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
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The present paper purposes to discuss tasks in reestablishing Korean painting history through the issue of 'meta art history' from the viewpoint of science history and theory history. Currently research and perception on Korean painting history is being developed focused on the subject and the object or nation and anti-nation based on the theory of internal development as the anti-colonial view of history.
Taking typical landscape paintings and real landscape paintings as examples, the two were understood as opposite to each other in a way that former was non-subjective. imitative, ideological and foreign while the latter was national independent. original, realistic and modernistic, produced from the native color of Chosun. However, such a perception is hardly explainable considering that Jeong Seon, Kim Hong-do and other literary and professional artists in the late Chosun Dynasty created works of both tendencies without conflict. Like real landscape paintings, genre paintings and folk paintings developed as pan-East Asian genres and perception on them must also be reconstructed in the context of the circulation of East Asian practice and culture not in the view of modernism or nationalism. In modern paintings as well, Choi Woo-seok's <portrait of Admiral Lee> and other historical portraits are in fact military divines for the construction of the Great East Asia that borrowed the image of Toyotomi Hedeyoshi,and the fact that it was a symbol of 'Japan-Chosun Integration' combined with Shinto arts, which was the national polity of 'Empire' is a good example showing that it is urgent to overcome the existing frame of perception, which has been established as a discourse of resistance through reconstructing the frame of perception.
To reconstruct Korean painting history. which has been defined and represented in Western modern ideologies and languages, in a form coincident with the realities, it is essential to reconsider the paradigm of art culture in the world system of East Asia, in which national boundaries have been drawn unilaterally and the others were excluded or reduced. Therefore, it is urgent above all to reconstruct Korean painting history in the structure of the paradigm of East Asian art culture and historical context, comprehending all similarities and differences between Chinese and Japanese painting histories and going beyond unilateralistic self-sufficiency and closeness or the narrowness of nationalism based on unilateralism.
An East Asian standpoint to examine the reality of Korean painting history is to look the whole picture of East Asian art culture including elements jointly promoted through mutual relationship under the objective conditions of geography and system and others and to identify similarities and differences among the countries. Similarities and differences among the countries must be identified not by the relationship of universality and peculiarity established from the existing dichotomic view of the center and the surroundings but by structural elements that form the paradigm of East Asia art culture.
To establish a diachronic system as 'Korean painting history' as well as synchronic perception as East Asian art history. it is required to reconstruct Korea art history as a continuing serial, breaking off the discontinuing or separated systems before and after the modern ages. Current texts of art history survey, which stop its description at the end of the Chosun Dynasty, are limited to traditional art history or ancient art history, so they are characteristically 'Korean Ancient Art History' or 'Korean Traditional Painting History.' In addition, although it is a part of Korean art history, Korean modern & contemporary art history is studied separately with little structural understanding of connection and evolution in the whole context. Such a research trend also caused dichotomic perception and discontinuity of traditional arts and creative arts, making it difficult to understand historical situations from the aspect of stepwise changes throughout entire Korean art history (painting history). The trend also promoted competition for initiative by provoking binominal confrontation between traditionalism and internationalism in setting the direction of creation of Korean arts (paintings). Therefore, the cliachronic systematization of Korean painting history must be carried out from an integrated perspective that views the history as a serial from the prehistoric age to the modern and contemporary ages, and the history must be reconstructed through stages from primitive paintings to contemporary paintings, which are defined according to the patterns and relationships of changes and continuities in the functions of paintings, people's perception and comments on them. the image of painters, genres and the sense of subjects, creative attitudes and expression methods, etc. in connection with changes in presentation system including changes in painter classes, distribution systems and consumption structure. By identifying the structural pattern of Korean art history by time, we can use stages in Korean art history as codes to find what external and internal triggers the paradigm of each stage had compared with that of East Asian or world art history.
As for describing languages as well, if terms adopted as modern concept are used throughout all ages. Korean art history (painting history) is represented in a Western=modern language, so it is difficult to express the realities of each age or stage. Thus it is essential to recognize terms used in the past correctly in the contemporary context and comprehend historical steps through changes in the concept and usage the terms.
As for research topics, studies have been focused on the concept and hierarchy of 'arts' of the West=modern, alienating, excluding or discriminating other topics. It may become possible to find realistically the historical roles and the meanings of each genre as visual objects only when reconstructing Korean painting history, which has been focused on a limited number of genres and 'masterpieces.'
As for research methods and subjects, researchers must be open to educational, international, visual cultural and symbolic cultural discourses. However, these theories must be used as means to solve problems in reconstructing Korean painting history coincident with realities. If they become ends, previous errors in constructing the history as a modernistic science will be repeated. It is necessary to inherit selectively research methods, themes and outcomes of modern traditional art history and view it not as contradictory but complementary to contemporary art history.
As discussed above, criticizing and reflecting on existing viewpoints and frame of perception on Korean art history and searching for a new way ahead is meaningful in that it presents us the ambitious task of reconstructing Korean art history as an independent science, breaking away from distortion resulting from prejudice and discrimination and from subordination to ideas developed by others.
Taking typical landscape paintings and real landscape paintings as examples, the two were understood as opposite to each other in a way that former was non-subjective. imitative, ideological and foreign while the latter was national independent. original, realistic and modernistic, produced from the native color of Chosun. However, such a perception is hardly explainable considering that Jeong Seon, Kim Hong-do and other literary and professional artists in the late Chosun Dynasty created works of both tendencies without conflict. Like real landscape paintings, genre paintings and folk paintings developed as pan-East Asian genres and perception on them must also be reconstructed in the context of the circulation of East Asian practice and culture not in the view of modernism or nationalism. In modern paintings as well, Choi Woo-seok's <portrait of Admiral Lee> and other historical portraits are in fact military divines for the construction of the Great East Asia that borrowed the image of Toyotomi Hedeyoshi,and the fact that it was a symbol of 'Japan-Chosun Integration' combined with Shinto arts, which was the national polity of 'Empire' is a good example showing that it is urgent to overcome the existing frame of perception, which has been established as a discourse of resistance through reconstructing the frame of perception.
