고 도약 : 동양미술사 연구(2009~2012년)의 회고와 전망
역사학보
2013 .09
-
포스트 사회주의 중국을 읽는 방법 : 생산의 주체가 해체되는 지점과 예술
중국문화연구
2015 .05
-
이문열 소설에 나타난 "예술가 의식" 연구
현대소설연구
2001 .12
-
미디어 아트 창작에 대한 범위설정 문제 연구 : 현대 미디어 아트를 중심으로
한국문학과 예술
2016 .11
-
Some Aspects of the Interrelation of Korean, Chinese and Japanese Arts
Korea Journal
1977 .11
-
현대미술의 대중매체성과 예술철학적 의미
인문과학연구
2011 .09
-
한국 대학의 미술사교육
한국학연구
2013 .12
-
Korean Art Books
Korea Journal
1967 .05
-
The Indian Ocean: Historians Writing History
The Asian review of world histories
2013 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0