Home » Archives » KoreanStudies » Re: lost in colonization
| Re: lost in colonization [message #7399] |
Sat, 23 October 2004 01:12  |
kevin parks
Messages: 37
Registered: June 2003
|
Member |
|
|
On Oct 17, 2004, at 2:29 AM, J.Scott Burgeson wrote:
> Of course, many of the great
> works of world literature were originally quite
> subversive and radical, from "Don Quixote" to
> "Ulysses" to "The Satanic Verses," which is exactly
> why they were so innovative and consequently became
> recognized classics. In a word, they were "new" at the
> time which is why they are appreciated for their
> orginality within the overarching tradition of the
> literary canon. I wonder if the KLTI really gets this
> fundamental fact..
Is that a _fact_? A _fundamental__fact_? How scary! I don't like the
'F' word.
And i wonder about that notion... This puts a darn heavy premium
on individualism, novelty, and innovation. Are those the only values
there are? Couldn't a work of art be valuable or sustain for different
reasons? Because it was beautiful, cause it resonated, cause
it played a part in a larger more beautiful tradition or some other
intrinsic qualities? Is Yi Sang read today *only* because he was
innovative and controversial? I'd like to believe there is more
to it than that....
> . If that weird pervert Yi Sang came
> knocking on their doors today, would they warmly
> embrace him, or make him wait another 40 years to be
> granted their "official approval," which is basically
> what happened the first time around...?
I am sure I Sang would do just fine today, what, with all those
foreigners around to
make sure he was appreciated by Koreans. .... a-hem ...
kevin parks
|
|
|
|
| Re: lost in colonization [message #7403 is a reply to message #7399] |
Sun, 24 October 2004 09:57  |
J.Scott Burgeson
Messages: 120
Registered: January 2002
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> On Oct 17, 2004, at 2:29 AM, J.Scott Burgeson wrote:
In a word, they were "new" at the
> time which is why they are appreciated for their
> orginality within the overarching tradition of the
> literary canon. I wonder if the KLTI really gets
> this fundamental fact..
--- kevin parks wrote:
> Is that a _fact_? A _fundamental__fact_? How scary!
> I don't like the 'F' word. And i wonder about that
notion... This puts a darn heavy premium
> on individualism, novelty, and innovation.
Especially within the modern period, aesthetic
progress and evolution has always gone hand-in-hand
with innovation and transgression of aesthetic
categories. This is a universal phenomenon and not an
imposition of so-called elitist Western values upon an
Eastern cultural context. Many Korean, Japanese and
Chinese artists, writers, etc. happen to value
innovation, too, and it's rather condescending and
reactionary to argue otherwise, in my opinion...
--Scott Bug
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
|
|
|
|
| Re: lost in progress [message #7405 is a reply to message #7403] |
Mon, 25 October 2004 00:39 |
kevin parks
Messages: 37
Registered: June 2003
|
Member |
|
|
Leaving aside the question of whether it is safe to assume that
anything is a "universal phenomenon", (that is just too big a ball of
wax) and leaving aside an East -vs- West division of the world which is
perhaps the most bogus false dichotomy in history....
I would just point out that i was not questioning whether cultures
other than our own value innovation. That the other cultures you
mention value what they might see as "progress" is clear. I was raising
the possibility that you were putting to much of a premium on
innovation as a value in art, in general. Additionally there is the
whole question of what is and constitutes artistic "progress" (and the
related notion of "progress" in art as being depicted as linear, and
who decides what progress is, etc.) The very notion of artistic,
aesthetic, and historical progress is problematic. These issue seem to
me paramount in Korean Arts, and it is interesting to me to see how
certain artists address them in their work and talk about them (I think
here of some of what Hwang Byoung-gi has had to say in some of his
interviews).
Again, i ask, do we listen to the Rite of Spring, Miles Davis, Ornette
Coleman, read Virginia Wolff, Yi Sang, etc., etc. & co. , only because
they represent progress and caused a ruckus and we can tell anecdotes
about how hard it was for them to get publish, performed, etc. ... or
are there other values we hold, or intrinsic qualities in these works
that cause these pieces to resonate? Or do these works live on only
because everyone recognizes your "fundamental fact"? The only (or in
your words *exact*) reason they are "in the canon" is because they
broke new ground. I don't want works excluded from "the canon" because
they are radical or subversive. I also don't want works that are not
"radical" excluded because the they didn't ruffle the prerequisite
number of feathers. You seemed to suggest that a work was only worthy,
if it was radical. If that was true huge tracts of Korean dances,
musics, and poems, (for example) would have to be purged from the
books, as would largish swaths of "western classical" music and
"western" literature ... Also, implied is that pieces that are not
innovative (per se) are never excluded because they are too
conservative. This happens too.
