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
This paper deals with the process of identification and codification for the figurative currents of the 1950's and 1960's. The confusing usage of descriptive terms for the new artistic phenomenon surfaced when Peter Selz organized 'A Symposium on Pop Art' at MoMA on December 13th, 1962, shortly after the International Exhibition of the New Realists opened at New York's Sidney Janis Gallery in November of the same year. First of all, I will discuss Janis' reasons for grouping various types of works-ranging from what was then called Neo-dada, Pop Art, and Nouveau Realisme-under one umbrella-term, New Realists. Secondly, it seems worthwhile to investigate how the name for this artistic phenomenon changed so abruptly at the MoMA symposium, especially after the exhibition of such international scale took place only weeks earlier.
On the one hand, these new works had their connection with the mainstream discourses of Realism or Dada in the framework of art history. When art historians or art critics found it appropriate to associate the new works to the traditional terms and called them either Neo-dadaist or New Realist, it was because they found from these works the link between the old and the new. After all, these young artists, who firmly believed in giving expression to the modem industrial society with a realist perspective, provided figurative elements while inheriting their plastic sensibility from the earlier generation of the Abstract Expressionists. On the other hand, "Pop Art" was a term entirely new under the Euro-centric art historical context. This new term, although first coined in England, was able to gain its prominence due to active advocacy made by American art historians and critics. American critics chose to circulate the term "Pop Art" in conscious effort to free itself from being a subsidiary of European art. This tendency is evident in the ensuing series of events when American critics tried to undervalue the influence of English artists in the development of "Pop Art".
The word 'pop' in "Pop Art" does not necessarily mean popular as the term might otherwise suggest. However radically it pretended to challenge high modernist ideas through outrageous manipulation of popular imagery, “Pop Art" never withdrew its sanctity of being high art, an Art with the capital A. The same logic applies to the very term "Pop Art". Once it was canonized as being a signiller for a particular art trend, it lost its original etymological meaning and was charged with a semi-divine power of a new dimension. Embedded in the word is the 'American Dream' that the American art historians and critics desired either consciously or unconsciously: America as the center of the international world, and American Art as the leader of the international art world. Achieving the status of the superpower since the 1950's, America was in pursuit of dominating the art world with its economical and political power. It is not difficult to understand how "Pop Art" was regarded as an art form par excellence in representing the supremacy of the American capitalist economy.
In a society where the distinction between the original and the reproduction is blurred evermore, and the authenticity of a work is understood only through its exchange value, "Pop Art" has been a powerful manifestation of its time and social realities by conforming itself to the inner mechanisms of the capitalist consumer society in a very impersonal, indifferent manner. It also proved itself to be an institutionally successful art through the presentation of seemingly insignificant elements. The same line of thought can be applied in understanding the term American critics have employed to describe their new artistic phenomenon. The term "Pop Art", eroded from its etymological origins, and charged with new meanings of the American superpower, was transformed to a kind of meta-language, and thereby contributed greatly in solidifying the hegemony of American art in the history of modem art. In a sense, the word "Pop Art" was a perfect example of a Baudrillardian scenario. It was a terminological 'simulation' in the hyperreal world of economy of sign exchange.
On the one hand, these new works had their connection with the mainstream discourses of Realism or Dada in the framework of art history. When art historians or art critics found it appropriate to associate the new works to the traditional terms and called them either Neo-dadaist or New Realist, it was because they found from these works the link between the old and the new. After all, these young artists, who firmly believed in giving expression to the modem industrial society with a realist perspective, provided figurative elements while inheriting their plastic sensibility from the earlier generation of the Abstract Expressionists. On the other hand, "Pop Art" was a term entirely new under the Euro-centric art historical context. This new term, although first coined in England, was able to gain its prominence due to active advocacy made by American art historians and critics. American critics chose to circulate the term "Pop Art" in conscious effort to free itself from being a subsidiary of European art. This tendency is evident in the ensuing series of events when American critics tried to undervalue the influence of English artists in the development of "Pop Art".
