이 논문은 1940년 ≪동아일보≫에서 기획한 신년좌담회 「初有의 藝術綜合論義」를 고찰하여, 당대 비평의 수용양상을 복기한다. 본 좌담에서는 비평 빈곤론, 세대·순수론, 고전부흥론 등 다양한 비평적 층위를 고찰함과 동시에 장르별 창작방법과 예술계의 세태까지 함께 논의하고 있다. 이는 전환기 문화사의 단면을 총체적으로 그려냈다는 것을 방증한다. 종전 ≪동아일보≫ 기획 좌담회와 달리 본 좌담회는 논쟁보다는 통합적 검토가 상대적으로 선행되었다. 담론의 주체였던 이원조, 안함광 등 좌파계 논객들이 배석하지 하지 않은 상황에서 저널을 장악한 해외문화파의 관점으로 좌담전체가 경도되었던 것이다. 가령 비평 빈곤의 시대상을 기성의 관점에서만 다룬다거나 세대·순수론을 예술지향주의로 해석한다든가, 고전부흥과 번역문학 논의를 함께 취급하는 점에서 특히 이런 인상이 강하게 드러난다. 그리고 호전적 논객이었던 임화가 이즈음 ‘신문학사’ 집필에 몰두하고 있어, 임화 특유의 비판적인 태도가 다소 약화되었다는 점 또한 해외문학파의 저널리즘 기획 독주를 저지하지 못했던 요소로 작용했던 것이다. 그럼에도 어떤 ‘-이즘’이나 경향성을 설정하기 어려웠던 시기에 각 예술계의 지식인들이 모여 다음 세대의 유통될 예술관에 대해 논의했다는 점은 주목할 만하다. 미약하게나마 장르별 권역을 무너뜨렸다는 것 또한 종래에 저널에서 없었던 기획이었다. 그리고 그곳에서부터 ‘초유’(처음)를 현시함으로써 일제 말기 지식인들이 암흑 가운데 새로운 비전을 탐구했었다는 의미를 찾을 수 있다.

This study contemplates the 「The First Comprehensive Discussion of Art」, the discussion meeting - or “salon” - planned by ≪Dong-a Daily≫ in 1940, to reexamine the aspect of acceptance in the criticism of the time. In the meeting, various levels of criticism, including the theory of the poverty in criticism, the theory of generation and purity, and the theory of the renaissance of the classics, were considered, while the creation methodology for each genre and the theory of social conditions in the artistic community were discussed at the same time. This provides the supporting evidence for the members of the meeting having attempted at painting a comprehensive picture of the aspect of the art history of the transition period. Differently from the previous discussion meetings planned by ≪Dong-a Daily≫, the comprehensive review relatively preceded the debate in the meeting in 1940. With the absence of the left-wing debaters who used to be the principle agents of the discussion, such as Lee Won-jo and Ahn Ham-gwang, the overall meeting was concentrated on the perspective of the Foreign Literature Group. Such impression strongly reveals itself in that the reflection of the times of poverty in criticism was dealt with in the existing perspective, or that the theory of generation and purity were interpreted as art-oriented notions, or that the renaissance of the classics were treated together with the discussion of translation literature. Moreover, an aggressive debater Lim Wha having been immersed in writing for “New Literary History” around the time, which led his unique and critical attitude to weaken in the discussion meeting in 1940, was another factor for the failure in preventing the Foreign Literature Group from taking the sole lead in journalism planning. Nevertheless, it is worth noticing that the intellectual of various art communities gathered to discuss the artistic viewpoints to be distributed in the next generation during the period when it was difficult for them to set any kind of “-ism” or an orientation. Although still weak, breaking down the genre boundaries was something that was not seen in the previous journalism. In addition, the expression of “the first” from that year can lead us to a meaningful find that the intellectual of the later period of Japanese imperialism searched for a new vision.