As a composer, and an "avant-guard" (yuck!) one at that, i am in the
ironic position of feeling like i often have to defend, artists whose
work is not confrontational, or works that are made up entirely of
things "that have been done before." This is one of the things that
leads to the appropriation of non-western art forms, for example.....
I once asked a very well known and established composer why he worked
with the music and instruments of Tibet. I expected that he would say
something beautiful about the sounds of the instruments, or the
performance practices, or how the culture had resonated with him, or
his deep regard for certain traditions, etc.... but no.... his answer
was this (i'll remember this forever) " I do it because it hasn't been
done before." So... there you go... when novelty comes first and
foremost things can get funky.....
One of the things that living in Korea for the better part of a decade
has done for me (that coupled with an obsession with certain Korean art
forms *^-^* ... ), is that it has made me question some of the very
fundamental notions i once held about art. But perhaps this has gotten
all a bit too off topic since your discussion of this was really in
service of another point, so now i have veered somewhat off course, so
i'll let it drop... but since this is the Korean Studies "Discussion"
list, i hope you'll indulge...
back to your regularly scheduled programming.....
-kevin--
On Oct 24, 2004, at 9:57 AM, J.Scott Burgeson wrote:
> Especially within the modern period, aesthetic
> progress and evolution has always gone hand-in-hand
> with innovation and transgression of aesthetic
> categories. This is a universal phenomenon and not an
> imposition of so-called elitist Western values upon an
> Eastern cultural context. Many Korean, Japanese and
> Chinese artists, writers, etc. happen to value
> innovation, too, and it's rather condescending and
> reactionary to argue otherwise, in my opinion...
|
|
|
|
| Re: lost in progress [message #7407 is a reply to message #7405] |
Tue, 26 October 2004 00:20 |
J.Scott Burgeson
Messages: 120
Registered: January 2002
|
Senior Member |
|
|
--- kevin parks wrote:
You seemed to suggest that a
> work was only worthy,
> if it was radical.
My point was simply that, based on direct personal
communication with them, I feared that the KLTI might
tend towards the safe and respectable and the expense
of more challenging works in its selection of the 100
books to be translated. For now, I will withhold
judgement until the final 100 books are available for
the public to see. In any case, innovation for its own
sake, i.e., as a purely academic exercise, is not
enough to make a work admirable or great. As T.S.
Eliot said in "Tradition and the Individual Talent,"
and artist must speak first and foremost to his or her
own generation. Naturally, as the generations change,
this requires the creation of new forms in order to
better speak to each new generation. Hopefully, the
KLTI will include in its 100 books a fair number of
works that speak directly and resoundingly to the
younger generations in Korea, and not just to older
generations. A visit to Kyobo Bookstore will quickly
confirm that up to this point, the amount of
translated Korean literary works speaking to the
current under-40 crowd is virtually non-existant. It
is to be regretted that it takes a "prestige"
international event like the Frankfurt Book Fair to
motivate gov't funded bodies here to provide ample
financial support to get more Korean literary works
translated and available in bookstores around the
world. I would argue that if they really did care
about such things, a wider and better selection of
translated Korean literary works would already be
available in bookstores. In my admittedly naive and
idealistic view, caring about genuine literature for
its own sake, rather then to impress foreigners for
the sake of Korea, Inc. or whatever, should ultimately
be the primary motivation...
--Scott Bug
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: lost in progress [message #7408 is a reply to message #7407] |
Tue, 26 October 2004 13:05 |
<johnfrankl
Messages: 12
Registered: October 2004
|
Junior Member |
|
|
This is an interesting discussion.
J. Scott Burgeson wrote: "I would argue that if they really did care
about such things, a wider and better selection of
translated Korean literary works would already be
available in bookstores."
You may very well be correct. But I, also speaking only from personal experience, see a larger problem at work. The money is not bad, really. Rather, there are few people able, and even fewer people willing, to dedicate themselves to such projects. Translation, wrongly I would argue, is viewed as non-serious work. As such, academics (at least) must do it on their own time and for very little academic capital.
