• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.371-405
• /
• 2004

International circulation of cultural assets involves numerous countries thereby making an approach based on international law essential to resolving this problem. Since the end of the $2^{nd}$ World War, as the value of cultural assets evolved from material value to moral and ethical values, with emphasis on establishing national identities, newly independent nations and former colonial states took issue with ownership of cultural assets which led to the need for international cooperation and statutory provisions for the return of cultural assets. UNESCO's 1954 "Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict" as preparatory measures for the protection of cultural assets, the 1970 "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property" to regulate transfer of cultural assets, and the 1995 "Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects" which required the return of illegally acquired cultural property are examples of international agreements established on illegal transfers of cultural assets. In addition, the UN agency UNESCO established the Division of Cultural Heritage to oversee cultural assets related matters, and the UN since its 1973 resolution 3187, has continued to demonstrate interest in protection of cultural assets. The resolution 3187 affirms the return of cultural assets to the country of origin, advises on preventing illegal transfers of works of art and cultural assets, advises cataloguing cultural assets within the respective countries and, conclusively, recommends becoming a member of UNESCO, composing a forum for international cooperation. Differences in defining cultural assets pose a limitation on international agreements. While the 1954 Convention states that cultural assets are not limited to movable property and includes immovable property, the 1970 Convention's objective of 'Prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property' effectively limits the subject to tangible movable cultural property. The 1995 Convention also has tangible movable cultural property as its subject. On this point, the two conventions demonstrate distinction from the 1954 Convention and the 1972 Convention that focuses on immovable cultural property and natural property. The disparity in defining cultural property is due to the object and purpose of the convention and does not reflect an inherent divergence. In the case of Korea, beginning with the 1866 French invasion, 36 years of Japanese colonial rule, military rule and period of economic development caused outflow of numerous cultural assets to foreign countries. Of course, it is neither possible nor necessary to have all of these cultural properties returned, but among those that have significant value in establishing cultural and historical identity or those that have been taken symbolically as a demonstration of occupational rule can cause issues in their return. In these cases, the 1954 Convention and the ratification of the first legislation must be actively considered. In the return of cultural property, if the illicit acquisition is the core issue, it is a simple matter of following the international accords, while if it rises to the level of diplomatic discussions, it will become a political issue. In that case, the country requesting the return must convince the counterpart country. Realizing a response to the earnest need for preventing illicit trading of cultural assets will require extensive national and civic societal efforts in the East Asian area to overcome its current deficiencies. The most effective way to prevent illicit trading of cultural property is rapid circulation of information between Interpol member countries, which will require development of an internet based communication system as well as more effective deployment of legislation to prevent trading of illicitly acquired cultural property, subscription to international conventions and cataloguing collections.

• Maritime Security
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.1-53
• /
• 2022

One manifestation of the contemporary era of renewed great power competition has been the deepening relationship between China and Russia. Their strengthening military ties, notwithstanding their lack of a formal defense alliance, have been especially striking. Since China and Russia deploy two of the world's most powerful navies, their growing maritime cooperation has been one of the most significant international security developments of recent years. The Sino-Russian naval exercises, involving varying platforms and locations, have built on years of high-level personnel exchanges, large Russian weapons sales to China, the Sino-Russia Treaty of Friendship, and other forms of cooperation. Though the joint Sino-Russian naval drills began soon after Beijing and Moscow ended their Cold War confrontation, these exercises have become much more important during the last decade, essentially becoming a core pillar of their expanding defense partnership. China and Russia now conduct more naval exercises in more places and with more types of weapons systems than ever before. In the future, Chinese and Russian maritime drills will likely encompass new locations, capabilities, and partners-including possibly the Arctic, hypersonic delivery systems, and novel African, Asian, and Middle East partners-as well as continue such recent innovations as conducting joint naval patrols and combined arms maritime drills. China and Russia pursue several objectives through their bilateral naval cooperation. The Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation lacks a mutual defense clause, but does provide for consultations about common threats. The naval exercises, which rehearse non-traditional along with traditional missions (e.g., counter-piracy and humanitarian relief as well as with high-end warfighting), provide a means to enhance their response to such mutual challenges through coordinated military activities. Though the exercises may not realize substantial interoperability gains regarding combat capabilities, the drills do highlight to foreign audiences the Sino-Russian capacity to project coordinated naval power globally. This messaging is important given the reliance of China and Russia on the world's oceans for trade and the two countries' maritime territorial disputes with other countries. The exercises can also improve their national military capabilities as well as help them learn more about the tactics, techniques, and procedures of each other. The rising Chinese Navy especially benefits from working with the Russian armed forces, which have more experience conducting maritime missions, particularly in combat operations involving multiple combat arms, than the People's Liberation Army (PLA). On the negative side, these exercises, by enhancing their combat capabilities, may make Chinese and Russian policymakers more willing to employ military force or run escalatory risks in confrontations with other states. All these impacts are amplified in Northeast Asia, where the Chinese and Russian navies conduct most of their joint exercises. Northeast Asia has become an area of intensifying maritime confrontations involving China and Russia against the United States and Japan, with South Korea situated uneasily between them. The growing ties between the Chinese and Russian navies have complicated South Korean-U.S. military planning, diverted resources from concentrating against North Korea, and worsened the regional security environment. Naval planners in the United States, South Korea, and Japan will increasingly need to consider scenarios involving both the Chinese and Russian navies. For example, South Korean and U.S. policymakers need to prepare for situations in which coordinated Chinese and Russian military aggression overtaxes the Pentagon, obligating the South Korean Navy to rapidly backfill for any U.S.-allied security gaps that arise on the Korean Peninsula. Potentially reinforcing Chinese and Russian naval support to North Korea in a maritime confrontation with South Korea and its allies would present another serious challenge. Building on the commitment of Japan and South Korea to strengthen security ties, future exercises involving Japan, South Korea, and the United States should expand to consider these potential contingencies.

