인문학으로서의 미술사학

이주형 한국미술사학회 2010 美術史學硏究 Vol.268 No.268

Art history as a modern academic discipline was established in Korea during the late 1970s and early 1980s with the return of several scholars after studying abroad in the U.S. and Europe. Beginning in this period, modern methods of art history—such as visually analyzing objects or monuments as works of art, identifying their themes and functions,and exploring their artistic or historical significances—appeared in their writings in a sophisticated form and were taught at university programs, which produced numerous younger scholars. Thus, art historical scholarship in Korea has been fully modernized in less than three decades, reaching a level in some areas comparable with more advanced academic traditions outside Korea. Around the time when this new phase unfolded in Korean academia, art historical scholarship in Europe and the U.S. was about to undergo revolutionary changes in both outlook and methodology, which was heralded by a movement called New Art History or the social history of art initiated by such radical scholars as T. J. Clark in England, although to reduce various voices heard in these new developments to the New Art History alone would be a gross misjudgement. Disenchanted by conventional undertakings of art history, scholars began to question the discipline's longstanding premises deeply affected by its prevailing positivistic attitude as well as its manifest adherence to high art and Eurocentrism and to reflect on ways to seek new methodological paths or to revive grand visions of its founding fathers of the late nineteenth and early twenties century. Unfortunately, these new developments in Europe and the U.S. made little impact on Korean academia, which had different agenda of first establishing art historical scholarship as a modern discipline. Most scholars specializing in Korea or other parts of Asia devoted themselves in constructing knowledge in connoisseurship, chronology, and iconography in a positivistic spirit without having any leisure to pay attention to critically pondering on the premises of their work or alternative methodological paths. On the basis of great achievement made during last three decades, art historical scholarship in Korea is obviously at the point to reflect on the nature of its accomplishment and seek ways to innovate itself for a new horizon. This paper addresses these problems. 한국에서 근대적 학문으로서의 미술사학은 구미에 유학했던 몇몇 연구자들이 1970년대 중반부터1980년대 초 사이에 귀국하여 학계에 자리를 잡음으로써 확립되었다. 이들 학자의 글에서 미술사학의 근대적 방법들, 즉 유물이나 모뉴먼트를 시각적으로 분석하고 그 주제와 기능을 밝히며, 그 예술적, 역사적 의미를 해명하는 방법들이 본격적으로 쓰이게 되었고, 아울러 대학에 마련된 교육과정을 통해 수많은 신진학자들이 길러졌다. 그리하여 한국의 미술사학은 불과 30년도 안 되는 기간에 근대적 학문으로 자리잡게되었으며, 경우에 따라서는 국외의 선진 학계에 버금가는 수준에 이르게 되었다. 이들 학자가 귀국할 무렵구미의 미술사학은 관점이나 방법론에 있어서 혁명적인 변화를 겪고 있었다. 이러한 변화는 T. J. 클라크(Clark) 등 영국의 급진적인 학자들이 주도한 소위 신미술사학(New Art History) 운동의 예를 통해 잘 알려져 있다. 물론 이러한 새로운 변화 속에 일어났던 여러 흐름을 신미술사학만이 대표하는 것으로 규정하는 것은 심각한 오해이다. 아무튼 기존 미술사학의 전통적인 학풍과 관행에 실망한 많은 학자들이 미술사학의 오랜 전제들에 의문을 제기하기 시작했다. 그러한 의문은 실증주의적인 학풍과 고급 예술 중시/유럽중심주의로 요약될 수 있다. 이들은 새로운 방법론적인 선택의 가능성들을 모색하고 아울러 19세기 말과20세기 초의 미술사학의 근대적 창시자들의 거시적인 비전에도 다시 주목했다. 불행히도 구미에서 일어난이러한 새로운 변화는 한국 학계에 이렇다 할 영향을 미치지 못했다. 한국의 미술사학계는 미술사학을 근대적 학문으로 확립해야 하는, 구미와는 다른 어젠더가 있었기 때문이다. 한국과 그 밖의 아시아 지역의 미술을 전공하는 연구자들은 실증적 작업을 통해 감식과 편년, 도상 정립 등의 지식 구축에 몰두해야 했고,그 과정에서 그러한 작업의 전제나 의의에 대해 성찰할 여유를 갖지 못했던 것이다. 지난 30년간 축적된 놀랄 만한 성취를 바탕으로 이제 한국의 미술사학은 그 성취의 의미를 성찰하고 새로운 목표를 향해 자기혁신을 모색해야 할 시점에 와 있다. 이 글은 이러한 문제들에 대한 성찰이다.

