Based on my teaching experience in the Art colleges, I found potential usages of a game engine as a tool for fine art. This paper will provide new way to use game engine; Making a Virtual Art Gallery with a real-time 3D rendering game engine and Making a Draft movie for a 3D Animation in postproduction using a real-time 3D rendering game engine. This paper will also provide the case study of various projects draft movie for a 3D animation with Real-time 3D Rendering Game Engine. This study will provide new possibility of game engine.

이 논문은 퇴계의 한시에 나타난 ‘졸박’의 미의식을 탐색한 논문이다. 퇴계는 약 2000여수의 시를 남겼다. 그의 시 대부분이 산수 자연을 노래한 전원시 경향을 드러내고 있으며 시의 소재도 노송, 오두막, 학, 물고기, 매화, 달, 연못, 연꽃, 대나무, 바위, 시내, 누정 등 소박한 정감을 드러내고 있다. 퇴계의 한시에는 산수자연의 생활체험과 예술감각이 교융된 졸박(拙樸)의 미학이 드러나고 있다. 퇴계의 강호가도는 도산십이곡을 비롯하여 도산잡영에 집중적으로 나타나 있으며 퇴계는 도산을 졸박의 미학 공간으로 인식하고 있었다, 퇴계의 산수시, 매화시, 愛蓮詩, 누정시, 등 시 전반에 걸쳐 졸박의 미학이 감지되고 있다. 그의 시를 통해 졸박의 미학을 탐색하여 퇴계시에 대한 감상의 폭을 넓히고자 하였다. 졸박! 이것은 퇴계의 자연시 창작의 미학 이념이었다.

日本近代美術史上での大正期新興美術運動の意義のひとつは, 術家が?滑の美術の領域を超えて演劇, ダンス, 建築, 文芸といったさまざまな分野に果敢に進出し, 美術と他分野を合一した特異な美術表現を行ない, 美術の領域を大幅に擴大したという点に求められる. 美術と舞台の領域をまたぐ「人形座」もまた, この運動と密接なかかわりを持った. 人形座は伊藤熹朔(1899~1964)とその妻智子, 熹朔の弟の千田是也（本名·伊藤挑夫, 1904~1994）らを中心に, 1920年代の東京で活動した新興人形劇のグル─プである. これまで注目されることがなかったが, 新興美術運動にかかわる美術家が積極的に參加したことで, 日本に新興人形劇を勃興させたことや, この運動とさまざまな接点を持っていた点で, 美術史の視点から考察することに意義が認められる. 本發表では, 最初に, 活動の要となった1923年10月の試演會, 1926年9月の第一回公演會, 1927年7月の臨時公演會`─`以上の公演會の槪要とそのとき上演された作品`─`順にメ─テルリンク作「アグラヴェ─ヌとセリセット」, K.A.ウィットフォ─ゲル作「誰が一番馬鹿だ?」, 小山內?作「三つの願ひ」と「人形」のあらましを確認する. つづいて上演作品の內容が象침主義からプロレタリア, さらに一般大衆化へという揀化を見せたことに注目し, 上演툭時の社뀜的, 文化的環境を踏まえながら人形座が公演會ごとに目指した人形劇について浮き彫りにする. そして最後に人形座同人だった美術家の人形座以外での美術活動に注目しつつ 人形座と大正期新興美術運動とのつながりを明らかにし, さらに「美術の領域としての舞台」という視点を導入することによって, 人形座がこの美術運動におけるひとつの活動袴式であったことを浮き上がらせる.