• (The) Research of the performance art and culture
• /
• no.41
• /
• pp.5-38
• /
• 2020

The current state of performance halls in South Korea is closely related to the performance art and culture of the nation as the culture of putting on and enjoying a performance is deeply rooted in public culture and arts halls representing each area at the local government level. Today, public culture and arts halls have multiple management purposes, and the subjects of their management are in the public domain including the central and local governments or investment and donation foundations in overwhelming cases. Public culture and arts halls thus have close correlations with the institutional aspect of cultural policies as the objects of culture and art policies at the central and local government level. The full-blown era of public culture and arts halls opened up in the 1980s~1990s, during which multi-purpose performance halls of a similar structure became universal around the nation. Public culture and arts halls of the uniform shape were distributed around the nation with no premise of genre characteristics or local environments for arts, and this was attributed to the cultural policies of the military regime. The Park Chung-hee regime proclaimed Yusin that was beyond the Constitution and enacted the Culture and Arts Promotion Act(September, 1972), which was the first culture and arts act in the nation. Based on the act, a five-year plan for the promotion of culture and arts(1973) was made and led to the construction of cultural facilities. "Public culture and arts" halls or "culture" halls were built to serve multiple purposes around the nation because the Culture and Arts Promotion Act, which is called the starting point of the nation's legal system for culture and arts, defined "culture and arts" as "matters regarding literature, art, music, entertainment, and publications." The definition became a ground for the current "multi-purpose" concept. The organization of Ministry of Culture and Public Information set up a culture and administration system to state its supervision of "culture and arts" and distinguish popular culture from the promotion of arts. During the period, former President Park exhibited his perception of "culture=arts=culture and arts" in his speeches. Arts belonged to the category of culture, but it was considered as "culture and arts." There was no department devoted to arts policies when the act was enacted with a broad scope of culture accepted. This ambiguity worked as a mechanism to mobilize arts in ideological utilizations as a policy. Against this backdrop, the Sejong Center for the Performing Arts, a multi-purpose performance hall, was established in 1978 based on the Culture and Arts Promotion Act under the supervision of Ministry of Culture and Public Information. There were, however, conflicts of value over the issue of accepting the popular music among the "culture and arts = multiple purposes" of the system, "culture ≠ arts" of the cultural organization that pushed forward its establishment, and "culture and arts = arts" perceived by the powerful class. The new military regime seized power after Coup d'état of December 12, 1979 and failed at its culture policy of bringing the resistance force within the system. It tried to differentiate itself from the Park regime by converting the perception into "expansion of opportunities for the people to enjoy culture" to gain people's supports both from the side of resistance and that of support. For the Chun Doo-hwan regime, differentiating itself from the previous regime was to secure legitimacy. Expansion of opportunities to enjoy culture was pushed forward at the level of national distribution. This approach thus failed to settle down as a long-term policy of arts development, and the military regime tried to secure its legitimacy through the symbolism of hardware. During the period, the institutional ground for public culture and arts halls was based on the definition of "culture and arts" in the Culture and Arts Promotion Act enacted under the Yusin system of the Park regime. The "multi-purpose" concept, which was the management goal of public performance halls, was born based on this. In this context of the times, proscenium performance halls of a similar structure and public culture and arts halls with a similar management goal were established around the nation, leading to today's performance art and culture in the nation.

