SPACE August 2023 (No. 669)
In SPACE No. 662 (Jan. 2023), Hyon-Sob Kim (professor, Korea University) raised a question mark over whether the architect of Bohwagak might not in fact be Park Kilyong. In response, Inha Jung (professor, Hanyang University) presented arguments in SPACE No. 667 (June 2023) that show Park designed the building. He revealed the similarities in the plan, equipment, structure, and details between Bohwagak and other projects by Park. In this report, Kim again refutes Jung’s thesis, pointing out the facts in his argument that cause him to reserve judgment, and concludes that it is still difficult to confirm that the architect of Bohwagak is Park Kilyong, but concedes it has become more likely.
Bohwagak at the time of ‘Bohwasubo’ exhibition, Kansong Art Museum, April to June 2022 / ©archistory KU, Research Unit of Architectural History, Korea University
In response to my article ‘What If Park Kilyong Was Not the Architect of Bohwagak? ‒ SPACE as the Evidence or Mystery’ (covered in SPACE No. 662), Inha Jung recently published ‘In Search of Park Kilyong’s Architecture’ (covered in SPACE No. 667). After my article was published, many people have shown an interest in its assertions, but Jung’s formal response in his composed article is pleasing to me to say the least.▼1 His interest in the history of modern Korean architecture, beginning with his research on Kim Swoo Geun and Kim Chung-up, is evident. However, I’m not sure whether his response is really a ‘counterargument’ to my article, as the subtitle of his article, ‘An Argument Against the Question, ‘What If Park Kilyong Was Not the Architect of Bohwagak?ʼʼ appears to suggest. In my earlier article, I pointed out the lack of existing ‘primary data’ or clear ‘physical evidence’ that Park Kilyong (1898 – 1943) designed Bohwagak (1938) and suggested that we should keep an open mind and consider why it has long been an unquestioned assumption. Therefore, his claim that Park was the architect in his article based on the circumstances at the time and an ex-post interpretation, could be seen as a serious academic response to my question rather than a rebuttal. To my regret, the article becomes somewhat distracted from its original focus by arguing that Park was not only the architect of Bohwagak but also of Pak No-soo House (1939).
Nevertheless, Jung’s logic that Park must be the architect of Bohwagak is quite convincing. His first premise is that Park was the only architect in Korea under Japanese rule who could work on a private Korean project and realise a ‘modern style building’ like Bohwagak. Based on this premise, he suggests that there are similarities between Bohwagak and Min Byeongsu House (1936), which Park completed two years before Bohwagak. He intends to use these similarities to demonstrate that the same architect designed both Min Byeongsu House and Bohwagak. Key sources supporting his claims were photographs and floor plans of the house, published in the 1937 edition of Yearbook of Construction and the 1939 edition Architectural Drawing Collection of Houses of Shimizu Corporation in Japan, the builder of Min Byeongsu House.▼2 The modern exterior of the house shown here, noting most especially the semi-circular protruding mass, is the most visually striking element in establishing similarity between the two houses. Both buildings have the semicircular massing on one side to create an asymmetrical balance, and they also have staircase set behind this mass, which Jung didn’t mention. Jung has excerpted four methodologies of architectural form, such as ‘the inevitable expression of function’, from Park’s article ‘The Modern and Architecture (4)’ (Aug. 1, 1936), and regards them as his architectural standards (these four methodologies followed Park’s ‘functionalist considerations’, and I mentioned his ‘functionalism’ with this in mind in my own article in SPACE No. 662), and goes so far as to stipulate that ‘Bohwagak and Min Byeongsu House are two buildings that exemplify Park’s criteria’.▼3 He concluded that Park departed from ‘historicist motifs’ of the past and faithfully followed his ‘architectural goals’.
In fact, this level of similarity alone may be enough to conclude that the architect of two buildings was the same figure, Park, and he designed both Min Byeongsu House and Bohwagak. However, Jung adds a few more things of note they hold in common, such as the load-bearing wall structure made of 2B thick bricks and the following ‘double windows’. However, the arguments for this are too rough both in text and diagrams, even to professional readers. This is especially so in ‘his unique design style’ double windows. This is because it is difficult to determine whether the window opens indoors or outdoors. Jung’s measured drawings of Bohwagak are very schematic, but the floor plan of Min Byeongsu House, taken from the Architectural Drawing Collection of Houses, shows all the windows opening outward. I wonder whether it needs to be explained and I think an important argument is missing. (The same goes for the lattice pattern of the windows, though this is perhaps relatively trivial. Even the Yearbook of Construction of Shimizu Corporation outlines the similar styling of lattice windows across many buildings).▼4 What if, instead of devoting the second half of the text to the Pak No-soo House (and arguing that its designer was also Park), he had attended more closely to the relationship between Bohwagak and Min Byeongsu House?▼5
By the way, the architectural outline and building pictures published with the floor plan of Min Byeongsu House, against my expectation, also show some features counter to the typical image of western modernist architecture, as alluded to earlier. The thing is that this house has pitched roofed covered with natural slate tiles. I don’t know if Jung noticed or just didn’t feel the need to mention it, but the architectural outline suggests that ‘the roof is covered with natural slate (屋根 天然スレート葺)’.▼6 Most of the roof is hidden in the photo of the building taken from the bottom up, but one end of the elevation there is the pitched roof. There is also the hint of a roof above the eaves on the second floor. The second floor plan shows there is no staircase to the upper floor, which is an important point of difference from the flatroofed Bohwagak. This leads us to rethink Jung’s assessment of both buildings. Of course, Frank Lloyd Wright, a favorite of Park’s, is also known for his pitched-roofed houses, but Wright was often labeled as oldfashioned by younger modernist architects. This is not to say that the overall composition of the of Min Byeongsu House is not modern, and the semicircular protruding massing still suggests that the same architect designed both this house and Bohwagak. However, we should recognise that there are just as many significant differences between the two buildings as there are similarities.
