본 논문은 존 키츠와 W.B. 예이츠가 잃어버린 대상을 재구성하고 현실과 이상 사이의 관계를 변증법으로 재창조하는 방식을 탐구한다. 키츠는 ｢그리스 항아리에 부치는 송시｣와 ｢나이팅게일에게 부치는 송가｣에서 이상적인 세계를 매혹적이면서도 도달할 수 없는 꿈의 풍경으로 묘사한다. 하지만 화자는 결국 고통스러운 현실로 되돌려진다. ｢이사벨라, 혹은 바질 화분｣에서 키츠는 이사벨라가 잃어버린 대상을 이상화하고 그녀의 자아와 우울증적 동일시를 함으로써 일시적이지만 그 대상을 되살리는 모습을 그린다. 한편 예이츠는 ｢청금석 부조｣, ｢쿨 호수의 야생 백조｣, ｢서커스단 동물들의 탈주｣에서 불완전성을 시적 상징으로 변환함으로써 현실과 이상 사이의 긴장을 그려낸다. 예이츠에게 부재는 창조적 힘으로 작용하여 현실을 재구성하면서도 상상력이 현실이나 자아를 대체하지 않는다. 존재와 부재, 상상과 현실의 상호작용은 두 시인이 이러한 이중 영역을 조화시키려는 탐구의 핵심이다.

An artist, Oh Yun(1946~86)’s theory of people’s art during his final period issummed up in his essay ‘Expansion of Artistic Imagination and World’(1985).Emphasizingthe mystic and traditional characteristics of Oh Yun’s artistic oeuvre during his final period,some critics focus on Oh Yun’s experience of medical treatment and shamanistic custom atJin Do island, and his belief in Jeung San Do, the dao of Jeung-san, the Ruler of theUniverse. However, they forget the practical intention and implication of his theory of artduring his final period, which aimed to overcome the contradiction of revelation itself. Oh Yun’s essay criticized the loss of artistic imagination and the ignorance oftraditional culture that resulted from the elevation of science to a religion, and insisted thatthe stereotyped idealism, scientism and elitism in art should be overcome in order torecover the full reality in realism and to continue traditional cultures. The essay iscomprised of 18 paragraphs. Oh Yun criticized monochromatic art, conceptual art, hyper-realistic art, objet d’art,and neo-dadaist art, saying that they were simply mechanical forms of modern art derivedfrom scientism and a fetishistic lens culture. In addition, he criticized naturalism in art,which had continued as a tendency in the development of western art, for the samereason. He pointed out that even the world of realism had been diminished by elitestereotypes and diagrams. He declared the need to overcome the imitation of shells orstereotyped propaganda, and recover full realism, which seems to have started with areflective examination of current problems in ‘Reality and Utterance’, in which heparticipated. Especially, he thought that universality and the extension of full realism could be achieved by building on the views of traditional cultures, which is meaningful. This logic issame as the theory of epic theatre that Bertolt Brecht(1898~1956)has developed under theancient Greek masque and Pieter Bruegel the Elder(1525~69)’s story-like picture style. Theuniversality of realism and the extension of acquisition to include incantation art,rather thanmove toward incantation art, is what Oh Yun intended to propose in ‘Artistic Imagination’.This attitude is same as Bertolt Brecht’s aesthetic viewpoint in the 1930s. But regrettably,Oh Yun’s style wording, which seems covert and far-sighted, is often misunderstood as‘mysticism’. In the flow of people’s art in the 1980s, Oh Yun was a traditionalist in a narrowsense, and an realist in a broad sense. However, his critical mind, which comprehendstradition and reality, was attempting to expand universality and extend full realism, and thisattempt found many sympathizers and had an influence on the next generation of people’sartists, such as 「Levee」which is field-centered, to which we should pay attention. Thismeans that while their works thought about ‘tradition’, we should be careful not to connectthem with‘aesthetic conservatism’or ‘classical art’. This is the why the meaning of Oh Yun’stheory of art during his final period should be closely examined again.