원근 투시법으로써 삼원법 해석에 관한 재고찰

Traditional art introduced in art textbooks often refers to the ‘Three Distances’ as a unique spatial expression method for landscape painting. The Three Distances is explained in comparison to the perspective of the West, and it is called an ideological perspective of the East compared to the scientific and realistic perspective of the West. In fact, such comparison may lead to misinterpretation of its original meaning or an error if it is not based on an accurate understanding or a review of the subject being compared. The fact that the contents should be summarized and explained in consideration of students’ level of understanding or should be outlined according to artwork-centered editing due to the nature of the art textbooks can also result in incorrect description of the contents. In this regard, the ‘Three Distances’ is the most seriously misinterpreted and misrepresented among the contents related to traditional art in such art textbooks. It is necessary to reconsider whether the ‘Three Distances’ should be regarded as perspective within the common sense in arts textbooks or not. This study examined the problems resulting from the ‘Three Distances’ being incorrectly approached as perspective of the East in art textbooks, which led to various errors in interpretation. In addition, the meaning and value of art theory on the ‘Three Distances’ were newly examined based on literature analysis and empirical knowledge of landscape painting. In conclusion, the ‘Three Distances’ is not a perspective, but is what GuoXi explained the most ideal description of landscape painting through three empirical points of view.