Folkloristic Practice on the Intangible Cultural Property System in Korea－Between Studies and Policy Activities－

Some of the Korean folklore or folklife phenomena have been designated as Korean intangible cultural properties through the systematic procedure. Therefore, folklore researchers often engage in the policies and system operation of the intangible cultural property. This writer also has a number of experiences in participating in the operation of the intangible cultural property system following the requests of some metropolitan local governments and Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea. This article is demonstrated under the point of view for folklore practice with the experiences of this writer as participated in the operation of the intangible cultural property system in the fields of crafts and traditional folk wine. With respect to the dilemma of the operation for the intangible cultural property system, this writer has determined followings and presented its opinion thereof.First, in the event that it is intended to designate for an intangible cultural property for the metro local government, there has been certain conflicts as there was difficult to determine how appropriate the locality of such intangible cultural property was, and this writer has thoroughly surveyed the genealogy of the intangible cultural property to evaluate with great importance on how close it was with the applicable region.Second, for the case of the productive folklore as designated as the intangible cultural property, with respect to accommodating the new technologies emerged along with industrialization, it has been considered, and excluded, as the breaking away from the original type/form of the intangible cultural property in general, however, this writer has asserted that the use of simple machines that physically save the workforce is allowed, but that the use of new technologies that cause chemical changes in quality should be prohibited.Third, in the event that a person having the intangible cultural property function operates the ‘line that produces with the traditional technology’ and ‘line that produces with new technology’, the later method in general is the subject of prohibition, and this writer has drawn the line that the later method should be recognized for maintaining the livelihood of the technical master, but the products should not be advertised as the intangible cultural property.Fourth, in the event that it was the nationally important traditional culture that has been cut off under the whirlwind of history, like the colonial ruling, the intentionally reproduced one was avoided under the condition without clear standard as to be designated for the intangible cultural property, and this writer has determined that the ones with great and rare value may be needed to designate as the intangible cultural property to hand it down even through the partial representation.And fifth, it was considered that there was no problem if the intangible cultural heritage shared by the local residents was reproduced after a long time after being disconnected and designated as an intangible cultural property and changed into a private resource, and this writer has asserted to enable such cases to be basically returned as the local community culture.