이 논문은 오늘날 ‘단색화’로 명명되는 한국 추상화의 한 경향에 대한 세 개의 반성적 질문을 던 지고, 그에 대한 답을 모색하고자 한다. 첫째 질문은 단색화를 진정 독자적인 유파로서, 긴밀한 이념과 그 실천의 집약체로서 형성된 한국적 미술운동 또는 유파로 볼 수 있는가이다. 둘째 질문은 오늘날까지 관례적 정설로 자리 잡아 온 견해로서 ‘단색화는 진정 한국성 또는 한 국적 미의 반영인가’이다. 셋째 질문은 단색화의 거의 공식화된 영문표기인 ‘Dansaekhwa’와 그것을 정당화하는 담론 은 타당한가이다.

Art theorists support art productions by, introducing them to the public, explaining their meanings, and playing a critical part in the development of art. These tasks seem like theire opus. Because the principles of art production and the artistc languages are quite different from the ordinaries, we need 'interpreters' who can medoate us and the artists. Art works need interpretation. And the interpretation includes not only the characteristics of the given art work, but the customs, history, and the unique qualities of the race that procuved the art work. THe former director of the Korean National Museum, Choi Soon-woo wrote on the characteristics of Korean art as those that stem from the poised, arbitrary and non-elaborate state of mind. THe statement of the former Director of the National Museum has its weight far greater than just a personal opinion. In fact, we encounter the same resonance of this statement over and over reproduced in the mass media,. The problem lies on that it deals with not only a single art work, but the entire Korean art. And going further, this kinf og remarks are alreadt infused into every sector of our thought on art appreciation. In this paper, I argue for a re-reading of the characteristics of Korean beauty based on two reasons. First, the characteristic of art work is contemporary, thus we cannot define the characteristics of entire Korean art in a few words without the context of the period of its making. Seconf, Director Choi defines the characteristics that I pointes out above as 'natural' and 'nature-friendly'. Nature or beibg natural is nor an usual word that defines the characteristics of art work, which stands for the opoosite side of the nature in the binary opposition of nature/culture. To delve into these misunderstandings of Korean beauty in the popular notions of Korean Art, I suggest the re-reading if three major articles on Korean Art: Ryoo Jong-yeol's "Korean race and its art", Ko You-seup's reterarion of Ryoo's thesis called "Discourses in Korean Art History and Aesthetics," and Yoon Hee-soon's antithesis of Ryoo Jong-yeol titled "Studies on Korean Art History."