미국에서의 한국 현대미술 전시와 평가 : 1950년대부터 현재까지

박선양(朴仙良) 한국미술연구소 2020 美術史論壇 Vol.- No.50

This essay examines the reception of Korean contemporary art in America from the 1950s to the present, researching on the pivotal exhibitions held in the U.S., catalog essays, criticisms, and art historical scholarships which are written and published in English. In art, the meaning of reception indicates not only audiences’ accessibility to introduced artists’ works and exhibitions but also encompasses pertinent writings and publications that engender critiques and discourses regarding the artworks and their shows. It further embraces scholarly discussions, researches, and symposiums tracing art historically. In this vein, the paper explores significant Korean contemporary art exhibitions, artists, artistic tendencies, and movement that brought about an impact on and crucial debates in the terrain of the American contemporary art world: Contemporary Korean Paintings exhibition, Dansaekhwa, Nam June Paik, Minjoong art, Korean American art, Your Bright Future: 12 Contemporary Artists from Korea exhibition, Do Ho Suh, Haegue, Yang, and Bul Lee. Accordingly, it proceeds to recapitulate their characteristics and investigate American receptive modes of those, by dividing them into approximately two decades. Through the exhibition, Minjoong Art: A New Cultural Movement from Korea held in 1988, Minjoong art was recognized and understood as an authentic form of Korean contemporary art in American art world. What this study has also found is that unlike the chronologically ordered Korean scholarships on Korean contemporary art, American scholarships as such are “discursive,” “disconnected,” “imbalanced,” and “ahistorical.” It has observed that the history of the unfolding of Korean contemporary art does not correspond to that of the reception of Korean contemporary art. There is quite a considerable temporal discrepancy between the two. Filling in the gap enables Korean contemporary art to be evaluated and accepted quantitatively and qualitatively. Today, the growth of comprehensive surveys and reliable scholarships that will prove and enhance the value of Korean contemporary art is beyond necessity but rather urgent. There still remains the responsibility that art historians and scholars should generate continuous and extensive scholarships to properly locate Korean contemporary art in the context of global art history.

‘세계화’와 ‘탈영토화’ 개념 중심으로 본 한국현대미술의 정체성에 관한 담론 - 이우환, 김수자, 서도호의 사례를 중심으로 -

김정희 ( Kim Jung Hee ) 한국동양예술학회 2020 동양예술 Vol.46 No.-

본 논문은 ‘세계화’(globalization)와 ‘탈영토화’(deterritorialization)의 개념 중심으로 본 ‘한국현대미술의 정체성’에 관한 담론을 통하여 한국현대미술의 방향성을 알고자 하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 한국사회는 1990년대부터 세계화와 다문화의 급류를 탄 이후 고유의 문화, 민족, 영토에 대한 개념의 경계가 빠르게 허물어지고 있으며, 인터넷과 매스 커뮤니케이션(mass communication)의 급진적인 발달로 매 시각 세계 각국의 소식과 문화를 접하는 것이 보편적인 시대를 맞고 있다. 이러한 가운데 ‘한국현대미술’의 정체성에 대한 규정을 하고자 하는 것은 쉽지 않은 문제일 것이나 정체성에 대한 물음을 가지는 것은 존재의 근원에 대한 사유를 하는 것으로 존재하는 것의 본능적인 물음이라고 할 수 있다. 그러므로 ‘한국현대미술’이 존재한다고 한다면, 그 정체성에 대한 물음을 가지는 것은 존재의 핵심 사안이며 필수적인 것이다. 이 논문은 ‘한국현대미술’의 ‘정체성’을 명확하게 규정하는 것에 목적을 두지 않는다. 그 대신에 그 ‘정체성’에 대한 존재론적 담론과 현재의 ‘한국현대미술’을 대표하고 있는 미술가들인 이우환, 김수자, 서도호의 사상과 작품 활동의 사례들을 통하여, 그들이 예술가로서의 ‘정체성’을 어떻게 형성하고 그것을 발판으로 한 예술작업을 어떻게 하고 있는지, 그 현상들을 고찰하여 한국현대미술의 중요한 측면을 알고자한다. 본문에서는 첫째, ‘한국미술’의 정체성 담론이 어떻게 시작되었으며, 어떻게 한국의 현대미술의 정체성에 관한 담론으로 이어지게 되었는지 알아본다. 또한 현재의 ‘한국현대미술’의 정체성에 관한 담론을 위하여 ‘세계화’와 ‘탈영토화’의 두 가지 개념을 알아보고, 현재 미술계의 상황에 투영하여 분석한다. 본문의 마지막 절에서는 앞선 연구들을 토대로 한국현대미술을 이끌고 있는 이우환, 김수자, 서도호의 사례를 통하여 한국현대미술의 추동력의 방향성을 알아본다. This paper aims to understand the direction of ‘Korean contemporary art’ through the discourse on ‘the identity of Korean contemporary art’ based on the concepts of ‘globalization’ and ‘deterritorialization’. Since the 1990s, the boundaries of the concepts of Korean culture, ethnicity and territory have been rapidly disintegrating, due to ‘globalization’ and ‘multiculturalism’. With the radical development of the Internet and mass communication, Korean society is facing the era of instant universal access to news and culture from all over the world. In this situation, it is not easy to define the identity of Korean contemporary art, but questioning the identity is instinctive and essential. If ‘Korean contemporary art’ exists, it is essential to have a question about its identity. This paper does not focus on defining the identity of ‘Korean contemporary art’. Instead, through looking at the existential discourse on ‘identity’ in the thoughts and artistic activities of the artists U-fan Lee, Soo-ja Kim and Do-ho Seo, the paper contemplates how they form their identity as artists, and how they are working on their art works based on it. Through this, ultimately, this study discovers an important direction of Korean contemporary art. First, the paper explores how discourses on the identity of ‘Korean art’ began, and how it led to the discourse on the identity of Korean contemporary art. In addition, the two concepts ‘globalization’ and ‘deterritorialization’ are explored in order to discuss the identity of ‘Korean contemporary art’, and this is used to analyse the current situation of the Korean art world. The final section of the paper examines the cases of U-fan Lee, Soo-ja Kim and Do-ho Seo based on the previous analysis, in order to comprehend the impetus behind the current direction of Korean contemporary art.