If Yimoondang (1943), which is considered Park’s last work, had been slightly more progressive in its design, I might not have raised the question from the beginning. Even if the building falls far short of his ideal expressed in ‘Architectural Forms of 100% Function’ (1936), the gradual shift towards that ideal was the most anticipated aspect of his architecture since the late 1930s. But architecture doesn’t always happen the way we want. Whether it is client’s requirements or social context, there are many practical requirements that restrict an architect’s optimal outcome.
In conclusion, I think it is difficult to conclude that Jung’s article proved Bohwagak was designed by Park, but I do not deny that it has increased the possibility that it is true. As I wrote in the first article, ‘Nevertheless, I still hope that Park Kilyong was the architect of Bohwagak’ so that ‘this starting point of modern architectural history in Korea, which has been a vexed scholarly proposition and constructed with some difficulty, becomes unshakable.’ That’s why I’m still waiting for more direct evidence. Kansongʼs circle seems to be reviewing the relevant materials again, so let’s wait and see. It would be nice to know if Park was involved in the cultivation of Plaisant Yanggwan. The photo of Plaisant Yanggwan, which was published alongside Bohwagak under the name ‘Bukdanjang’ in a feature on Park Kilyong in SPACE No. 6 (Apr. 1967), as one of the factors that led me to question the architect of Bohwagak. On the other hand, I hope that Park’s materials may still exist somewhere, and if so, they can be shared with researchers. I wrote about this in the first article, but this material kept by his eldest son, novelist Park Yonggu (1923 – 1999), was referenced in a special feature on Park Kilyong in SPACE No. 6 and in Choie Soonai’s master’s thesis, A Study of the Life and Architecture of Park Kill Rong (1981) at Hongik University. In historical writing, it is often difficult to objectively verify all the facts, but we should do what we can, and Bohwagak is a treasure worth our critical exertions. Finally, I would like to thank Jung for responding to my article with new data and arguments. Thanks to him, we were able to get to know Min Byeongsu House and expand our understanding of Park Kilyong’s architecture from a different angle.
Photos of Bohwagak (top) and Plaisant Yanggwan (bottom left) in the special feature ‘Architect Park Kilyong: Commemorating the 24th Anniversary of His Death’, SPACE No. 6 (Apr. 1967)
SPACE No. 6, p. 6.
1 An official response from outside the architectural world can be found an article on a daily newspaper after Inha Jung’s article was published. Noh Hyungseok, ‘Who built the Kansong Art Museum... A mystery facing the Korean architectural world’, Hankyoreh, [accessed 8 June 2023].
2 Both books included the same exterior photo of the house and described Park Kilyong as the architect. However, as Inha Jung mentioned, Yearbook of Construction identifies the house as ‘Min Byeongsu House’ and Architectural Drawing Collection of Houses as ‘Mr. B’s House’. The latter does not disclose the owner’s name but delivers more information than the former as it includes the first and second floor plans and architectural outlines. Umino Hilotaka (ed.), Yearbook of Construction, Tokyo: Shimizu Corporation, 1937, p. 167; Umino Hilotaka (ed.), Architectural Drawing Collection of Houses, Tokyo: Shimizu Corporation, 1939, p. 119.
3 I have briefly discussed the functionalist perspective expressed by Park Kilyong in his articles in the Dong-A Ilbo, ‘Architectural Forms with 100% Function’ (28 July 1936) and ʻThe Modern and Architecture (1)~(4)’ (29 July – 1 Aug. 1936). Hyon-Sob Kim and Kim Jeyeon, ‘The Modern Movement in Architecture in the West Perceived by Park Dongjin and Hong Yunsick in the 1930s’, Journal of Architectural History, No. 146 (Feb. 2023), pp. 21 – 34. However, I doubt whether Park Kilyong’s ‘form ... methodology’ or ‘expression method’ based on the functionalist perspective can be said to have been well applied to the two buildings as Inha Jung suggests. More precisely, I believe it is questionable whether Park Kilyong’s functionalist morphology is not contradictory. The issue will be discussed later.
4 The Tokyo Railway Museum (Yearbook of Construction, 1937, p. 7) is one example with an interesting semi-circular protruding mass.
5 Based on the similarities between Mr. Yun House in Sindangdong (1939) and Pak No-soo House, Inha Jung argues that the latter is also designed by Park Kilyong. The similar radiators in the two buildings is briefly mentioned in the description of Pak No-soo House as a possible connection to Bohwagak, but it is incidental given the overall context.
6 Architectural Drawing Collection of Houses, 1939, p. 119. Park Kilyong’s functionalist morphology as described above does not seem to be shaped by the unconditional rejection of natural materials. However, it is worth noting Min Byeongsu House has both smooth modernist walls and a pitched roof covered with natural slate.
You can see more information on the SPACE No. 669 (August 2023).
