The book writes a veiled historical mystery surrounding Danwon and Hyewon, and the Japanese secretive painter, Toshusai Sharaku.

The book offers an interesting view, which suggests that Sharaku (1794-1795), one of the greatest masters of woodblock painting in Japan, was Shin.

Sharaku is also known as a painter with an elusive identity who went missing suddenly after 10 months in Japan, leaving behind memorable paintings. The author spins a work of historical fiction, juxtaposing Shin as an undercover agent Sharaku sent by Joseon.

The book is set in 1792 when Sharaku, abruptly appears in the city of Edo and swept people with his distinguished work.

“Some research show that Kim Hong-do was sent by King Jeongjo to Japan as an undercover agent. But after studying the paintings of Hyewon, I found the styles of the paintings of Sharaku and Hyewon are very similar rather than those of Kim. So I assumed Hyewon could be Sharaku,” the author told The Korea Times.

She also said that the two painters lived at the same time, and Shin’s age is closer to Sharaku while Kim was 10 years older.

“There is no record of Shin almost anywhere in history except for one or two cases. Even Kim Hong-do is mentioned less than 10 times, showing how rigid Joseon aristocratic society was,” she said.

Not only the cultural productions but also the Gansong Art Museum is holding an exhibition to show “seohwa,” or mixture of calligraphy and paintings, which shows traditional Oriental art combining diverse, affluent artistry with a time-honored history.

The museum presents 104 masterpieces including Shin’s work “Portrait of a Beauty.”

In the museum, Shin’s four masterpieces ― “Scenery on Dano Day,” “The Lovers Under the Moon,” “Who Will Be the Hero at the Brothel?” and “A Boat Party on the Clean River.”

To enjoy the works, visitors can compare the scenes of the drama in which Moon portrays the “Scenery on Dano Day” and “Who Will Be the Hero at the Brothel?”

Genre Painting ― Sensual, Colorful

Known above all for his genre-paintings, Shin drew primarily the daily life of the Korean upper class, called “yangban.”

Through their rich details, his paintings contribute to the knowledge of the customs and activities of the well to do in the late Joseon Kingdom.

His paintings usually show young scholars and noblemen enjoying themselves with gisaeng, or professional female entertainers, or simply depict the girls in various situations.

Given that the society was heavily ruled by Confucian moral norms, his paintings were often daring and sensual. But they kept temperance when he portrayed women’s beauty without being too explicit

This is not only because he depicted amorous couples, but also because the gisaeng were the primary figures in his work.

With his daring use of women and their lovers as subject matter, Shin vividly depicted the passion and romantic tastes of his era. Shin also excelled at landscapes in the literati style with depictions of birds and animals, and calligraphy.

“His unprecedented colorful strokes and affection for women as the main subjects were unparalleled in the Joseon genre paintings. He was a libertine who rebelled against the Joseon rule by portraying forbidden subjects,” said Kim, the author of “Color, Sharaku.”

She said that he was also good at copying Danwon’s paintings. But he also expressed his pent-up complex of being middle class through his satirical paintings.

“His paintings and artistic world seem to meet the demands of modern people who are good at expressing themselves. So that’s why more and more novels, dramas and films are revisiting Shin these times,” she said.

Credit : chungay@koreatimes.co.kr

http://www.bloggang.com/mainblog.php?id=kajonjo&month=27-11-2009&group=8&gblog=14

Also how many actors actually sued based on their written contracts denied to them?

Also, Kdramas are major money making for Korea’s Economy, so can someone figure these out???

i don’t know, i kind of couldn’t get SBS’s point……
if they keep on banning PSY, other TV stations or movie company will want to recruit him when they could.
and if i were PSY, i would play even harder to demonstrate my ability for a better chance of big success, and that is definitely not going to work for the place once tried to ban me….
so…..what’s the purpose for?
they want to save money, in order to lose other chances that can earn money?
i know PSY’s pay is not inexpensive; however, his dramas lasted, right?
if they count on the following money PSY might make, they will know his values.

To Berny: Thanks for your insights; they are logical!

If you want to help escalate your unanswered voices on this ban matter, please visit:
http://cb4py.wordpress.com/about/
This is a brand new site trying to take the counter ban voices one level higher so it’s felt by the broadcasting stations.

Be prepared to work like crazy if you choose to help out but it’s worth it if you believe you can help.

This site is accepting suggestions / comments for 3 days, until midnight Jan 11, 2009 (EST). Then it will finalize on all action items and set a schedule to achieve the “impossible” on Feb 5. 2009.

Dear javabeans, may I boldly (“뻔뻔”) ask you to please put up a small post in your hot site; your referral will be dearly treasured and remembered; you have a very wide fan base and they listen to you! Only if you feel like. Thanks!

Hi Jean, thanks for the insights and comments too. I’m really glad you believe in PSY too.

My knowledge of the entire situation is also quite limited, and I had just a personal understanding about it on the articles I have read online. But I hope his supporters can be vigilant because in some parts of the world, an actor like PSY is never and should never be treated like this. They should give him the respect he deserves.