미국의 한국 근현대미술 연구사

버지니아 문(Virginia Moon),문혜진(번역자) 한국근현대미술사학회 2012 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.24 No.-

Korean modern and contemporary art has only recently been the object of scholarly study.This paper will provide a brief survey of relevant major exhibitions, resulting symposia and catalogs, notable book publications, and recent dissertations to outline the present state of studies on Korean modern art in the U.S.Attention, at least in terms of museum exhibitions, has focused on the recently trendy contemporary art. While adding to the existing literature on Korean contemporary art in English, the majority of the essays that accompanied the exhibition catalogs were straightforward, almost biographical discussions of the artists being featured rather than more critical engagements with the artists’ philosophies and works within the context of art historical issues. Still, the impact of such art exhibitions in the U.S. is undeniable. What is acutely missing from the selected exhibition list noted are exhibitions on Korean modern art, as defined by the arts and scholarship of the early 20th century produced after 1910 and encompass the major Korean art movements of art including informel, monochrome, and minjung misul, and very few symposia and conferences have been organized to address such issues of Korean modern art. Scholars continue to often cite the language barrier as one of the ongoing difficulties in pursuing meaningful research.While language barriers remain, a possible solution to encouraging scholarship goes deeper than simply having more publications in English?rather, the quality of information provided is vital to the kind of research that is produced as professors of art history specializing in Korean art in the U.S. find it continually difficult to locate quality writings in English on Korean modern and contemporary art. While books of collected essays on Asian art have slowly begun to include essays on Korean modern and contemporary art, recent research as represented by the kinds of dissertations completed in the U.S. is slowly growing. An existing problem is the lack of available mentors in the U.S. specializing in Korean art that has resulted in a situation where American graduate students who are determined to complete a dissertation in this nascent field must ally themselves with advisors who cannot guide them in terms of content and resources that would directly benefit their research. As the number of faculty specializing in Korean modern and contemporary art is still non-existent, resulting practical mentor relationships only serve to confirm that the field of Korean art history in the U.S. is still in its infancy. As it stands, what must not be forgotten is that Korean modern and contemporary art is a burgeoning field in the U.S.; the challenges and limitations noted are “growing pains” that accompany any discipline that is making its mark outside of the main country.

