• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.52-64
• /
• 2015

This study was carried out investigation of characteristics palace gardens representing historical background, political and cultural identity in Korea, China, and Japan. It had been done a comparative analysis in formation, location and site layout, site composition, landscape elements and planning, landscape technique and vista for palace gardens in East asia's three countries. In order to process this study, Changdeokgung Palace in Korea, Summer Palace in China and Sento Imperial Palace in Japan were selected based on similar status. therefore it provide theoretical foundation to investigate the identity of palace gardens in three countries. Furthermore the study determined homogeneity(similarity) and heterogeneity(differentiation) of the characteristics between palace gardens in three countries through the in-depth comparative analysis in order to investigate identity of palace gardens in three countries and to present the value of Korean palace garden. Homogeneity and heterogeneity between palace gardens in three countries deducted from the study were summarized as follows; First, it shows indigenous style of Korean garden throughout adapting natural terrain without natural destruction. Second, various symbolic elements which ie reflected East asian ideologies present in the gardens. Chinese thoughts and technique were influenced in the development of palace garden in Korea and implemented in similar ways of China. Homogeneity of utilizing waterscape could be found in three countries. Lastly, Palace garden in Changdeokgung had played a role as cultural place with taste for the arts rather than representing authority of the throne. It appears to be similar in China and Japan. The reason how Korea, China and Japan established their own independent style is that each palace garden had been developed to embrace indigenous culture with introduced elements even though they were closely bound up with culture.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.1-12
• /
• 2019

A bridge is a structure constructed on water or in the air for convenient passage. Compared to other buildings, the building materials and structures of bridge required unique functions to cross the space. It depends on the productivity of the building, the level of science and technology, and the ecological environment of the building site. Also, it has important relationship with functions such as politics, military, economy, and life. Most of the academic research on bridges is focused on research in the field of bridge-building technology, so the study on the landscape aesthetics and history of bridges is lacking. Against this backdrop, the study will be valuable as a accumulation of both countries' understanding of bridge types, history and culture, as well as technical and aesthetic data, by analyzing the bridges located within the palaces of Korea and China. The research method is to analyze the bridge through field survey and literature analysis.. First, the bridges of royal palace of Korea and China are to be classified quantitatively as physical shapes, landscapes, and decorations by comparing the materials, forms, landscapes, and decorative culture of bridges. Second, characteristics, common points, and differences are extracted by classifying bridges of both countries. Also, the results are discussed based on the physical environment or cultural background. This would be worth cross-referencing in the building technology and aesthetics of the two countries. For the first important characteristics of result, main materials of Korean and Chinese palaces are stone. However, the bridge in China's royal palaces is also focused on wood. Second, in terms of form, the bridges in the royal gardens of Korea and China are all based on the beam bridge. However, the specific form, ratio, style of the beam bridge, and airspace of arched bridge are very different. Third, most of the connection methods are focused on the over bridge. It values the convergence with the surrounding landscape. Due to the difference in the area and location of water, the bridge in the Korean palace is more focused on the convergence of the surrounding buildings and plants, while the bridge in the Chinese palace is more concerned about the harmony of hydration. Fourth, the decoration places importance on the artistry and aesthetics of both the bridges in Korea and China. There is a difference in style in the same type of decoration due to culture.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.40 no.1
• /
• pp.26-42
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study is to examine and understand the area and the original outer boundaries of Hamchunwon(含春苑), which was the outer royal garden of Gyeonghuigung Palace, which existed before the site of the Russian legation. The results of the study are as follows. First, examining the 3 types of drawings prepared for securing the Russian legation's site and constructing a new building, it was confirmed that two low peaks, which appear to be the original terrain of Hamchunwon, existed in the north and south directions inside the site. According to the initial plan of the of the legation's site, it appears that the entrance of the legation building is connected to the Saemunan-ro in the northwest. However, according to the report made at the time when the Russian temporary minister Veber purchased the legation's site, it was recorded that the site already had a narrow entrance and a dirt road in place, and hence, it was connected to Saemunan-ro. This fact makes it possible to learn that the line of movement for officials and the original gate were located to the northwest of the site planned as the entrance of the legation building towards Hamchunwon. Second, the site was created by cutting the top of the high hill at the time of the construction of the legation building, and as a result, a two tiered staircase typed terrace was built. The ground on which the main building and the secretary's building, etc., were erected was made by cutting the highest peak and solidifying it flat, and a large quantity of soil was used for grading. In the case of the northern area of the main building, the traces of leveling the terrain by cutting the mountains are apparent, and an observation typed garden with a walking path and pavilion was formed by utilizing the physical environment equipped with an easy view. This may be considered as a use which is consistent with the topographical conditions of creating an outer royal garden to block the civilian views on a high terrain overlooking the palace. Third, Hamchunwon's fences were partially exposed in the photos from the 1880s through the 1890s, which demonstrate the spatial changes made around the US, UK, and the Russian legations. As a result of the photo analysis performed, Hamchunwon occupies the northern area of the Russian legation's site, and it is estimated that the north, west, and east walls of the legation resembled those of Hamchunwon. The area to the south of the Russian legation was originally a place made available for civilian houses, and it was possible to examine the circumstances of purchasing dozens of civilian houses and farmlands according to various materials. Fourth, Hamchunwon, which was formed as the outer royal garden of Gyeongdeokgung Palace of Lord Gwanghaegun, lost its sense of place as an outer royal garden when the entire building of Gyeonghuigung Palace was torn down and used as a construction members during the reconstruction of Gyeongbokgung Palace, and faded away as the site was sold to Russia around 1885. The area where Hamchunwon used to be located transformed into a core space of the Russian legation where the main building and garden were located after the construction of the new building. Hence, Hamchunwon, which was limited to the northern area of the Russian legation, does not carry the temporal and spatial context with Gyeongungung Palace and Seonwonjeon which were constructed after 1897, and it is determined that the view of Seonwonjeon as Baehoorim or Baegyeongrim is not valid.