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.
이용수
DBpia Top 5%동일한 주제분류 기준으로최근 2년간 이용수 순으로 정렬했을 때
해당 논문이 위치하는 상위 비율을 의미합니다.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Discussion on the photographic identity in relation to ‘art’ has been carried on since the 1830s when photography had first appeared in the history of art. What was at issue has been whether one could recognize the innate quality of photographic medium in terms of art in its conventional meaning. The debate was most controversial in the late 19th century.
What was certain seems to be that photography’s mechanical medium was not considered as an artful device at all at that time. Thus one sees ‘pictorialism’ formed in the circle of photography in order to follow ways of representing and visual mechanism of painting. However, such attempt to repress and even negate its identity was rather limited and couldn’t be a fundamental solution to the problematic aspect of photographic identity as art.
Such a word of ‘problem’ turned out to be a quite wrong word when it comes to the 20th century. From about 1903 when pure photography(or straight photography) movement aroused by Stieglitz, the way of considering photographic medium has been changed into a positive direction for photography itself. Not pretending to be other than itself, photography was able to assert its own identity as it is, which was quite liberating.
About liberation was, in fact, much more in painting’s side. Free from the burden of realistic representation of objects, painting developed into the grand period of abstraction, especially launched by Cubism and other non-figurative movements afterwards. In Modernism, painting and photography seem happily separated, pursuing their own way of art-making on the basis of their different mediums.
However, from Postmodern era in art, particularly from the late 1970s, the relation between painting and photography has been dramatically changed. There has been a strong force emerging from the postmodern art itself to unite the two. Art historical discourse including painting, of course, has actively invited photography to its mainstream, to its very centre. Two major points in photographic mechanism that contemporary art highlights and pinpoints were index and reproduction. These have been adopted to other forms of art such as painting in the last three decades. It can be said that what is regarded as postmodern aesthetics has found its characteristics in photography. Thus this essay in its second part explores indexical quality and reproductive mechanism in photography in terms of postmodern perspective.
It is ironical that such crucial qualities in photographic identity had been disregarded and even despised when photography was discussed in relation to art. Not only in the 19th century but also in the period of Modernism, the reproductive mechanism of photography, for example, was considered against art. Walter Benjamin’s concept of ‘aura’ ignites the debate on the relation between the original and its reproduction. All these arguments, still going on, are about how we conceive ‘art.’ That means that photography has become ‘art’ and ‘non-art’ depending what are the values emphasized in art historical discourse. In this respect, looking back at photography’s history, it seems like that one looks at art history’s moving photography－if there is such a thing, showing how it changes its signifying system.
What was certain seems to be that photography’s mechanical medium was not considered as an artful device at all at that time. Thus one sees ‘pictorialism’ formed in the circle of photography in order to follow ways of representing and visual mechanism of painting. However, such attempt to repress and even negate its identity was rather limited and couldn’t be a fundamental solution to the problematic aspect of photographic identity as art.
Such a word of ‘problem’ turned out to be a quite wrong word when it comes to the 20th century. From about 1903 when pure photography(or straight photography) movement aroused by Stieglitz, the way of considering photographic medium has been changed into a positive direction for photography itself. Not pretending to be other than itself, photography was able to assert its own identity as it is, which was quite liberating.
About liberation was, in fact, much more in painting’s side. Free from the burden of realistic representation of objects, painting developed into the grand period of abstraction, especially launched by Cubism and other non-figurative movements afterwards. In Modernism, painting and photography seem happily separated, pursuing their own way of art-making on the basis of their different mediums.
However, from Postmodern era in art, particularly from the late 1970s, the relation between painting and photography has been dramatically changed. There has been a strong force emerging from the postmodern art itself to unite the two. Art historical discourse including painting, of course, has actively invited photography to its mainstream, to its very centre. Two major points in photographic mechanism that contemporary art highlights and pinpoints were index and reproduction. These have been adopted to other forms of art such as painting in the last three decades. It can be said that what is regarded as postmodern aesthetics has found its characteristics in photography. Thus this essay in its second part explores indexical quality and reproductive mechanism in photography in terms of postmodern perspective.
It is ironical that such crucial qualities in photographic identity had been disregarded and even despised when photography was discussed in relation to art. Not only in the 19th century but also in the period of Modernism, the reproductive mechanism of photography, for example, was considered against art. Walter Benjamin’s concept of ‘aura’ ignites the debate on the relation between the original and its reproduction. All these arguments, still going on, are about how we conceive ‘art.’ That means that photography has become ‘art’ and ‘non-art’ depending what are the values emphasized in art historical discourse. In this respect, looking back at photography’s history, it seems like that one looks at art history’s moving photography－if there is such a thing, showing how it changes its signifying system.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 사진의 등장: 사진의 예술성에 대한 논의
Ⅲ. 포스트모던 미술과 사진: 포스트모던 미술사의 쟁점
Ⅳ. 맺음말
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
포스트-포토그래피: 현대예술 매체로서의 사진의 재고(再考)
AURA
2004 .01
-
사진 리터러시 교육을 위한 스토리텔링 - 문화예술교육을 중심으로 -
AURA
2012 .01
-
사진, 무엇을 하기 위한 것인가
민족미학
2003 .07
-
뷰먼트 뉴홀의 『사진의 역사』 비판
현대미술사연구
2008 .06
-
사회구조주의 관점에서 본 사진의 의미와 기능에 관한 탐색적인 연구-다큐멘터리 사진을 중심으로-
AURA
2007 .01
-
현대미술과 사진
현대미술사연구
2002 .12
-
'보도사진'의 현재적 인식에 대한 연구
AURA
2013 .01
-
사진의 기호학적 고찰
서양미술사학회논문집
1996 .12
-
황규태의 1960-70년대 초기 사진 연구
AURA
2016 .01
-
New Vietnamese Photography
예술과 미디어
2008 .01
-
디지털 사진에서 비수정 사진과 수정사진의 예술적 가치 연구
AURA
2005 .01
-
사진과 프린트 : 기술 이미지 연구
현대미술사연구
2009 .12
-
Theatricality in Photography and Emancipation of the Spectator : Michael Fried’s Untold Insights on Photography
서양미술사학회논문집
2013 .08
-
1960년대 주명덕과 '현대사진연구회' 관계연구
AURA
2016 .01
-
1950년대 한국사진과 《인간가족전》
한국근현대미술사학
2005 .08
-
사진, 매체, 그리고 아우라의 변형 : 디지털사진과 디지털아우라
민족미학
2011 .12
-
사진의 담론과 역사의 담론
서양미술사학회논문집
1999 .12
-
북한미술의 근대성 : 사회주의리얼리즘, 조선화, 그리고 사진
현대미술사연구
2013 .12
-
만드는 사진, 찍는 사진 : 1990년대 한국사진에서의 매체 특수성 논의
한국근현대미술사학
2018 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-650-017668607