한국 미술에서 동시대 미술(컨템포러리 아트)이란 무엇인가: 비평적 담론에 대한 논고

정연심 한국근현대미술사학회(구 한국근대미술사학회) 2023 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.46 No.-

2015년 안팎을 기점으로 한국 미술에서는 ‘동시대(컨템포러리, contemporary)’라는 용어가 빈번하게 등장했다. 학계와 현장에서는 지금의 미술을 지칭하기 위해 현대 미술이라는 용어보다는 동시대 미술을 사용하여 ‘지금, 여기’를 더욱 면밀하게 다루는 동향들이 나타나기 시작했다. 이에 본 논문은 첫째, ‘동시대’라는 용어가 시간을 의미하는 정의로 한국 미술에서 비평적으로 나타나기 시작한 시점을 살펴보며, 언제부터 한국 미술의 ‘동시대’가 출발했는지 비평가들의 텍스트를 분석하고 이에 대해 비평한다. 동시대 미술이 모던 아트와 어떤 관계성 속에서 지속되고 또 단절되었는지, 동시대 미술의 태동을 시간 개념으로 접근하는 것이다. 둘째, 한국 비평가들의 시각과 글을 통해 우리는 동시대라는 용어가 시간성의 개념에 머물지 않고 점차 공간 개념으로 새로운 관계를 맺으며 확장하는 것을 살펴본다. 동시대 미술의 기원을 알려주는 전지구적, 아시아적 문맥과 전지구화, 비엔날레의 확산 등으로 인한 포스트콜로니얼 담론의 확장, 네트워크의 변화, 무엇보다도 한국에 들어선 새로운 제도적 장치와 다양한 전시 담론의 대두를 동시대적 변화의 조건으로 생각해볼 수 있다. 이러한 분석을 통해, 동시대는 시대착오적이며, 비선형적이고 비역사적인 혼종적 공간이자 관계적 네트워크를 형성한다는 점을 알 수 있다. 셋째, 현장과 뮤지엄, 큐레토리얼 실천에서 한국 컨템포러리 아트는 사전적 의미를 넘어 비평적 담론으로 자리를 잡아가는데, 동시대성이 글로벌 아트의 대두와 연관되어 있다는 점을 고려한다. 본 논문은 한국 컨템포러리 아트는 이제 세계 미술사를 재구조화할 수 있는 담론적 위치에서 새로운 의의를 찾아야 할 필요성이 있음을 제기한다. Commencing in the approximate year of 2015, the term “contemporary” embarked on a notable ascent in the realm of Korean art. Within academic, professional discourse, and critical examination, the expression “here and now” progressively emerged as a means to delineate art relevant to the contemporary era, in contrast to the established terminology of “modern art.” This shift in nomenclature signifies an emerging tendency towards a more intricate consideration of temporal dimensions in the realm of art. Consequently, this paper initiates an inquiry into the precise juncture in history when the term “contemporary” assumed a pivotal role in the context of Korean art, principally connoting a temporal concept. The analysis entails a comprehensive exploration of critical texts authored by esteemed experts in the field, aiming to pinpoint the moment at which the term “contemporary” garnered significance within the twenty-first-century Korean art landscape. The primary aim of this investigation is to expound upon the genesis of contemporary art within the Korean art milieu and scrutinize its evolving interplay with modern art, discerning instances of continuity, disjunction, and negation. Furthermore, by looking into the perspectives and writings of critics, we can assess whether the concept of “contemporary” transcends its temporal confines and gradually extends to forge novel associations with the concept of space. This expansion is influenced by the global and Asian context that underpins the genesis of contemporary art. Factors such as globalization, the proliferation of postcolonial discourse through the propagation of biennales, shifts in networks, and, most notably, the emergence of diverse exhibition discourses all contribute to this transformative terrain. Through this analysis, it becomes evident that the contemporary manifest as anachronistic, non-linear, and non-historical hybrid spaces, establishing intricate relational networks. Moreover, in the realms of museums and curatorial practice, Korean contemporary art surpasses the constraints of its dictionary definition and assumes a position of critical discourse. This recognition acknowledges that contemporaneity is intricately intertwined with the ascent of global art. Consequently, this paper underscores the necessity for Korean contemporary art to unearth fresh significance within a discursive framework capable of reshaping the landscape of world art history.