What a concept of theatricality in modern art became more controversial is through a review 'art and object-hood' on Michael Fried's minimal art, as having been already known broadly. As he had been concerned, the art following the minimalism is accepting as the very important elements such as the introduction of temporality, the stage in the exhibition space, and the audience's positive participation, enough to be no exaggeration to say that it was involved in almost all the theatricality. Particularly even in the installation art and the environment art, which have substantially positioned since the 1970s, the space is staged, and the audience's participation is greatly highlighted due to the temporal character and the site-specific in works. In such way, the theatricality in art work is today regarded as one of the most important elements. In this context, it is thought to have significance to examine theatricality, which is shown in the works of Arte Povera artists, who had been active energetically between 1967~1971. That is because the name of this group itself is what was borrowed from “Poor Theatre” in Jerzy Grotowski, who is a play director and theorist coming from Poland, and because of having many common points in the aspect of content and form. It reveals that the art called Arte Povera is sharing many critical minds in the face of commanding the field called a play and other media. Grotowski's theatre theory is very close to the theory and substance in Arte Povera in a sense that liberates a play, which was locked in literature, above all, renews the relationship between stage and seat and between actor and audience, and pursues a human being's change in consciousness through this. That is because Arte Povera also emphasizes the communication with the audience through appealing to a human being's perception and through the direct and living method, not the objective art concept of centering on the work. In addition, the poor play or poor art all has tendency that denies a system, which relies upon economic and cultural system, and seeks for what is anti-cultural, elemental, and fundamental. It is very similar even in a sense that focuses on the exploration process itself rather than the result, excludes the transcendental concept, and attaches importance to empiricism. However, Arte Povera accepts contradictoriness and complexity, and suggests eclecticism and tolerance, thereby being basically the nomadic art and the art difficult to be captured constitutively. On the other hand, there is difference in a sense that the poor play is characterized by purity, asceticism, seriousness, and solemnity. If so, which significance does this theatricality, which was introduced to art, ultimately have? As all the arts desire to be revealed with invisible things beyond the visual thing, theatricality comes to play a very important role at this time. If all the artists and audiences today came to acquire actual or virtual freedom much more, that can be said to be a point attributable to that art relied upon diverse conditions in a play.

PASKYULA was formed in September, 1923 through the union of artists involved in two art groups: Kim Ki-Jin, Kim Bok-Jin, Yeon Hak-Nyeon who had previously participated in the ToWolHoi, and Park Young-Hi, Lee Sang-Hwa, An Seok-Ju, former members of the BaeckJo. After its founding, the PASKYULA artists had been searching for the social function of art to reform the harsh reality of Minjung and the nation with criticism toward society as well as art world. Their art theory for MinJung could grow relatively ease in relation to changing social and political conditions in the early 1920s. In August, 1925, PASKYULA organized the Korea Artista Proletaria Federatio with the YeomGunSa, and laid the groundwork for Proletariat art movement which was regularized in the late 1920s. From PASKYULA up to the early state of KAPF, the theory of art advocated by Kim Bok-Jin and An Seok-Ju could be summarized as "art for MinJung". At that time, widely ranging discourses on MinJung, however, was spawned in art theory, because many intellectuals`─`including artists and writers`─`begun to pay more attention to MinJung, who emerged as one of the social forces after the Samil Independent Movement. Sometimes, MinJung was construed as the target of enlightenment from a negative viewpoint. On the other hand, several intellectuals under the influence of individualism asserted that the discussion itself on MinJung exerted an evil influence on art. In contrast of these cases, the PASKYULA artists including Kim Bok-Jin, An Seok-Ju perceived that MinJung had the potential to change society, and regarded them as "a creator of genuine civilization and art". In the PASKYULA artist's writings, the concept of MinJung was often overlapped with the meaning of the Choson nation suffering under colony. Although their concept of MinJung was transformed gradually into the proletariat as they were under the strong influence of socialism, it did not change that they grasped the realities of