Phases in the "Evolution" of Literary Translations

I just read an online article posted by Ding Xiasong called "Why Foreignizing Translation Is Seldom Used in Anglo-American World in Information Age". The article differentiates between direct information and aesthetic information. Direct information is the content of the source text, and the aesthetic information is the style, form or rhetorical devices in the source text. The piece agrees with Venuti by saying that Anglo-American translation culture tends to promote what he calls domestication of both direct and aesthetic information.

Ding takes the side that foreignization (as opposed to domestication) is to be preferred, if we're to follow the principle (or ideal) that a translation should transfer information (aesthetic or direct) about other cultures, language, lives, subjectivities, etc.

More interesting to me than this position (though I think I agree with the author's position, ultimately), was his observation that literary translations tend to follow a pattern. Translations aren't created in a vaccuum; they emerge because of specific historical conditions that bring two cultures, peoples, languages into some degree of communion with one another. It can be brought on by war, imperialism, commerce or whatever. Though foreignized translations are the ideal, he suggests that domesticated translations must begin the process of introducing the culture to the target audience. Once there is more interest, then the audience will be more open to challenging texts (i.e. more foreignized texts).

A slightly different category of examples: in case of Kafka and Tolstoi, we have continued increase in interest of specific writers over a long period of time. We know Kafka and Tolstoi are great, and therefore are willing to put ourselves through more challenging renditions. So we are getting "coarser" treatments of the source text, which are sold as more accurate or authentic copies of the original.

When will Anglo-American (or other English-speaking) readers be ready for more thoroughly foreignized translations of Korean literature?

I suppose the ultimate foreignized translaton (in terms of both direct & aesthetic information) is Nabokov's translation of Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, and I know of nothing that rivals this work in its degree of pedantic and encylopedic "faithfulness" to the source text.

I would love to hear from other translators on this issue.