I support him because:
1. He’s a brilliant actor 2. He’s a professional and he gives his best performance in every project. 3. He has surpassed a lot of challenges in his life.

I’ve never really read about the exact stand of SBS or their exact official statement, but obviously that station is the source of this all and then it was backed up by the KTDPCA.

This could be how it happened ? (please correct me if I’ve made a mistake somewhere):

1. For the past few years, there was no FIXED BASIS/ SYSTEM FOR COMPUTATION on actor’s fee, and was confounded by the influx of outsourced productions and corporate sponsorships. “Free Contract Deals” became the “IN” thing.

2. So I think it was in this “scenario” that the CONTRACT of PSY and SBS has been signed. (based on what I’ve read there is a contract signed ! ).

3. Then the global crisis became serious.

4. SBS then might have tried to re-negotiate with PSY, and perhaps proposed a settlement out of the contract (relying on other instances where other top actors volunteered to have their fee cut).

5. PSY might have (this is purely my personal hunch, it might not be accurate) declined because perhaps SBS cannot present him a valid system for the fee reduction…like the percentage basis etc…since according to the KBI they have not come up with a fixed system yet. And led to the filing of that lawsuit.

So SBS, KYDPCA retaliated and the rest as they say is history.

If there is indeed a legal contract signed, PSY has the right to take legal action and counter-sue. I just hope both parties settle this out of court. But they have to lift the BAN first!

To Berny: thank you for your insight!

Please help correct my elaboration on your comments if I misread you:

In banning PSY (but not Bae Yong Jun):

1) is the KTDPCA trying to get all the broadcasting stations to revert back to the “pay grade” system for all actors (actresses alike) so the outsourcing production companies have a pay scale to follow how much to pay to the actors – is that what they’re going to do; and

2) if there’s additional income from sponsors / overseas then that money will be the sole benefit of the the production company (assuming it can close such sponsorship deal without the broadcasting station) and a list of predefined (don’t ask me who or how this list is set) top-star(s) involved will get additional rewards?

And one thing I am still unsure: the ultimate reason why this production company didn’t pay up in the first place: was it because SBS (which aired the Money’s Warfare and the bonus round) couldn’t cough up with the money in the first place or was it because production company over-estimated the sponsorships it would get for the bonus round – that we’re talking about around July 2007 when the economy was blooming bright? I really want to know if SBS is behind this or not… perhaps this is a super naive question?…

And most importantly to me on this matter really, who can override this ban, how else can we help, do you know? Anyone?

For those interested in reading the article Berny kindly mentioned and nicely summarized:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/art/2008/12/201_35806.html

Re: this article, I think I saw news on Kwon Sang-woo voluntarily reduced his pay before PSY got the ban, but I also think that that was for his new work. In Park’s case, his agency started this lawsuit way before the economy flopped (I think in July 2008 but don’t quote me). There’s no indication on whether Song Seung-heon did his “cut” / changed his compensation method for the East of Eden before or after PSY got the ban. I realize the reporter didn’t quote PSY’s ban in the article, but this article (Dec 9, 08) came out right after the ban was announced so the association or even worse, implied comparison was obvious (anyone who thinks it’s not that obvious?). Having these actors and their nice gestures referenced, it made PSY look like he desersed the ban because he didn’t drop the lawsuit, and this makes me more angry.

Globally, indeed, there is a financial crisis. BUT still, what the Korea Television Drama Production Company Association (KTDPCA) did to PSY was too extreme and clearly there was much injustice here. I want to believe that in South Korea people uphold a “democratic” way of life….much opposite to that of the North. So why is it that the KTDPCA didn’t not even give much consideration for a proper “negotiations” first before acting harshly. Because in any broadcasting industry there are bylaws promulgated to protect equally the production companies and the actors. Laws and regulations are done after a consensus, KTDPCA can’t just decide on a new ruling just because they feel like it.

The crisis is also not PSY’s fault. You know why? Because it was recently posted in The Korea Times, that even Ha Yun geum (of the Korean Broadcasting Institute) admitted that the TV industry needs a “stable” and “effective” system in managing the money paid to actors. They even had to hold the seminar “The Crisis of TV Dramas and Normalization of Performance Fees,” to come up with possible solutions. So clearly, when the crisis hit them nobody was prepared ! No clear rules were set up yet. So where did that KTDPCA based their decision to ban PSY. Crazy right?

The instability of the payment system according to this article was caused by the following conflicting factors:

1. The “cash support” given to Major Networks VS. that given to Outsourcing Productions.

2. The actors’ fee computation based on the Grading System VS. Free Contract Deals

3. Unregulated sponsorships offered by businesses to the TV dramas.

So everyone has been the victim of the non-system they themselves have created. It’s like a “free for all” “anything goes” kind of system. So I think, that it was on this chaotic situation that PSY wanted to defend what is rightfully his.

Okey there are actors, like Kwon Sang-woo, who “voluntary” offered to have his fees lowered. That was really very good of them…but without a fixed system, how far do you think can this “voluntary thing” sustain for them? Financial crisis are volatile, it’s up, then it’s down, the up again. You can only volunteer for so long…in the long run if there will be no clear system to protect them …actors are going to jeopardize their own careers.