the whole Choson Peninsula through the proletarian consciousness. In the early state of PASKYULA, the methodology for social function of art was presented in a twofold manner. First of all, Kim Bok-Jin emphasized on the necessity of education to improve MinJung's way of life through art, and it was embodied by the organization of ToWol Art Workshop and public lecture. Also, he championed "the popularization of art", which was one of methods to distribute art to MinJung. According to the PASKYULA artists, art should be not art for art's sake but art for MinJung. That was why they advocated the convergence of art and MinJung's life. Especially Kim Bok-Jin affirmed a link between art and industry because he considered industry the field inextricably linked with MinJung's life. In this context, his idea could be read as the generalization and equalization within the framework of possession. Kim Bok-Jin thought that the social ramifications of capitalism deprived MinJung of their right to enjoy art, and emphasized the artist's social role to return the right to them. That is, the even distribution of art was mainly discussed than the contents of art in the half of 1920s. By 1925, the contents of art itself became an issue in the PASKYULA art theory, and it was based in realism. Kim Bok-Jin and An Seok-Ju insisted that art should be reflection of real life. At that time, realism acquired the representation of MinJung and the nation's realities not realistic style. In fact, the various Western art styles including Futurism, Constructivism, Cubism etc. were exploited in the PASKYULA's visual images. Western art, target of criticism on theory, was selectively adopted in the works which were produced by Kim Bok-Jin and An Seok-Ju. Kim Bok-Jin's MoonYeUnDong cover design was conceived of as the example in which Western art was adopted with it's ideology under the influence of MAVO, while Western art shown in An Seok-Ju's illustrations served as a decorative function in many cases. Especially, An Seok-Ju attempted the various styles of Western art simultaneously, which may be seen as representing that PASKYULA did not have a firm ideology for their style. Also, it can be read as showing his hasty zeal to overcome Western art rapidly. The wish to establish "art for MinJung" as soon as possible was accompanied with the will to jump over the all steps of Western art though it was superficial. This aspiration of PASKYULA was expressed through the mass media, which had the potential for communicating to MinJung. At this point, there was a significant disparity between PASKYULA and another art groups in the first half of 1920s. However, the PASKYULA's method on the basis of the mass media could not but have a certain limitation because of the medium's properties. Nevertheless, PASKYULA?attempts may be considered to be valuable in sense that they expended the boundaries of Korean modern art into the commercial art questioning the matter of the distribution for art.

Despite continuous efforts to redraw the boundaries between art and culture, the conventional concept of originality has persisted in approaches to the practice of contemporary art. In the discourse of originality, various forms of lesser arts that employ the method of replication have been referred to as kitsch, or “rear-guard,” the opposite of avant-garde. This categorization points to the contested issue regarding the oppositional relation between modernism and mass culture. With its easily accessible content and financial affordability, mass culture has become both an irresistible attraction and a most powerful threat to modernism. This threat has instigated a discursive system that has situated mass culture as a cultural other of modernism. Taking the marginalized category of kitsch as the area of contention, this paper examines a discursive repression of kitsch. It analyzes the conceptual framework that defends originality and autonomy in art and, conversely, degrades kitsch as an inferior and dangerous cultural category. Greenberg's concept of kitsch as a by-product of industrialization evolved into the criticism that advocates the autonomy of art. The Frankfurt School scholars, particularly Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, practiced comparable cultural critiques. Focusing on mass culture such as film, radio, and television, instead of art works, they critically analyzed the system of mass culture and theorized the negative implications of the ubiquitous presence of kitsch. Some critics, on the other hand, perceived the growth of mass culture as opening possibilities in cultural development. Walter Benjamin and Harold Rosenberg asserted the socio-cultural dynamics of mass culture underlining the potential for continual transformation in reality and in the subject. They acknowledged that technological advances changed the condition of creation and enabled unmediated interactions between media. By scrutinizing conflicting views on kitsch, this paper intends to reassess arts that draw “the forces of the outside.”

