• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.53 no.3
• /
• pp.42-61
• /
• 2020

Even though research on heritage interpretation has been conducted steadily since the mid-20th century, the actual concept of such interpretation has not been clear. In The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites, which is a leading international standard of heritage management, the definition of heritage interpretation is still vague. Also, defining its concept is tricky because it is based on the 'situation,' which could change at any moment. Therefore it seems that previous research has focused only on the social function of heritage interpretation. Since socio-philosophy research has become increasingly crucial in heritage studies, the concept of heritage interpretation needs to be precise. Therefore, this paper looks at research history chronologically, divides its social role into two different branches, and finally reifies the definition of the concept. Two social values of heritage interpretation can be distinguished as 'modern heritage interpretation,' and 'inclusive interpretation.' Modern heritage interpretation directs studies into conveying heritage's value to the public as measured by a few experts. It is an educational and communicative role. Inclusive heritage interpretation focuses on seeking comprehensive recognition of diverse values and finds ways to promote reconciliation among multiple stakeholders of heritage. Even though these two functions have developed in different social backgrounds, it is apparent that both have been generated in an unclear, overlapping, and complicated context. The concept of heritage interpretation is too complex to simplify as 'interpretation' itself. This paper defines such interpretation as 'all activities involved in the process of value creation of heritage.' Two social values relate to the concept of 'interpretation': they all have a common recognition of fundamental characteristics of heritage. This is used to establish a collective identity in society. However, it is more appropriate to conceptualize inclusive heritage interpretation as 're-interpretation' because it denies modern heritage interpretation and identifies new negotiated value.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.103-114
• /
• 2020

This study was conducted on Yuanming New Garden in China, which re-lighted the previously lost or damaged original space through representation from the perspective of creating traditional landscape. We looked at the composition of this place, the comparison of relevant literature and actual representation, and the characteristics of representation techniques. The results are as follows. First, TYuanming New Garden is a representation space with the motif of Yunamingyuan in Beijing. An advisory group of some 400 related experts discussed the prototype. The historicity of the real space was considered in the representation process. Second, New Yuanmingyuan garden was recreated based on the 'The Forty Scenic Views of Yuanmingyuan', and 31 of the scenic spots were created. The buildings in each precinct had a 1:1 scale response with structures that were previously constructed in Yuanmingyuan, Beijing. New Yuanmingyuan garden's way in which the main landscape is laid out around the Fuhai Lake(福海), which the landscape is drawn appeared was the same as Yuanmingyuan in Beijing. However, some of the facilities were reproduced on the basis of the 'The Forty Scenic Views of Yuanmingyuan', so they turned out to be different from what Yuanminyuan in Beijing looks like today. New Changchunyuan garden was represented around water landscape of the Western Mansins(Xiyang Lou, 西洋樓) area and the Haeakgaegum(海岳開襟), and the buildings and the facilities were reconstructed based on the 'Copper Print of Western Mansins'. Third, Yuanming New Garden made a prototype of the 'The Forty Scenic Views of Yuanmingyuan' and 'Copper Print of Western Mansins' during the process of synchronic changes in the garden. In addition, the original space and the ambiguous original space or exhibition space were clearly identified through the plant. On the other hand, due to the reenactment of buildings, the spatial composition and placeability of the original spaces of Yuanmingyuan garden and Changchunyuan garden in Beijing were not inherited, and the introduction of elements that did not match traditional landscaping spaces, and the introduction of garden elements that were not prototype and other variations for the use of tourism were found to be drawback.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.52
• /
• pp.133-164
• /
• 2018

This purpose of this paper is to focus on anti-Japanese literature and pro-Japanese literature skills among Korean literary history written in Japan, and to observe the differences between Korean and Japanese perception surrounding anti-Japanese and pro-Japanese literature. Analyzed texts are "Taste Korean Literature" by Saegusa Dosikatsu and "The Footsteps of Modern Literature of Chosun" by Shirakawa Yutaka, the earnest modern Korean literary historians written from the perspective of Japanese writers, and though there's no overall written history of literature, they were seen through with the perspective of Omura Masuo, at the forefront of Japanese researchers in modern and contemporary Korean literature. The main results of the review are as follow: First, In Korean literary history by Japan, the frame "pro-Japanese literature" is clearly embedded. It is clearly distinctive from the aspect of China or North Korea, and though it follows the narration system of South Korean literature, it also forms the breaking (turning) point of anti-Japanese and pro-Japanese literature relative to anti-Japanese and pro-Japanese literature. Second, even if it follows the narration system of South Korean literature, that question was constantly raised on existing Korean academic evaluation of anti-Japanese and pro-Japanese literature, and different interpretations of reading were practiced. For example, Korean academic circles highly regard literature of writers such as Kim, Jong han or Lee, Seok hoon, while Korean academics do not place much importance on Lee, Gwang Soo's pro-Japanese elements that are important. The third point is that generous marks are credited to writers with outstanding Japanese or to Japanese creative writing. As a result, they dissolve internal logic in different pro-Japanese collaborators such as Chang, Hyuk Ju, Kim, Sa Ryang, Lee, Seok hoon, or Kim, Yong Jae by melting the same "Japanese literature" in a cage. The last point is reading different inner thoughts of Kim, Jong-han or Lee, Seok-hoon unlike outspoken pro-Japanese collaborators such as Lee, Gwang soo, Jang, Hyuk Joo or Kim, Yong je. These points require more in-depth analysis, and will be continued in follow-up tasks.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.43 no.2
• /
• pp.87-104
• /
• 2015

As the influence of Landscape Urbanism has grown, various criticisms on the discourse also have increased. A study on critical opinions of Landscape Urbanism is necessary to fully comprehend the theoretical structure of the discourse and its limitations. This study introduced the concept of Intension and Extension, which is used in the field of Logics and Semiotic, as an analytical tool to interpret various criticisms based on different views in a more objective and synthetic way. After examining the development of criticisms of Landscape Urbanism, 30 texts with important critiques on the theory were selected and analyzed. Criticisms can be classified as internal criticism and external criticism according to specific topics they are engaged with. The study only covers internal criticism as a research scope. The internal criticisms on Landscape Urbanism are re-categorized into topics of theory, practice and the relation between theory and practice. Vagueness of concepts and error in concepts are two types criticism related to the issue of theory. Lexical Ambiguity and Intensional Vagueness are the main causes of conceptual vagueness in Landscape Urbanism. Conceptual vagueness related with the problem of redefining an existing concept through expanding its meaning reveals a structural dilemma. There are three types of criticism included in the topic of practice: absence of practical results, form-oriented practice, and ambiguous identity in practical results. Ambiguous identity is caused by Extensional Vagueness allowing borderline cases. Because these borderline cases overlap with extensions of landscape architecture, it is hard to differentiate projects of Landscape Urbanism and those of conventional landscape architecture. Most criticisms on the relation between theory and practice raise the question on the practical method. Two types of criticism are engaged with the topic of the practical method: errors in practical methods and absence of practical methods. The absence of practical methods is a fundamental problem of Landscape Urbanism which is hard to solve by the proposed solutions. However, these structural problems are not only the weak point but also the factor that is able to prove the potentials expand the scope of Landscape Urbanism. In addition to the results of the study, internal criticisms on Landscape Urbanism should be examined in the following studies in order to predict the next direction of Landscape Urbanism.