• MISULJARYO - National Museum of Korea Art Journal
• /
• v.97
• /
• pp.14-54
• /
• 2020

The overall study of Samsaebulhoedo (painting of the Assembly of Buddhas of Three Ages) at Yongjusa Temple has focused on dating it, analyzing the painting style, identifying its painter, and scrutinizing the related documents. However, its greater coherence could be achieved through additional support from empirical evidence and logical consistency. Recent studies on Samsaebulhoedo at Yongjusa Temple that postulate that the painting could have been produced by a monk-painter in the late nineteenth century and that an original version produced in 1790 could have been retouched by a painter in the 1920s using a Western painting style lack such empirical proof and logic. Although King Jeongjo's son was not yet installed as crown prince, the Samsaebulhoedo at Yongjusa Temple contained a conventional written prayer wishing for a long life for the king, queen, and crown prince: "May his majesty the King live long / May her majesty the Queen live long / May his highness the Crown Prince live long" (主上殿下壽萬歲, 王妃殿下壽萬歲, 世子邸下壽萬歲). Later, this phrase was erased using cinnabar and revised to include unusual content in an exceptional order: "May his majesty the King live long / May his highness the King's Affectionate Mother (Jagung) live long / May her majesty the Queen live long / May his highness the Crown Prince live long" (主上殿下壽萬歲, 慈宮邸下壽萬歲, 王妃殿下壽萬歲, 世子邸下壽萬歲). A comprehensive comparison of the formats and contents in written prayers found on late Joseon Buddhist paintings and a careful analysis of royal liturgy during the reign of King Jeongjo reveal Samsaebulhoedo at Yongjusa Temple to be an original version produced at the time of the founding of Yongjusa Temple in 1790. According to a comparative analysis of formats, iconography, styles, aesthetic sensibilities, and techniques found in Buddhist paintings and paintings by Joseon court painters from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Samsaebulhoedo at Yongjusa Temple bears features characteristic of paintings produced around 1790, which corresponds to the result of analysis on the written prayer. Buddhist paintings created up to the early eighteenth century show deities with their sizes determined by their religious status and a two-dimensional conceptual composition based on the traditional perspective of depicting close objects in the lower section and distant objects above. This Samsaebulhoedo, however, systematically places the Buddhist deities within a threedimensional space constructed by applying a linear perspective. Through the extensive employment of chiaroscuro as found in Western painting, it expresses white highlights and shadows, evoking a feeling that the magnificent world of the Buddhas of the Three Ages actually unfolds in front of viewers. Since the inner order of a linear perspective and the outer illusion of chiaroscuro shading are intimately related to each other, it is difficult to believe that the white highlights were a later addition. Moreover, the creative convergence of highly-developed Western painting style and techniques that is on display in this Samsaebulhoedo could only have been achieved by late-Joseon court painters working during the reign of King Jeongjo, including Kim Hongdo, Yi Myeong-gi, and Kim Deuksin. Deungun, the head monk of Yongjusa Temple, wrote Yongjusa sajeok (History of Yongjusa Temple) by compiling the historical records on the temple that had been transmitted since its founding. In Yongjusa sajeok, Deungun recorded that Kim Hongdo painted Samsaebulhoedo as if it were a historical fact. The Joseon royal court's official records, Ilseongnok (Daily Records of the Royal Court and Important Officials) and Suwonbu jiryeong deungnok (Suwon Construction Records), indicate that Kim Hongdo, Yi Myeong-gi, and Kim Deuksin all served as a supervisor (gamdong) for the production of Buddhist paintings. Since within Joseon's hierarchical administrative system it was considered improper to allow court painters of government position to create Buddhist paintings which had previously been produced by monk-painters, they were appointed as gamdong in name only to avoid a political liability. In reality, court painters were ordered to create Buddhist paintings. During their reigns, King Yeongjo and King Jeongjo summoned the literati painters Jo Yeongseok and Kang Sehwang to serve as gamdong for the production of royal portraits and requested that they paint these portraits as well. Thus, the boundary between the concept of supervision and that of painting occasionally blurred. Supervision did not completely preclude painting, and a gamdong could also serve as a painter. In this light, the historical records in Yongjusa sajeok are not inconsistent with those in Ilseongnok, Suwonbu jiryeong deungnok, and a prayer written by Hwang Deok-sun, which was found inside the canopy in Daeungjeon Hall at Yongjusa Temple. These records provided the same content in different forms as required for their purposes and according to the context. This approach to the Samsaebulhoedo at Yongjusa Temple will lead to a more coherent explanation of dating the painting, analyzing its style, identifying its painter, and interpreting the relevant documents based on empirical grounds and logical consistency.