As it is known, during the Second World War Greece has fought on the side of theallies and the end of the war found the country on the winners’side. However, thestruggle for authority right after 1945 was merciless and extremely difficult, as well asdangerous for the course of the country to the future. The political powers were dividedbetween the legal authorities that were represented by the king and formed the exiledgovernment on the one hand and the part of the resistance teams and the rebels of the leftthat had a soviet friendly direction on the other. Thus, the start of a civil war was just a matter of time. It finally started in 1947 andlasted for more than two years. The consequences were disastrous for the country’seconomy and decisive for the future course of Greece. The national army prevailed withthe help of, mostly, the English. Royal parliamentary democracy was established with aclear political turn to the west, as a completion and adaptation of the Agreement of theGreat Powers at Yalta. Art had a ‘similar’route. Dipolar, contradictory: conservative choices on the oneside, and a will for pioneering inspiration and perspective on the other side. The‘dominate’trend was first evident in sculpture and mainly in the public monuments. Theirconstruction aimed mostly at the public propaganda and at the promotion of the sovereignideology. On the one side we have the public sculptures composed of faces of contemporaryheroes or leading figures of the civic war and the national resistance. On the other side wehave monumental statues mainly that appeal to a ‘public’outside of the country’s bordersand mostly of the north borders, where there are countries with a communistic regime, likeBulgaria, Serbia and Albania. Their subject is derived from the heroic events of the BalkanWars (1912-1913) and ancient historical figures like Alexander the Great as the Greek armyleader, his father, Philippos II and Aristotle, who was of a north-Greek origin. The political message is twofold: on the one side the ‘inner enemy’the communiststhat were defeated and the promotion of the new liberal social system and on the otherside the north neighbours, which not only represent the East Block, but they also conspire the history and the culture of the Greeks. This is the way how the ‘Cold War’was resultedin a full and totalitarian expression in art.

“When it comes to art, nationalism is a goodticket to ride with,”says the title of areport in the Indian Express (Mumbai, 29 Oct 2000). The newspaper report goes on to saythat since Indian art was kept “ethnic”by colonialism, national liberation meant openingup to the world on India’s own terms. Advocacy, at the tail end of the 20th century, wouldcontrast dramatically with the call by Rabindranath Tagore, the founder of the academy atSantiniketan in 1901, to guard against the fetish of nationalism.“The colourless vaguenessof cosmopolitanism,”Tagore pronounced, “nor thefierce self-idolatry of nation-worship, isthe goal of human history”(Nationalism, 1917). This contrast is significant on two counts. First is the positive aspect of “nation”as a frame in art production or circulation, atthe current point of globalization when massive expansion of cultural consumers may berealized through prevailing communication networks and technology. The organization ofthe information market, most vividly demonstrated through the recent FIFA World Cupwhen one out of every five living human beings on earth watched the finals, is predicatedon nations as categories. An extension of the Indian Express argument would be thattagging of artworks along the category of nation would help ensure greatest reception, andwould in turn open up the reified category of “art,”so as to consider new impetus fromaesthetic traditions from all parts of the world many of which heretofore regarded as“ethnic,”so as to liberate art from any hegemony of “international standards.” Secondly, the critique of nationalism points to a transnational civic sphere, be itTagore’s notion of people-not-nation, or the much more recent “transnationalconstellation”of Jurgen Habermas (2001), a vision for the European Union where civilsphere beyond confines of nation opens up new possibilities, and may serve as a modelfor a liberated sphere on global scale. There are other levels of collectivity which art mayaddress, for instance the Indonesian example of local communities headed by Ketua RukunTetangga, the neighbourhood headmen, in which community matters of culture and thearts are organically woven into the communal fabric. Art and collectivity at the national-transnational level yield a contrasting situation of,on the idealized end, the dual inputs of local culture and tradition through “nation”as necessary frame, and the concurrent development of a transnational, culturally andaesthetically vibrant civic sphere that will ensure a cosmopolitanism that is not a“colourless vagueness.”In art historical studies, this is seen, for instance, in the recentdiscussion on “cosmopolitan modernisms.” Conversely, we may see a dual tyranny of a nationalism that is a closure (sometimesstated as “ethno-nationalism”which is disputable), and an internationalism that is evolvedthrough restrictive understanding of historical development within privileged expressions.In art historical terms, where there is a lack of investigation into the reality of multiplemodernisms, the possibility of a democratic cosmopolitanism in art is severely curtailed.The advocacy of a liberal cosmopolitanism without a democratic foundation returns art todominance of historical privileged category. A local community with lack of transnationalinputs may sometimes place emphasis on neo-traditionalism which is also a double edgedsword, as rekindling with traditions is both liberating andrestrictive, which in turninterplays with the push and pull of the collective matrix.

