지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Focusing on the contemporary Korean art historical and cultural context, this paper raises issues at the autonomic bias under the construction of the discipline of Art History. Art History is taught based on the reproduced, or digitalized images. The institutionalization of the history of art was possible only after the invention of photography. Because an artwork could be reduced to an reproduced image, it could be collected, organized, and arranged as a 'style.' Yet the 'subject' behind the autonomous eye that organizes the images and makes it as a history of style, is typically western and male, in the sense that it is, in fact, phallogocentric agent. This subject as 'a pure eye' produces knowledge that subjugate works of art, the object of the Art History. As the discipline of art history is constituted on the basis of the structure of "identification / misidentification," we can say that it is quite an "imaginary" discipline in the sense that it is fixed on the image(s) of art works.
However, as I investigate the so-called "post-colonial" nationalist cultural product, especially the paintings on the subject of Korean modern history, I find out even stronger gender bias that colonizes the image of women. The discourse of nationalism which gained hegemony in the context of the post-World Cup 2002, still allegorizes women as the victims of imperial power, and in the mean time it even enjoys the male fantasy on the display of brutally fragmented female body. It is not so much a "pure eye" that govern the autonomous art history, but "political eyes" that claim the liberation, yet it is dominantly phallic toward victimized women. As I look through the gender glass, I can argue that the idea of "history" in this context has been possible only through the phallic fantasy toward the imaginary women.
An artwork cannot be reduced to a surface structure or to a real material object. It is a result of certain performative behavior of human being. The history of art cannot be constructed by autonomous art will nor by certain principles. It is ongoing process of interpretation and gendered perspective should be recognized as a variable that influence that interpretation. If we fix ourselves on the image itself, we cannot cross the border between the imaginary and the symbolic, nor can we arrive at the other side of the looking glass. In that case, the art historical looking glass always reflects its own image, which it claims as autonomous, yet always vertical and diachronic. The postcolonial situation allocates more prudent and cautious readings on the phenomenon of the return of the repressed.
However, as I investigate the so-called "post-colonial" nationalist cultural product, especially the paintings on the subject of Korean modern history, I find out even stronger gender bias that colonizes the image of women. The discourse of nationalism which gained hegemony in the context of the post-World Cup 2002, still allegorizes women as the victims of imperial power, and in the mean time it even enjoys the male fantasy on the display of brutally fragmented female body. It is not so much a "pure eye" that govern the autonomous art history, but "political eyes" that claim the liberation, yet it is dominantly phallic toward victimized women. As I look through the gender glass, I can argue that the idea of "history" in this context has been possible only through the phallic fantasy toward the imaginary women.
An artwork cannot be reduced to a surface structure or to a real material object. It is a result of certain performative behavior of human being. The history of art cannot be constructed by autonomous art will nor by certain principles. It is ongoing process of interpretation and gendered perspective should be recognized as a variable that influence that interpretation. If we fix ourselves on the image itself, we cannot cross the border between the imaginary and the symbolic, nor can we arrive at the other side of the looking glass. In that case, the art historical looking glass always reflects its own image, which it claims as autonomous, yet always vertical and diachronic. The postcolonial situation allocates more prudent and cautious readings on the phenomenon of the return of the repressed.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가면서: 누가 말하는가?
Ⅱ. 젠더사로 다시 쓰는 역사학
Ⅲ. 민족주의와 젠더
Ⅳ. 상상계로서의 미술사
Ⅴ. 나가면서: 거울 저편으로
참고문헌
Abstract
「상상계로서의 미술사: 미술사학에 있어서 젠더의 문제」에 대한 질의
김홍희 선생님의 질의에 대한 답변
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
미술가와 역사-미술사 교육의 한계와 전망
미술이론과 현장
2004 .01
-
스베트라나 앨퍼스에 대한 비평적 조망
현대미술사연구
2011 .12
-
한국 현대미술사에서 페미니즘 연구사
미술사논단
2020 .06
-
한국현대미술사와 한국의 미술사학 교육
미술사학
2005 .08
-
미술사 교육의 전통과 담론들 : 미술관, 미술사, 그리고 교육
미술사학
2004 .08
-
포스트콜로니얼리즘!? : 지금 이곳에서 서양미술사 하기와 관련하여
서양미술사학회논문집
1999 .06
-
현대미술사 교재의 다양화를 위한 대안적 모색
미술사학
2005 .08
-
전통과 현대의 다리를 놓다 : 석남 이경성의 미술사 인식
한국근현대미술사학
2011 .12
-
'한국회화사' 재구축의 과제 : 근대적 학문의 틀을 넘어서
미술사학연구(구 고고미술)
2004 .03
-
미술사의 추억
서양미술사학회논문집
2004 .12
-
한국의 지방 미술대학에서 실기교육에 대한 미술사 교육의 입지와 역할
미술사학
2004 .08
-
일본미술사의 반성적 지평들 : 전쟁의 기억 이후, 미술사비평 또는 메타미술사의 가능성
미술사논단
2012 .12
-
한국미술사연구의 과제와 방법론
미술사학연구(구 고고미술)
2004 .03
-
답사와 미술사 교육
미술사학
2004 .08
-
한국 근현대 서양화 및 시각문화 연구사
한국근현대미술사학
2012 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-650-017298276