초록 열기/닫기 버튼
If a study of material culture was to overcome the current dullness of the field, we would have to study the relationship between material culture and intangible culture by means of the logic of “Culture and Civilization,” though organically. Material culture is the main text of interest, while intangible culture is a situational text. Moreover, material texts are created through a technique of intangible culture wisdom, which pursues intangible culture. The relationship of tangible culture and intangible culture is discovered in the relationship of the house to the home. Without recognizing this relationship we wouldn’t notice intangible culture such as “the home.” Rather, we would interpret the house to be merely architecture. We would be limited with regard to a holistic study of housing culture. Therefore if we were to interpret intangible culture like that of Sungjupuri, we could pioneer new paradigm of research in field of housing culture. When we complicate culture, if we don’t take notice of material texts as tangible culture, then we could be faced with a limited perspective on intangible culture interpretation. Examples are studies of Hahoe masks and funeral biers. We could be restored to the original state by means of Hahoe masks, and study the performance of Hahoe mask drama with consideration for the esthetic logic of the Hahoe mask. Also, if we studied funeral biers, we would have to consider Yeongyeo (a small bier that carries the soul of a dead person), so we could interpret funeral culture in order to find their viewpoint of death. Material text as tangible culture has a more decisive function than intangible material as historical material evidence when interpreting culture. But if we are buried under the importance of material evidence, it could obstruct a holistic interpretation. For example, the academic world of eating culture interprets the history of eating culture in a sequential order; rice gruel, rice cake, and boiled rice, according to excavated remains (grinding stones, earthenware steamers, and pots). This has been interpreted inordinately, because theorists have not considered general eating culture, for example they assume that an earthenware steamer must have functioned as a pot, and a rice gruel can boiler also must be a kind of pot. If we interpret excavation materials while considering the field situation of eating culture, we could correct these mistakes easily. Neither tangible material nor intangible material has an independent meaning or manifestation of its function inherent to itself. These meanings exist in an inter-relationship that takes on new meaning when viewed as an organic system. Its function is also understood by means of cultural context. Accordingly, the study of tangible material text has to be viewed as existing within the system and context of intangible culture as situational elements, while the study of intangible material texts needs to be accepted as a viable viewpoint that must be interpreted along with tangible artifacts as concrete evidence. Therefore cultural study must recognize tangible material text as well as intangibly procured text as the one holistic study of “Culture and Civilization.” At the same time, we have to look forward to contextual field studies that cross-interpret tangible with intangible material.