The word 'pop' in "Pop Art" does not necessarily mean popular as the term might otherwise suggest. However radically it pretended to challenge high modernist ideas through outrageous manipulation of popular imagery, “Pop Art" never withdrew its sanctity of being high art, an Art with the capital A. The same logic applies to the very term "Pop Art". Once it was canonized as being a signiller for a particular art trend, it lost its original etymological meaning and was charged with a semi-divine power of a new dimension. Embedded in the word is the 'American Dream' that the American art historians and critics desired either consciously or unconsciously: America as the center of the international world, and American Art as the leader of the international art world. Achieving the status of the superpower since the 1950's, America was in pursuit of dominating the art world with its economical and political power. It is not difficult to understand how "Pop Art" was regarded as an art form par excellence in representing the supremacy of the American capitalist economy.
In a society where the distinction between the original and the reproduction is blurred evermore, and the authenticity of a work is understood only through its exchange value, "Pop Art" has been a powerful manifestation of its time and social realities by conforming itself to the inner mechanisms of the capitalist consumer society in a very impersonal, indifferent manner. It also proved itself to be an institutionally successful art through the presentation of seemingly insignificant elements. The same line of thought can be applied in understanding the term American critics have employed to describe their new artistic phenomenon. The term "Pop Art", eroded from its etymological origins, and charged with new meanings of the American superpower, was transformed to a kind of meta-language, and thereby contributed greatly in solidifying the hegemony of American art in the history of modem art. In a sense, the word "Pop Art" was a perfect example of a Baudrillardian scenario. It was a terminological 'simulation' in the hyperreal world of economy of sign exchange.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. 뉴 리얼리즘으로서의 의미
Ⅲ. 정치적 역학관계에서 본 명칭
Ⅳ. 맺는 말
참고문헌
Abstract
「1950-1960년대 뉴 리얼리즘 계열 미술동향 명칭에 관한 고찰」에 대한 질의
김미경 선생님의 질의에 대한 답변
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
[특집 03] 중국 ‘정치 팝 아트(政治波普藝術)’의 형성과 전개
한국근현대미술사학
2012 .06
-
아트메이크업에 응용된 팝아트의 특성 연구
한국인체미용예술학회지
2014 .01
-
팝아트를 중심으로 본 복제의 미학
미술사논단
2014 .06
-
‘움직이는 조각’과 공연예술
서양미술사학회논문집
1990 .12
-
탈국가주의 시대의 학문분야로서 ‘미국미술사’의 현 위치
미술사논단
2012 .12
-
지역 미술과 권력
미술이론과 현장
2005 .01
-
미술과 공예 : 그 경계와 위상
미술사학
2007 .08
-
무용과 과학기술을 융합한 그룹 E.A.T.에 관한 연구
무용예술학연구
2019 .01
-
예술과 경제
현대미술학 논문집
2009 .12
-
Glocalization 시대의 현대미술
현대미술학 논문집
2006 .12
-
기야 이방운의 《정미년(丁未年) 사계산수도첩(四季山水圖帖)》 연구
미술사와 문화유산
2016 .02
-
현대 미술비평의 난점과 그 대안
현대미술사연구
2001 .05
-
아서 단토의 미술종말론과 그 근거로서 팝아트의 두 가지 함의
현대미술사연구
2006 .06
-
디지털 문화에 나타난 팝 아트 요소의 분석
한국디자인학회 국제학술대회 논문집
2007 .05
-
그리드를 넘어서 : 모더니즘 이후의 ‘아이콘(icon)’
미술사학
2001 .08
-
美術後援硏究의 方法論에 대한 小考
서양미술사학회논문집
1994 .12
-
모두를 위한 엘리트주의 : 공동체적 가치의 담론 장場으로서 미술비평
현대미술학 논문집
2009 .12
-
전통과 현대의 다리를 놓다 : 석남 이경성의 미술사 인식
한국근현대미술사학
2011 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-650-017298367