In Korea, nation and nationalism are undeniable justice, absolute virtue andmoreover system of desire. From the late Chosun Dynasty when the Korean Peninsula hadto survive from the critical situation of being the arena of competition, and through thecolonial period under Japanese imperialism, nationalism became stronger as a logic ofsurvival. The policy of seclusion under closed and exclusive nationalism that didn’trecognize the world situation well enough, eventually gave more pain to the nation.Nationalism in colonial Korea which was as reformed nationalism and on the other hand,as intransigent, resisting nationalism. Since the purpose of this writing is not for clarifyingthe argument raised on Korean nationalism, there is no use mentioning how it went withthe change of time. But we have to focus on the fact that the word‘nation’whichappeared under the influence of popular revolution and capitalism meaning‘a group ofpeople’, was translated and understood as a racial concept for strengthening the unity of‘single-race nation with five thousand years’history. First of all, there is nationalism used to fortify the system. ‘The Charter of NationalEducation’and‘The Pledge of Allegiance’were ornaments to intensify the ruling ideologyand dictatorship to militarize entire South Korea for‘settling Korean democracy’professednationalism. Also, another ruling ideology armed with‘self-reliance’put North Korea intothe state of hypnosis called nationalism. Nationalism, claiming‘nation’outwardly, but inreality, being an illuminating, instructing ideology isolating each other was indeed a bodywith two faces. This made‘nation’in Korea mysterious and objective through work suchas. The statue commemorating patriotic forefathers’and picture of national records’inSouth Korea art. Nationalism used to strengthening the system encountered the magical‘single-race’and made‘ghost’being an extreme exclusion to other nations. We can findpedigreed pureness not allowing any mixed breeds from the attitude accepting western art-via Japan or directly- and making it vague by using the word Korean and Asia. There’s nationalism as a resistant ideology to solidify the system on the other side. Itcame out as a way of survival among the Great Power and grew with the task of nationalliberation to became as a powerful force facing against the dictatorship dominating SouthKorea after the liberation. This discussion of nationalism as a resistance ideology was activein 1980s. In 1980, democracy movement against the dictatorship of 5th Republic originatedfrom military power which came out suppressing the democratic movement in Gwangju,spread out from the intellects and the students to the labors, farmers and the civilians. It is well known that the‘Nation-People(Minjoong)’s Art Movement could come out under thissocial condition. Our attitude toward nationalism is still dual in this opening part of 21st century. Onone hand, they are opposing to the ultra-nationalism but are not able to separate it fromnationalism, and on the other, they have much confusion using it. In fact, in a single-racenation like Korea, the situation of being nationalism and jus sanguinis together can causedual nationalism. Though nationalism is included in the globalization order, it is evidence that it’seffective in Korea where there are still modern fetters like division and separation. Inparticular, in the world where Japan makes East Asia Coalition but exposed in front ofnationalism, and China not being free from Sinocentrism, and American nationalism takingthe world order, and Russia fortifying nationalism suppressing the minority race after thedissolution of socialism, Korean nationalism is at the point to find an alternative plansuperior to the ruling and resisting ideology.

