신시론의 실존주의와 김수영

Abstract

The poets of “New Poetry” published the first volume of “New Poetry” in April 1948, and in October of the same year they participated in the special edition of Sartre's existentialism in “Shincheonji”. However, there is no trace of Kim Sooyoung's official activities as a member of the same poetry association until “New City and Citizens' Chorus” was published in 1949. In the early days of the New Poetry Theory, Kim Sooyoung seems to have concentrated on studying poetry theory rather than on external activities. Because he had no basis in poetry theory, he had no personal relationship with the modernist poets, and his pride was hurt. However, Kim Sooyoung did not show such an expression until the mid and late 1960s. However, about 10 years after Park Inhwan's death, he criticized Park Inhwan's criticism and at the same time expressed his critical attitude toward the past modernist activities to the outside world. This seems to be connected with the period when Kim Sooyoung first realized the “dimension of criticism”.
 Kim Sooyoung was deeply concerned with the concept of conscience, one of the central themes of Heidegger's existentialism. Park Inhwan and the New Poetry poets, on the other hand, focused on Sartre's existentialism. In particular, Heidegger's existentialism had a great influence on Kim Sooyoung's poetic worldview and became the basis for his original poetic theory called “Whole Body Poetics. Ten years after Park In-hwan's death, Kim Soo-young acquired the “level of criticism,” and on this basis he criticized the “difficult poetry” of Park In-hwan and New Poetry. Park Inhwan and the New Poetry Theory insisted on the social responsibility of literature, but Kim Sooyoung criticized this position of the New Poetry Theory. However, since Park Inhwan died in 1956, the question remains whether it is justified for Kim Sooyoung to blame Park Inhwan for the literary trend of the 1960s ten years later. Therefore, this paper will reveal new facts about Park Inhwan's cultural and artistic activities after his death. In addition, this paper points out that it is not possible to evaluate Park Inhwan properly due to the lack of data.