미술사학연구회 20년과 학술적 성과

민주식 미술사학연구회 2006 美術史學報 Vol.- No.27

'한국회화사' 재구축의 과제

홍선표(Hong Sun-pyo) 한국미술사학회 2004 美術史學硏究 Vol.- No.241

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

신미술사학의 단초 : S. L. 앨퍼스의 ‘시각 문화’

김경선 현대미술학회 2010 현대미술학 논문집 Vol.1 No.14

Anglo-American scholars, Svetlana Leontief Alpers brings into focus the heterogeneous nature of art. She place much value on the basic art-historical notion of representation as well as circumstances and visual culture. She explains pictorial representation as visual self-consciousness,craft, and picture language. Firstly, in Holland the visual culture was central to the life of the society. The eye was a central means of self-representation and visual experience a central mode of self-consciousness. For in defining the human eye itself as a mechanical maker of pictures and in defining 'to see' as 'to picture', Kepler provides the model we need for that particular binding of finding and making, of nature and art, that characterizes the picture in the north. Besides,Representation on the part of craft is techné as a model for art's pursuit of knowledge through experiment or thought of as observations of the natural world. If in the 'representation as visual self-consciousness' the model for pictorial representation was presented by he artifice of sight, in the 'representation as craft' it is presented rather by the skill of craft. Alpers define the new emphasis on the exercise of the traditional representational skills of the Dutch artist. It is an extraordinary display of craft and in particular the contemporary interest in the eye's active use. Attentive looking, transcribed by the hand led to the recording of the multitude of things that make up the visible world. In the seventeenth century this was celebrated as giving basic access to knowledge and understanding of the world. Secondly, Representation as picture language ground directly in a particular kind of image. It related to ways of referring to the world, on the one hand graphic systems such as mapping and on the other the use of words themselves. The general problem here is how picturing transcends its own limitations. In addition, Alpers thinks nowhere is this 'transparent view of art' less appropriate, then she propose to view art circumstantially. Appealing to circumstances mean not only to see art as a social manifestation but also to gain access to images through a consideration of their place, role, and presence in the broader culture. Alpers has served the art historical community excellently by raising the intellectual stakes of Dutch art in seventeenth century and its European context. It is so persuasive, that it appears an open and shut case, and that gives new horizons for the interpretation of art and the phenomenon of picture making itself. Shortly, Alpers's study is an example of the centrality of art history among current disciplines by replacing a sector of the history of art within its proper context of intellectual history.

미술사 교육의 전통과 담론들 - 미술관, 미술사, 그리고 교육

김형숙 한국미술사교육학회 2004 美術史學 Vol.18 No.-

신미술사학의 단초 : S. L. 앨퍼스의 ‘시각 문화’

김경선(Kim Geong Sun) 현대미술학회 2010 현대미술학 논문집 Vol.14 No.-

최근 20년의 한국미술사학 - 회화사 연구동향을 중심으로

홍선표 미술사학연구회 2006 美術史學報 Vol.- No.27

인문학으로서의 미술사학

이주형(Juhyung Rhi),최성은 한국미술사학회 2010 美術史學硏究 Vol.268 No.268

마이클 박산달의 "시대의 눈" -시각문화연구의 선구적 개념이라는 평가에 대한 비판적 고찰

김승환 ( Seung Hwan Kim ) 한국미학회 2011 美學 Vol.67 No.-

영국의 미술사가 마이클 박산달은 시각문화연구의 선구자로 평가된다. 특히 그가 1972년에 출판한 『15세기 이탈리아 회화와 경험』은 바로 그러한 태도를 잘 보여주는 저서로 평가된다. 출간 이후 이 책은 수많은 언어로 번역되는 등 다양한 반향을 불러 일으켰다. 우리나라에서는 아직까지 박산달에 대한 연구논문이 단 한 편도 없는 실정이다. 본 논문은 박산달에 대한 소개와 함께 그의 『15세기 이탈리아 회화와 경험』에 등장하는 ``시대의 눈`` 개념을 고찰하고자 한다. 1972년 전후의 미술사를 포함한 학문적 지형에서 ``시대의 눈`` 개념의 정확한 의미와 그러한 개념이 나온 사상적 배경과 그것이 지닌 방법론적 가치를 살펴보고자 한다. 아울러 이 개념에 대한 다양한 학문적 반응 - 문화사, 마르크스주의 등 - 을 통해 박산달의 ``시대의 눈`` 개념과 그의 책을 비판적으로 이해해 본다. Art historians have often examined the critical reception of works of art, but few have evaluated art history`s reactions to some of its own products. In that sense, this study examines some aspects of the intellectual history and scholarly responses to Michael Baxandall`s Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy, seen as a pioneer of the Visual Culture Studies to some scholars. In fact, during the early 1970s when this book was written, there were some tensions in that discipline`s identity, resulted in the appearance of the New Art History. It extended the subject of discipline and searched new methods in comparison to the traditional Art History. The reasons for choosing Painting and Experience - and more particularly Baxandall`s concept of the Period Eye - is to present him to our academic circle where no interpretations of his book nor simple article about him were done, in spite of the fact that the book is, even after forty years, an art-historical bestseller, having gone through numerous printings and having been translated into several languages. The purpose of this article is twofold: to examine aspects of the intellectual heritage of the central theoretical concept of Painting and Experience, the Period Eye, and to trace some of the various academic responses to the concept. In doing so, we can understand critically the reason why he is evaluated as a pioneer of the Visual Culture Studies. Furthermore that understanding leads us to one of the main topic of the Visual Culture Studies, the visuality.