Foreigners who arrived in Korea after the age of enlightenment were Japanese,Chinese and‘Westerners’who were Europeans and Americans. The westerners werediplomats who visited Korea for colonization or for increasing their economical profits bytrading after the spread of imperialism, and tourists curious of back countries, artists,explores and missionaries to perform their roles for their religious beliefs. They contactedwith Korean cultural and educational people as missionaries and instructors duringJapanese colonial period. In 1945, the allied forces occupied Korea under the name oftakeover of Japanese colony after Japan’s surrender and the relation between foreignersand Korean cultured men enter upon a new phase. For 3 years, American soldiers enforcedlots of systems in Korea and many pro-American people were educated. This relationshiplasted even after the establishment of the government of Korean Republic and especially,diplomats called as pro-Korean group came again after Korean War. Among them, therewere lots of foreigners interested in cultures and arts. In particular, government officialsunder American Forces who were influential on political circles or diplomats widened theirinsights toward Korean cultural assets and collected them a lot. Those who were in Korea from the period of independence to 1950s wrote theirimpressions about Korean cultural assets on newspapers or journals after visitingcontemporary Korean exhibitions. Among them, A. J. McTaggart, Richard Hertz and theHendersons were dominant. They thought the artists had great interests in compromisingand uniting the Orient and the West based on their knowledge of Korean cultural assets,and they advised. However, it was different from Korean artist’s point of view that theforeigners thought Korean art adhered oriental features and contained western contents. From foreigners’point of view, it is hard to understand the attitude Korean artistschose to keep their self-respect through experiencing the Korean war. It is difficult todistinguish their thought about Korean art based on their exotic taste from the Koreanartists’local and peninsular features under Japanese imperialism. We can see their thoughtabout Korean art and their viewpoint toward the third world, after staying in Korea for ashort period and being a member of the first world. The basic thing was that they couldsee the potentialities through the worldwide, beautiful Korean cultural assets and they thought it was important to start with traditions. It is an evidence showing Korean artists’pride in regard to the art culture through experiencing the infringement of their country. By writing about illuminating Korean art from the third party’s view, foreignersrepresented their thoughts through it that their economical, military superiority goes withtheir cultural superiority. The Korean artist’s thought of emphasizing Korean history andtraditions, reexamining and using it as an original creation may have been inspired bywesterners’writings. ‘The establishment of national art’that Korean artists gave emphasis then, didn’tonly affect one of the reactions toward external impact,‘the adhesion of tradition’.In theprocess of introducing Korean contemporary art and national treasure in America, differentview caused by role differences-foreigner as selector and Korean as assistant-showed thefact evidently that the standard of beauty differed between them. By emphasizing that thebasis to classify Korean cultural assets is different from the neighborhood China and Japan,they tried to reflect their understanding that the feature of Korean art is on speciality otherthan universality. And this make us understand that even when Korean artists professmodernism, they stress that the roots are on Korean and oriental tradition. It was obviously a different thought from foreigners’view on Korean art that Koreanartists’ conception of modernism and traditional roots are inherent in Korean history. In1950s, after the independence, Korea had different ideas from foreigners that abstract wasto be learned from the west. Korea was enduring tough times with their artists’self-respectwhich made them think that they can learn the method, but the spirit of abstract is in theorient.

From the late 1920s to the 1930s, Korea’s fine art community focused on traditionalviewpoints as their main topic. The traditional viewpoints were discussed mainly byKorean students studying in Japan, especially oil painters. Such discussions on tradition canbe divided into two separate halves, namely the pre- and post-Sino-Japanese War (1937)periods. Before the war, the modernists among Korea’s fine art community tried to gain afuller understanding of contemporary Western modern art, namely, expressionism,futurism, surrealism, and so forth, on the basis of Orientalism, and borrow from theseschools’in order to create their own works. Furthermore, proponents of Joseon’s avant-garde fine arts and artists of the pro-fine art school triggered debate on the traditionalviewpoints. After the Sino-Japanese War, these artists continued to embrace Westernmodern art on the basis of Orientalism. However, since Western modern fine art wasregressing into Oriental fine art during this period, Korean artists did not need to researchWestern modern fine art, but sought to study Joseon’s classics and create Joseon’s ownavant-garde fine art in a movement led by the Munjang group. This research reviews thetraditional