This study is about the comparison of painting techniques on white porcelain in Joseon Dynasty (1392-1897) and Ming (1368-1644), Qing (1644-1911) period, focusing on the elevated temperature underglazed porcelain developed in both countries. While Chinese ceramics were an absolute standard for Joseon Dynasty painted ceramics that ere accepted among the same types of techniques, the patterns of colored ceramics that emerged during the Joseon Dynasty were different depending on the social environment and direction of the time.
The Joseon Dynasty is a very important period that created the style of unique white porcelain under the strict control of the state. At the same time, the Ming and Qing Dynasties also achieved rapid development of white porcelain in Chinese ceramics, and was transformed from domestic consumption to a structure that produced huge profits by exporting to Islamic State and Europe. During this period, Chinese ceramics penetrated the Islamic and European civilizations and greatly influenced their aesthetic tastes, and Eastern ceramics culture had a major role in Western society universally known.
The relationship between colored porcelain and painting is more deeply implanted into the white porcelain of the Joseon Dynasty. Painters belonging to the government participated in the painting on ceramics and naturally, the compliance and dermatoglyphic pattern of the structure are shown similar to the actual painting. On the other hand, the pottery of Ming and Qing Dynasties was painted in the unique schematic pattern style and the difference between the two countries can be seen in the colored porcelain.
To compare the two countries' colored porcelain, the study was conducted in the following categories:
First, the pictorial techniques presented in the colored white porcelain were classified. Find out how the pictorial expressions of the time were applied to pottery. High-temperature firing ceramics which has similar effects to the atmosphere of ink paintings drawn on silk or paper. It is analyzed by dividing the expression of structure and into Joseon, Ming and Qing Dynasties. The result of this analysis is about the differences revealed in cultural sharing, and it could be a transformation of painting expressions tried on pottery over hundreds of years.
The development of the style is relatively evident due to the differences between the points and the demand hierarchy oriented by the white porcelain of Joseon and Ming and Qing Dynasties. The technique used to color one object was different, and the production volume was quite different to Joseon, The color of the royal white porcelain is so unique that even a single piece of painting can be described. On the other hand, it seems that maintaining a consistent and repeated quality was more important for Chinese blue and white porcelain, as it was focused on the needs of its order rather than on the individuality of the painter.
Secondly, it was about what was painted with the same technique.
The meanings of the patterns were perceived equally in the same sentiment, but the styles in which the most ceramic works were drawn were somewhat different from those of the two countries. The preferred patterns for each period were also different, such as landscape painting which reflects Confucian ideas, and Animals and flowers and plants, which is a reflection of Taoist and aesthetic and folk culture. There was also a difference between the Ming and Qing Dynasties white porcelain that emphasized the transformation and exaggeration of objects and the Joseon white porcelain that wanted to contain the essence and spirit of things.
Finally, one element of comparative analysis was the composition of the patterns according to the form. Unlike the two-dimensional background of the painting, ceramics were capable of various painting configurations, ranging from flat plate plates to colored bowls inside and outside, and bottles and jars with three-dimensional multi-faceted colors. In addition, because of the different preferences as we saw earlier, there are completely different designs for the same period of time. Variations in the form to expand the color area by two are also tried in various ways in China, but are rather limited in Joseon.
Another analysis was to select 11 representative objects of the two countries and restore their shapes and patterns to a three-dimensional graphical tool, which calculated the ratio of the total surface area per pattern, and the ratio between etailed patterns. This may be meaningful in that the existing analysis method was primarily based on visual or projected drawings of flat drawings. but it was attempted by adopting a more accurate and multi-dimensional numerical analysis.
In this Ming and Qing Dynasties the pattern of development of forms was recognized by systematically investigating, comparing and analyzing the techniques and types of patterns. We hope that this study will serve as a starting point for the modern potters and researchers to explore the zeitgeist reflected in ceramics and the various variations that he may pursue in the future.