Also, for what it's worth, many of the Frankfurt books, although overseen by the KLTI, are not literature, nor are they "Korean," traditionally defined. I am working on a collection of essays on the significance/symbolism of the plum blossom in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean art, religion, literature, etc
Cheers,
John Frankl.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: lost in progress [message #7409 is a reply to message #7407] |
Tue, 26 October 2004 20:46 |
Brother Anthony
Messages: 257
Registered: March 2004
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think that there may be some misunderstandings. The list of the 100 books to be translated 'for
Frankfurt' was selected by an ad hoc committee composed of Korean scholars and writers and made public in
March 2004. It was available through the KLTI web site http://www.ltikorea.net at that time and presumably
still is there somewhere. The works selected are almost all books about various aspects of Korean history
and culture, with only a small number of literary titles included on a really very unclear basis, I agree.
The translations of the 100 books are to be made into either English (some 40 titles, if I recall rightly)
or other languages, the other 60 works were marked for translation into German, French, Spanish... Little
thought was given to the fact that a book about Korea written in Korean might not be well-suited for a
non-Korean readership. The project did not originate with the KLTI but was entrusted to them for
administration. They are now mailing everyone in sight asking for help in finding publishers for these
translations, that will soon be complete, fully aware as they are how impossible the task is.
The KLTI as such is a small group of hard-working employees in an office. They have much improved their
standard application process for translation grants in recent years, it is now possible to apply throughout
the year, there are 4 deadlines for applications. The screening is made by bilingual evaluators (I have
never been involved, I might add, I think they prefer to commission younger experts) and so far as I know
their main concern is the quality (precision of translation and quality of English style) of the sample
pages submitted with the application. So far as I know, neither these evaluators nor the employees of KLTI
place much weight on 'literary interest, reputation of writer', etc because they are required to sponsor as
many translations as possible. I suppose they might try to encourage the translation of 'reputed' writers
(of any age) if a direct enquiry were made but otherwise I see no sign of censorship. The person who won
this years KLTI New Translators' Award got it for a story by Kim Yong-Ha, who is hardly a crusty old gent.
Almost the last place to search for English (or other) translations of Korean literature is Kyobo (or any
other) bookstore in Seoul. All translations supported by KLTI must be published abroad and the only foreign
books imported into Korea are those destined to sell in their hundreds to Korean students. The full list of
translated titles published (not only those supported by them, I think) is available somewhere inside the
KLTI's web site. The best place to buy them is through the Seoul Selection online bookstore
http://www.seoulselection.com/shopping_book.html or through the competing Nunchi.com site
http://www.nunchi.com and of course those living in Seoul can always go to view the selection of imported
translations available at the Seoul Selection shop opposite the entrance to Kyongbok-gung.
Brother Anthony
Sogang University, Seoul
http://www.sogang.ac.kr/~anthony
|
|
|
|
| Re: lost in progress [message #7412 is a reply to message #7405] |
Wed, 27 October 2004 12:07 |
Ji-Yeon Yuh
Messages: 16
Registered: December 2001
|
Junior Member |
|
|
with all due respect, the responses to Kevin seem to have missed his main
points, and so I come away from this discussion thread with the distinct
feeling of having heard several people talking past each other.
Kevin raises some critical questions that need to be seriously addressed
not only in the field of Korean studies and regarding literature and art,
but in the arts and humanities in general. the notion of the universal,
east/west dichotomy, traditional/modern/avant-garde distinctions, etc. have
been important categories and concepts for interpreting, analyzing and
evaluating art, literature, and culture broadly defined. these concepts
have also served to create and reinforce hierarchies of worth that
privilege western forms and values. in other words, they emerge from and
reinforce relationships of power. it is time, i think, to cast around for
new guiding concepts that do not reinforce tenets that have been central to
orientalist forms of knowledge production. while certain aspects of
post-modernism may appeal, that too has been problematic and has failed to
break away and provide something radically new, at least from the
perspective of breaking away from orientalist modes.
there is actually quite a bit of literature now that addresses some of
these concerns. one of my students is reworking her dissertation into a
book, and she looks at the origins of an Indian dance form, bharata natyam,
and american modern dance to argue that distinctions between tradition and
modern do not make sense and have served to privilege one form as high art
and the other form as merely ethnic dance. she makes a very careful
argument based on extensive archival research as well as fieldwork within
dance communities. it's the kind of scholarship that we are likely to see
more of, and that we ought to encourage.
best,
ji-yeon
At 11:39 PM 2004.10.24, you wrote:
>Leaving aside the question of whether it is safe to assume that anything
>is a "universal phenomenon", (that is just too big a ball of wax) and
>leaving aside an East -vs- West division of the world which is perhaps the
>most bogus false dichotomy in history....
