Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14700/KITLA.2017.35.1.036

A Semantic Comparative Study of Formative Idea and Landscape Elements Composition of Damyang 'Soswaewon(潭陽瀟灑園)' & Suzhou 'Canglang Pavilion(蘇州滄浪亭)'  

Wei-Tiantiani, Wei-Tiantian (Graduate School of Landscape Architecture, Chonbuk National University)
Kim, Jai-Sik (Dept. of Landscape Architecture& Institute of Recreation and Landscape Planning, Chonbuk National University)
Kim, Jeong-Moon (Dept. of Landscape Architecture& Institute of Recreation and Landscape Planning, Chonbuk National University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture / v.35, no.1, 2017 , pp. 36-47 More about this Journal
Abstract
In this research, sematic comparative study on formative idea and landscape elements composition was made between Soswaewon which was a remote villa garden in Joseon Dynasty and Canglang Pavilion which was built at a time when Neo-confucianism had been created in Song dynasty. From which the summary was resulted as below: Firstly, Soswaewon was fully devoted to Neo-confucianism among Korean remote villa gardens, Canglang-Pavilion was deeply affiliated with Neo-confucianism the deep-rooted thought. Adding a comment, as a richly historied Chinese private garden it was the best preserved even now and the farmost point from now and approximately 500 years advanced than Soswaewon, moreover Sosunheum the builder belonged to gentry society in Song dynasty. Secondly, Both Soswaewon and Canglang-Pavilion were remarkable thank to nature friendly concept which was deeply rooted in the eremitic thought(隱逸思想). Most of all, it might be interpreted the location of Soswaewon lay down in a mountain, as to be swallow hidden(小隱) but that of Canglang-Pavilion lay down in a city, as to be middle hidden(中隱). Thirdly, approaching with comparative study to gardens' factors implicated in symbolization when naming both Soswaewon and Canglang-Pavilion, neo-confucianism in Song dynasty in which diverse thoughts ranging Confucianism and Buddhism and Taoism had formed ensemble and developed was deeply built in Soswaewon, as to be in consistency to nature and to be a basis for comprehending diverse symbolization factors found in Canglang-Pavilion. Fourthly, given that forms or factors of gardens was tangibly came up with thoughts' variation we surely underwent to comparative study. Through which we could know Soswaewon was made by maximizing use of nature but minimizing addition of artificial things. In other words, it was trial of expressing semantic feature of the site in a way blending natural circumstance and liberal one. One of the representatives, Daebongdae in Soswaewon was a site where the owner's idea came up with. Scenary was recreated and nature was represented in interspace of Canglang-Pavilion with the high wall around the border, for which it renounced the world. To the end, it was understood there was the location characteristic of Canglang-Pavilion which let us look down from mountain and take some time for introspection. It might be said that the cultural root was in common between Korea and China, however it was found there were lots of differences in forms and features of gardens. We were able to interpret that social and cultural background were led to gardens' formation in which individual characteristic of two nations were blended, from which difference was resulted.
Keywords
Formative Idea; Neo-confucianism; Garden Landscape Elements; Yaeryeonseol;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Lus Benedict Writing, KIM Y. S. O I. S. translation(2008). the Chrysanthemum and the Sword, Seoul; Eulyoo Publishing.
2 Cao Lindi, Xu Jinsheng(2014). Compare Chinese and Japanese classical gardens culture, China building industry Publishing. P137.
3 Cao Lindi, Xu Jinsheng(2014). P10.
4 Korea Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture(2009), the latest oriental landscape culture history, Book Publication Daega.
5 Cultural Heritage Administration(1983). Preservation and Design of Soswaewon Preservation Project in Damyang.
6 Guo Xuexin(2007). Discuss about the social role of Song Dynasty literary intelligentsia. Liaocheng University institute of history and culture. 52(8).
7 Cao Lindi, Xu Jinsheng(2014). P39.
8 Ji Cheng Writing, Hu Tianshou translation(2009). Yuan Ye, ChongQing Publishing.
9 Cultural Heritage Administration(1983).
10 Ma Songlin(2011). Virtual and real, with or without - the study about the creating way of Canglang-Pavilion, Humanities College, Masters thesis Graduate School of Zhejiang University.
11 Kwon Y. K.(2006). Spatial Contrast of Korea, China and Japan : Find our spatial genes, Seoul; Kukje Publishing.
12 Joo N. C.(2009). Korean garden, Seoul; Korea University Publishing
13 Cao Lindi, Xu Jinsheng(2014). P100.
14 Cao Lindi, Xu Jinsheng(2014). P100.
15 Choi B. D.(2008). Chinese garden visited by architect: Gangnam Forest Construction 26, Seoul; Misulmunhwa Visual Arts Publication.
16 Park K. J.(2010). Chinese garden : Focused on landscape architecture from the 14th century to the 19th century, Seoul; Hakyoun Publishing.
17 Lee, Hang Lyoul.Kim, Sun Rye(2012). Water Landscape Displaying Techinques of Traditional Gardens between China and Korea -With Soswaewon and ZhuozhengYuan-, Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture 30(4): pp.1-13.
18 Kang K. J.(2010). Cultural Formation of the Song Dynasty and Development of Humanities, History and Culture Studies 35: pp.127-162.
19 Cao Lindi, Xu Jinsheng(2014). P40.
20 Kang. sang uk(2005). A study on the landscape architecture design techniques by modern succession of traditional culture, Dept. of Landscape Architecture Design The Graduate School of Architecture & Urban Design Hongik University.
21 Liu Bing(2011). Korea and China's Modern Landscaping in Traditional Culture Application Methods : Focused on Seoul and Beijing Olympic Park, Department of Horticulture & Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Paichai University, Daejeon, Korea.
22 Choi Dong-ho(2011). Sosoewon' in Korea and the Aesthetic of Nature, Journal of Korean culture. 18: 5-30.
23 Jang M. C.(2010), Comparsion of Sosewon and Zhuozheng-garden : focused on the relationship between artificial and natural, Master's Thesis Graduate School of Yonsei University.
24 Cao Lindi(2010).w Suzhou's cluture landmark - the theme of Canglang-pavilion, Journal of Suzhou College Education, 27(2).
25 Deng Guangming(1986). Talk about some questions about extensive study on sung history, Social Science Front, pp.145-152.
26 Zou Xiangping(2014). Deviation and continue: Canglang-pavilion image reconstruction in the change of history, Suzhou health vocational and technical college, Vol. 20.
27 Duan Jianqiang(2008). Image reconstruction: Landscape rebuilding culture in the history of thought, The academic seminar of the historical organization of China architectural society
28 Cui Zhenying(2014). Theory of Su Shunqin later poetry, Northeast Forestry University.
29 Liu Xijuan(2012). The thought of traditional garden nature poetry blend of artistic realm, Humanities college, Master's Thesis Graduate School of Zhejiang University
30 Yue Yuanyang(2006). Theory of Su Shunqin political complex and poetry, Master's Thesis Graduate School of Zhengzhou University
31 Park H. O.(2012). Comparative analysis of Korea's 'Soswaewon'and China's 'Jichang Garden' : focused on forming techniques andpleasure of waterscape, Master's Thesis Graduate School ofEnvironmental Studies Seoul University.