한국 현대조각 연구사

김이순(金伊順) 한국미술연구소 2020 美術史論壇 Vol.- No.50

This paper studies history of the research on Korean sculpture after the liberation. In the same manner of analyzing modern art as before and contemporary art as after the liberation in Korean modern and contemporary art history, this paper studies Korean sculpture after the liberation. In fact, a significant development in sculptural works has occurred then. In 1925, when Kim Bok-jin graduated from Tokyo Fine Arts School in sculpture and was actively working as a sculptor, his sculpture began to develop completely different from the traditional one. Instead of functional ones such as Buddhist or tomb sculptures, sculpture as fine art began to emerge as a new genre in Korean art history. In Korean modern days, not only were there just a few sculptors, their works were mostly based on methods such as carving or modeling realistic figures. Therefore, studies on Korean modern sculpture do not exist abundantly. After the liberation, abstract sculpture as well as newly approached sculpture with various methods and materials began to rise. However, a spectrum of contemporary sculpture became very broad that it was difficult to even categorize sculpture as one genre. After three-dimension was developed, its term has been used along with the term sculpture. Also, anti-sculpture became apparent as dimensions being involved and materials becoming diverse, and yet it came to have inseparable relationship with installation art. Although, a boundary between genres became obscure, this paper analyzes various studies on sculpture within art genre in Korean contemporary art history. Studies of Korean contemporary sculpture can be classified into before and after the 1990’s while studies before the 1990’s were largely based upon its overview and the secondary element of studies in painting. In 1990’s, scholars of sculpture began to emerge, and studies on characteristics of Korean contemporary sculpture started to expand deeply. Furthermore, objectives and perspectives on research came to accumulate little by little in various ways. This paper seeks the aspects of this phenomenon in detail, and the discussion is organized as follows: first, it overviews the development of Korean contemporary sculpture, and analyzes the studies that achieved concept and terminologies of sculpture. Then it examines into two subject matters, sculpture as fine art and sculpture as public art. The subject of discussion is based on research papers, academic journals, scholarly articles from anthology, and writings from the exhibition catalogue from the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art covering Korean sculpture after the liberation. The ultimate purpose of this study is to exceed discussions which have been primarily in painting, and to examine Korean contemporary art history in equitable perspectives.

신학철의 〈한국 근·현대사〉 연작 연구

한재섭(Han, Jaesub) 한국근현대미술사학회 2011 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.22 No.-

This dissertation is about Shin Hak-chul’s The series of Korean Modern·Contemporary History, which was a great result of 1980s Minjoong Art. The series of Korean Modern·Contemporary history works are considered as the most typical art of the published history paintings from 1980s Minjoong Art. The works were also known for it created a beauty of structure based on modernism, which was not just a reconstruction of a historical event. Shin Hak-chul’s history paintings continued even after the 1990s and continuously questioned about the role of Art as social statement. Therefore, it was a work which shows the attribute of visual culture reflecting the symptoms and features of that era. Minjoong Art was the social communication with art and a Realism Art Movement based on visualizing neglected people’s real life. Shin Hak-chul joined the Minjoong Art movement by his the series of Korean Modern·Contemporary History starting from 1980s Korean Modern History 1. However Shin Hak-chul was an artist of affiliation with Modernism which was emphasizing purity of art starting ever since his college year. He started as an artist at ‘Korean Avant-garde Association(AG)’ with objets in 1970s. Before joining ‘AG’, he worked on Pop Art and Surrealism. On the other hand, Shin Hak-chul changed his point of view of the world and art by denying Modernism Art’s self-contradiction. It was put together to his piece by his doubts and introspections of the art and reality of the 1970s dark political situation and the resistance of the new consumer society. The Korean Modern History work was born in these changes and opened the gate to history painting in Minjoong Art. The Korean Modern History work saw Korea’s problem was from Japanese colony’s dividing system. And criticized the problem of politic powers living on the contradiction of the system. This was visualizing the Korean modern history from the public’s point of view, which was put to silence until then by the nation. The Korean Modern History work shows the optimistic view and the failure that came along with the 1987, ‘June Resistance’, which was the turning point of the Korean modern history. The ‘June Resistance’ ended as a perfunctorily democratization, leaving the old system’s problem unsolved. Shin Hak-chul exposed the selfish snobbery of the a historical hierarchies and the middle class, who brought failure to the ‘June Resistance’. The Korean Contemporary History-Invocation of the Spirit of a Deceased work was a report on the fabrication of the history settling operation after the middle 1990s. And it has the character of a monument memorial for a bad accident by remembering in Shin Hak-chul’s formative language of the people who were falling back in to the past for the political investigation and the social unification from the advanced democracy’s space. Shin Hak-chul history painting’s middle evaluation, Gapsoonyee and Gapdolyee-Korean Contemporary History (2002), was a piece that restructured the Korean modern history by gathering the individual’s memory instead of the public. It meant that change of history was not a record of facts from the past of the nation or the people. It was rather the creation and destruction of the individual’s memory and desire that created the history. It was not a perpendicular social structure where it was divided in to ruling caste and subjugated class that created history, it was when everyone were a minority and were tied up together. Furthermore, the change from vertical to horizontal composition in works reflected the change in artist’s historical awareness and Korea society after the 1990s. Shin Hak-chul’s The series of Korean Modern·Contemporary History did not intend to formally reconstruct the historical accidents and chose to go with modernism. The combination and intended collision between the advertising image of consumer society and the pictures recording historical accidents created a montage, which catched the dyn