>
>I would just point out that i was not questioning whether cultures other
>than our own value innovation. That the other cultures you mention value
>what they might see as "progress" is clear. I was raising the possibility
>that you were putting to much of a premium on innovation as a value in
>art, in general. Additionally there is the whole question of what is and
>constitutes artistic "progress" (and the related notion of "progress" in
>art as being depicted as linear, and who decides what progress is, etc.)
>The very notion of artistic, aesthetic, and historical progress is
>problematic. These issue seem to me paramount in Korean Arts, and it is
>interesting to me to see how certain artists address them in their work
>and talk about them (I think here of some of what Hwang Byoung-gi has had
>to say in some of his interviews).
>
>Again, i ask, do we listen to the Rite of Spring, Miles Davis, Ornette
>Coleman, read Virginia Wolff, Yi Sang, etc., etc. & co. , only because
>they represent progress and caused a ruckus and we can tell anecdotes
>about how hard it was for them to get publish, performed, etc. ... or are
>there other values we hold, or intrinsic qualities in these works that
>cause these pieces to resonate? Or do these works live on only because
>everyone recognizes your "fundamental fact"? The only (or in your words
>*exact*) reason they are "in the canon" is because they broke new ground.
>I don't want works excluded from "the canon" because they are radical or
>subversive. I also don't want works that are not "radical" excluded
>because the they didn't ruffle the prerequisite number of feathers. You
>seemed to suggest that a work was only worthy, if it was radical. If that
>was true huge tracts of Korean dances, musics, and poems, (for example)
>would have to be purged from the books, as would largish swaths of
>"western classical" music and "western" literature ... Also, implied is
>that pieces that are not innovative (per se) are never excluded because
>they are too conservative. This happens too.
>
>As a composer, and an "avant-guard" (yuck!) one at that, i am in the
>ironic position of feeling like i often have to defend, artists whose work
>is not confrontational, or works that are made up entirely of things "that
>have been done before." This is one of the things that leads to the
>appropriation of non-western art forms, for example.....
>
>I once asked a very well known and established composer why he worked with
>the music and instruments of Tibet. I expected that he would say something
>beautiful about the sounds of the instruments, or the performance
>practices, or how the culture had resonated with him, or his deep regard
>for certain traditions, etc.... but no.... his answer was this (i'll
>remember this forever) " I do it because it hasn't been done before."
>So... there you go... when novelty comes first and foremost things can get
>funky.....
>
>One of the things that living in Korea for the better part of a decade has
>done for me (that coupled with an obsession with certain Korean art forms
>*^-^* ... ), is that it has made me question some of the very fundamental
>notions i once held about art. But perhaps this has gotten all a bit too
>off topic since your discussion of this was really in service of another
>point, so now i have veered somewhat off course, so i'll let it drop...
>but since this is the Korean Studies "Discussion" list, i hope you'll
>indulge...
>
>back to your regularly scheduled programming.....
>
>-kevin--
>
>
>
>On Oct 24, 2004, at 9:57 AM, J.Scott Burgeson wrote:
>
>>Especially within the modern period, aesthetic
>>progress and evolution has always gone hand-in-hand
>>with innovation and transgression of aesthetic
>>categories. This is a universal phenomenon and not an
>>imposition of so-called elitist Western values upon an
>>Eastern cultural context. Many Korean, Japanese and
>>Chinese artists, writers, etc. happen to value
>>innovation, too, and it's rather condescending and
>>reactionary to argue otherwise, in my opinion...
>
Yuh, Ji-Yeon
Assistant Professor of History
Associate Director of Asian American Studies
Northwestern University
Harris 202
1881 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208 USA
j-yuh@northwestern.edu
1-847-467-6538
fax: 1-847-467-1393
[The Alliance of Scholars Concerned about Korea--- ]
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Jun 18 00:33:44 EDT 2013
|
Korean Studies Discussion List
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