To reconstruct Korean painting history. which has been defined and represented in Western modern ideologies and languages, in a form coincident with the realities, it is essential to reconsider the paradigm of art culture in the world system of East Asia, in which national boundaries have been drawn unilaterally and the others were excluded or reduced. Therefore, it is urgent above all to reconstruct Korean painting history in the structure of the paradigm of East Asian art culture and historical context, comprehending all similarities and differences between Chinese and Japanese painting histories and going beyond unilateralistic self-sufficiency and closeness or the narrowness of nationalism based on unilateralism.
An East Asian standpoint to examine the reality of Korean painting history is to look the whole picture of East Asian art culture including elements jointly promoted through mutual relationship under the objective conditions of geography and system and others and to identify similarities and differences among the countries. Similarities and differences among the countries must be identified not by the relationship of universality and peculiarity established from the existing dichotomic view of the center and the surroundings but by structural elements that form the paradigm of East Asia art culture.
To establish a diachronic system as 'Korean painting history' as well as synchronic perception as East Asian art history. it is required to reconstruct Korea art history as a continuing serial, breaking off the discontinuing or separated systems before and after the modern ages. Current texts of art history survey, which stop its description at the end of the Chosun Dynasty, are limited to traditional art history or ancient art history, so they are characteristically 'Korean Ancient Art History' or 'Korean Traditional Painting History.' In addition, although it is a part of Korean art history, Korean modern & contemporary art history is studied separately with little structural understanding of connection and evolution in the whole context. Such a research trend also caused dichotomic perception and discontinuity of traditional arts and creative arts, making it difficult to understand historical situations from the aspect of stepwise changes throughout entire Korean art history (painting history). The trend also promoted competition for initiative by provoking binominal confrontation between traditionalism and internationalism in setting the direction of creation of Korean arts (paintings). Therefore, the cliachronic systematization of Korean painting history must be carried out from an integrated perspective that views the history as a serial from the prehistoric age to the modern and contemporary ages, and the history must be reconstructed through stages from primitive paintings to contemporary paintings, which are defined according to the patterns and relationships of changes and continuities in the functions of paintings, people's perception and comments on them. the image of painters, genres and the sense of subjects, creative attitudes and expression methods, etc. in connection with changes in presentation system including changes in painter classes, distribution systems and consumption structure. By identifying the structural pattern of Korean art history by time, we can use stages in Korean art history as codes to find what external and internal triggers the paradigm of each stage had compared with that of East Asian or world art history.
As for describing languages as well, if terms adopted as modern concept are used throughout all ages. Korean art history (painting history) is represented in a Western=modern language, so it is difficult to express the realities of each age or stage. Thus it is essential to recognize terms used in the past correctly in the contemporary context and comprehend historical steps through changes in the concept and usage the terms.
As for research topics, studies have been focused on the concept and hierarchy of 'arts' of the West=modern, alienating, excluding or discriminating other topics. It may become possible to find realistically the historical roles and the meanings of each genre as visual objects only when reconstructing Korean painting history, which has been focused on a limited number of genres and 'masterpieces.'
As for research methods and subjects, researchers must be open to educational, international, visual cultural and symbolic cultural discourses. However, these theories must be used as means to solve problems in reconstructing Korean painting history coincident with realities. If they become ends, previous errors in constructing the history as a modernistic science will be repeated. It is necessary to inherit selectively research methods, themes and outcomes of modern traditional art history and view it not as contradictory but complementary to contemporary art history.
As discussed above, criticizing and reflecting on existing viewpoints and frame of perception on Korean art history and searching for a new way ahead is meaningful in that it presents us the ambitious task of reconstructing Korean art history as an independent science, breaking away from distortion resulting from prejudice and discrimination and from subordination to ideas developed by others.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. ‘한국회화사‘ 인식틀의 형성
Ⅲ. ‘한국회화사‘ 인식의 問題群과 재구축의 과제
Ⅳ. 맺음말
ABSTRACT
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
한국미술사연구의 과제와 방법론
미술사학연구(구 고고미술)
2004 .03
-
한국현대미술사와 한국의 미술사학 교육
미술사학
2005 .08
-
한국 근현대 서양화 및 시각문화 연구사
한국근현대미술사학
2012 .12
-
포스트콜로니얼리즘!? : 지금 이곳에서 서양미술사 하기와 관련하여
서양미술사학회논문집
1999 .06
-
회화의 위기, 회화의 대안
미술이론과 현장
2004 .01
-
미술가와 역사-미술사 교육의 한계와 전망
미술이론과 현장
2004 .01
-
스베트라나 앨퍼스에 대한 비평적 조망
현대미술사연구
2011 .12
-
전통과 현대의 다리를 놓다 : 석남 이경성의 미술사 인식
한국근현대미술사학
2011 .12
-
20세기 한국미술사 연구를 위한 소고: 1960-70년대 미술을 중심으로
미술이론과 현장
2013 .01
-
한국 현대미술사에서 페미니즘 연구사
미술사논단
2020 .06
-
우리의 서양미술사 개론서 어떻게 가능한가
미술사학
2005 .08
-
反四王의 근대적 과제 : 중국의 미술교육과 미술사
미술사학
2004 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-609-014719311