view espoused by the Munjang group, which represented the avant-garde fineart movement of the post-war period. Advocating Joseon’s own current of avant-garde fine art through the Munjang literarymagazine, Gil Jin-seop, Kim Yong-jun and others accepted the Japanese fine artcommunity’s methodology for the restoration of classicism, but refused Orientalism as anideology, and attempted to renew their perception of Joseon tradition. The advocation ofthe restoration of classicism by Gil Jin-seop and Kim Yong-jun appears to be similar to thatof the Yasuda Yojuro-style restoration of classicism. However, Gil Jin-seop and Kim Yong-jun did not seek their sources of classicism from the Three-Kingdoms and Unified Sillaperiods, which Japan had promoted as a symbol of unity among the Joseon people;instead they sought classicism from the Joseon fine art which the Japanese had criticized asa hotbed of decadence. It was the Joseon period that the Munjang group chose as classicism when Japanwas upholding Fascism as a contemporary extremism, and when Hangeul (Korean writing system) was banned from schools. The group highly evaluated literature written in the styleof women, especially women’s writings on the royal court, as represented by Hanjungnok(A Story of Sorrowful Days). In the area of fine art, the group renewed the evaluation of notonly literary paintings, but also of the authentic landscape paintings refused by, and thevalues of the Chusa school criticized as decadent by, the colonial bureaucratic artists,thereby making great progress in promoting the traditional viewpoint. Kim Yong-junembraced a painting philosophy based on the painting techniques of Sasaeng (sketching),because he paid keen attention to the tradition of literary paintings, authentic landscapepaintings and genre paintings. The literary painting theory of the 20th century, which washighly developed, could naturally shed both the colonial historical viewpoint whichregarded Joseon fine art as heteronomical, and the traditional viewpoint which regardedJoseon fine art as decadent. As such, the Munjang group was able to embrace the Joseon period as the source ofclassicism amid the prevalent colonial historical viewpoint, presumably as it hadaccumulated first-hand experience in appreciating curios of paintings and calligraphicworks, instead of taking a logical approach. Kim Yong-jun, in his fine art theory, definedartistic forms as the expression of mind, and noted that such an artistic mind could beattained by the appreciation of nature and life. This is because, for the Munjang group, theexperience of appreciating nature and life begins with the appreciation of curios ofpaintings and calligraphic works. Furthermore, for the members of the Munjang group, who were purists who valuedartistic style, the concept of individuality presumably was an engine that protected themfrom falling into the then totalitarian world view represented by the Nishita philosophy. Such a 20th century literary painting theory espoused by the Munjang groupconcurred with the contemporary traditional viewpoint spearheaded by Oh Se-chang in the1910s. This theory had a great influence on South and North Korea’s fine art theories andcircles through the Fine Art College of Seoul National University and Pyongyang Fine ArtSchool in the wake of Korea’s liberation. In this sense, the significance of the theoryshould be re-evaluated.

This study is about the cultural policy related to fine art under the U. S. Military Government in Korea(USAMGIK), from September 8, 1945, to August 15, 1948. Drawing on the previous studies of Korean art history in the ‘Liberation Period’, this study especially concentrates on intention, attitude and activities of the USAMGIK. Particularly the historical documents, stored at the National Archives at the College Park, Maryland, U.S.A., were valuable to do research on the cultural policy of USAMGIK. The cultural policy was subordinated to the political objectives of occupation that can be summarized to building a stronghold of anti-communism in South Korea. Under the U.S. Military government control, cultural matters were assigned to the Cultural Section, the Bureau of Education, which later turns into the Bureau of Culutre, the Department of Education. The Bureau of Culture dealt with matters of the ancient Korean art treasures and of the Korean contemporary art. USAMGIK reopened the Korean National Museum which had been closed by the Japanese since the World War Ⅱ period. After that, U.S. Department of State sent arts & monuments specialists to South Korea for investigating ancient Korean art and culture. Although some of the destructed art treasures were restored during the occupation, there were many negative cases including intentional destruction of historic sites or loot of art treasures by U.S. army. In contrast to their interest in the Korean antiquities, USAMGIK payed little attention to promoting the Korean contemporary artists and their arts. USAMGIK distrusted and suppressed the artists of leftism, while they kept good relations with the pro-American artists and the right-wing artists. In conclusion, the visual-cultural policy of USAMGK was mainly planned and carried out in order to preserve the national interest of the United States. This period produced long-term effects on the fine art and visual culture of South Korea, in terms of institution, policy, and reorganization of art community based on anti-cummunism.