초록 열기/닫기 버튼
This paper seeks to show implications in ontology on literature emerged from the debate on subversive-poetry. This debate between Lee Eo-Ryong and Kim Su-Young had debated about from why had happened crises of literature to how had been defined subversive-poetry. In the process, this debate had showed what will literature can do. This debate, therefore, explains an existent end in literature. In this debate, Lee Eo-Ryong had defined subversive-poetry as a kind of participation literature in a range permitted in literary institution. Lee Eo-Ryong had been a narrowed notion of literature in a institutional art, a autonomic art that historically had been formed in modern period. That is to say, Lee Eo-Ryong had restricted literature within a category of autonomic art. In contrast to Lee Eo-Ryong, Kim Su-Young had defined subversive-poetry as subversive behavior against a order. Through a discussion about subversive-poetry, Kim Su-Young had argued that literature had been renewed within self-affirmation. According to Kim Su-Young, a discord between a subversive-poetry and a established order had been the results in renewal based on literature’s this self-affirmation and thus had been not a negation but a critique. Through this notion of subversive-poetry, Kim Su-Young had opened category of literature and thus had been capable of arts that had intervened in life through new or diverse modes. This openness which had been charactered by Kim Su-Young is achievements in the debate on subversive-poetry.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
Lee Eo-Ryong, Kim Su-Young, ontology on literature, creativity, autonomic art, subversiveness, self-affirmation, established order, discord, critique, openness