• Ⅰ. 서론 1
• 1. 연구의 배경 및 목적 1
• 1) 연구 배경 3
• 2) 연구 목적 6
• 2. 연구 범위 8
• 3. 연구방법 및 절차 9
• 1) 연구 방법 9
• 2) 연구 절차 10
• Ⅱ. 이론적 고찰 12
• 1. 이론적 고찰의 개요 12
• 2. 조선시대와 명청시대의 회화 12
• 1) 조선과 명청 시대 회화의 상호관계 12
• 2) 회화의 준법(法) 17
• 3) 조선과 명청시대 회화의 차이 21
• 3. 채색백자의 역사와 변천 특징 24
• 1) 조선시대 채색 백자 27
• (1) 조선시대 백자의 발생 배경 27
• (2) 조선시대의 사상적 배경 28
• (3) 조선시대 백자의 변천 과정 30
• 2) 명(明)청(淸)시대의 채색 백자 32
• (1) 명(明)청(淸)시대 백자의 발생 배경 32
• (2) 명(明)청(淸)시대 백자 개관 34
• 3) 채색백자의 종류 37
• (1) 청화백자(靑華白磁) 37
• (2) 철화백자(鐵華白磁) 42
• (3) 동화백자(銅華白磁) 45
• (4) 채화백자(彩華白磁) 47
• Ⅲ. 채색백자의 회화적 기법 51
• 1. 조선시대 채색백자의 회화적 기법 52
• 1) 준법(法) 53
• 2) 농담(濃淡) 59
• 3) 구도(構圖) 63
• 2. 명청대 채색백자의 회화적 기법 66
• 1) 준법(法) 66
• 2) 농담(濃淡) 69
• 3) 구도(構圖) 72
• Ⅳ. 채색백자에 나타난 장식문양 비교 75
• 1. 식물무늬 76
• 1) 매화무늬(梅花紋) 76
• 2) 대나무무늬(竹紋) 78
• 3) 소나무무늬(松紋) 81
• 4) 화초무늬(花草紋) 84
• 2. 동물무늬 86
• 1) 용무늬(龍紋) 87
• 2) 사슴무늬(鹿紋) 90
• 3) 학무늬(鶴紋) 92
• 4) 호랑이까치무늬(虎鵲紋) 94
• 3. 산수인물 무늬(山水人物紋) 97
• Ⅴ. 채색백자의 형태에 따른 문양 구성 비교 102
• 1. 접시(盤) 102
• 2. 대접(碗) 108
• 3. 병(瓶) 112
• 4. 항아리(壺) 118
• 1) 대표기종 3D 문양분석 134
• Ⅵ. 결론 148
• 1. 연구의 결론 148
• 2. 연구의 제안 151
• 참고문헌 153
• Abstract 160

1 마이클, 한정희, 설리번, "≪중국미술사≫", 예경, 1999

2 이용욱, "≪중국 도자사≫", 미진사, 1993

3 장기훈, 최건, "≪조선도자수선≫", (재)세계도자기엑스포, 2002

4 방병선, "≪중국도자사연구≫", 경인문화사, 2012

5 강경숙, "≪한국도자사연구≫", 시공사, 2000

6 김영원, "≪조선전기 도자사≫", 일조각, 2011

7 방병선, "≪조선후기 백자 연구≫", 일지사, 2001

8 배진달, 한정희, "≪동양미술사 상(중국)≫", 미진사, 2007

9 강경숙, 김세진, "유적출토 도자기 바로보기", 진인진, 2015

10 변내리, "「山水畵?法에 관한 硏究」", 홍익대학교 석사학위논문, 2004

11 강경숙, "≪한국 도자기 가마터 연구≫", 시공사, 2006

12 김혜정, "「조선 초기 청화백자 연구」", 명지대학교 석사학위논문, 2011

13 박현숙, "「체험으로서의 중국산수화」", 한국동양예술학회, Vol.43 No.7, 2019

14 김재열, "≪Korean Art Book 백자 분청사기≫", 예경, 2000

15 윤용이, "≪우리 옛도자기의 아름다움≫", 돌베개, 2007

16 윤효정, "「조선15.16세기 청화백자연구」", 이화여자대학교 석사학위논 문, 2002

17 갈로, "(강관식 역), 『중국회화이론사』", 돌베개, 2010

18 민길홍, 이혜경, 이원복, 이수미, "≪겸재정선 붓으로 펼친 지조화≫", 국립중앙박물관, 2009

19 장준석, "「중국 산수화 발생에 대한 연구」", 한국조형교육학회, Vol.0 No.23, 2004

20 이보름, "「조선후기 채색(彩色) 백자 연구」", 이화여자대학교 석사학위 논문, 2017

21 강경남, 유혜선, 권소현, "≪백자항아리-조선의 仁과 禮를 담다≫", 국 중앙박물관, 2010

22 방병선, "≪순백으로 빚어낸 조선의 마음 백자≫", 돌베게, 2002

23 김원용, 안휘준, "≪한국미술의 역사 시대부터조선시대까지≫", 시공사, 2003

24 장팅, "「중국 명 청과 한국 조선의 청화백자 연구」", 단국대학교 박사 학위논문, 2017

25 노자키 세이킨, "변영섭,안영길 역, , ≪중국미술상상징사전≫", 고려대학 교출판부, 2011

26 조진희, "「조선 시대 백자의 변천 과정과 美感에 관한 연구」", 경희대학교 석사학위논문, 2002

27 김향희, "「沈師正의 산수화를 통해 본 중국 南宗畵의 수용과정」", 大 學院硏究論集-東國大學校 大學院, Vol.28 No.5, 1998

28 김영원, "≪조선 전기 도자사-분원의 설치를 전후한 조선 전기 도자 역사≫", 일조각, 2011

29 박현주, "「조선후기 철화백자와 회화에 나타난 화조문양의 조형성 연구」", 한국도자학연구, Vol.16 No.2, 2019

30 조연진, "「조선시대 회화에 나타난 여백의 미를 응용한 가방디자인연 구」", 홍익대학교 석사학위논문, 2007