한국 현대미술의 시대구분의 재정립의 문제: 컨템퍼러리 아트의 담론의 관점에서

김기수 현대미술학회 2019 현대미술학 논문집 Vol.23 No.1

The 21st century contemporary art discourse made it public for contemporary art to art-historically have replaced modern art through 1960s and 70s, especially since 1989. In this context, the periodization of contemporary art in Korea needs to be more or less in sync with such an art-historical transition from modern art to contemporary art. Therefore, this paper argues that the Korean term ‘hyundai misul’ ought to be the Korean translation of contemporary art, and simultaneously corresponds to the Korean hyundai misul that Korean art historians established. It thus suggests that Korean contemporary art has begun and developed with 1960s and 70s’ experimental art, 1980s’ minjung misul, and 1990s’ postmodernism, with each rejecting formalist modern art and dealing with contemporary issues. 21세기 컨템퍼러리 아트의 담론은 미술사적으로 컨템퍼러리 아트가 모던 아트를 이차세계대전 이후 1960, 70년대를 거치며, 특히 1989년을 기점으로 전지구적으로 대체하게 되었음을 공식화한다. 이러한 맥락에서 한국 현대미술의 시대구분은 컨템퍼러리 아트의 담론이 전제하는 모던 아트로부터 컨템퍼러리 아트로의 미술사적 전환과 어느 정도 양립하는 방식으로 재정립될 필요가 있다. 그리하여 본고는 ‘현대미술’이란 용어가 컨템퍼러리 아트의 담론에서 특칭하는 ‘컨템퍼러리 아트’의 국역(國譯)이 되어야 하는 동시에 또한 한국미술계에서 수립한 한국 현대미술과 일치해야 한다고 주장하고, 이에 따라 한국 현대미술은 1960, 70년대 탈(脫)앵포르멜, 즉 형식주의 모던 아트를 거부하고 동시대의 문제를 다루기 시작했던 AG나 ST 등의 실험미술로부터 시작되어, 1980년대 민중미술을 거쳐, 1990년대 포스트모더니즘 미술에 들어 본격적으로 닻을 올렸던 것으로 재정립할 것을 제안한다.

한국미술의 동시대성과 비평담론

김복기 미술사학연구회 2013 美術史學報 Vol.- No.41

This article is aimed at questioning ‘contemporariness’ of Korean art, tracing the current issues of art criticism which deals with the recent tendencies of Korean artworks and artists. First of all, I present three discourses of the contemporary art criticism to analyze Korean contemporary art scene. The discourses has been suggested in Europe, America and Asia respectively in 2009. First argument is about the concept of ‘Altermodern’ that Nicolas Bourriaud, a critic and curator, advocated in 2009 London Tate Triennial. He declares the re-composition of modernity, which he called ‘Altermodern’, based on a thoroughly globalized politics, economics and culture(he sees the diversity of the global culture as an Archipelago). The second one is related to the concept of the face of art sprang from the ‘precarious situation’ which an art critic Hal Foster suggested in 2009, when the first decade of 21st century has ended. he had ended his new decade. The third one is based on ‘The Asian Discourse’, an international symposium report called 『Count 10: Before You Say Asia-Asian Art after Postmodernism』 published by the Japan Foundation in 2009. These three discourses are commonly throwing a new question to contemporary art exceeding discussions of post modernism. Nicolas Bourriaud is declaring ‘the death of postmodernism’ and ‘the new modernity’ at the same time, while Hal Foster is pointing out that the theoretical frame of neo-avant-garde and post modernism, which once dominated the artworks and artistic theories, has been forced into a corner in this precarious age. Moreover, for Asian art, it is necessary to embraces the problem of the local identity as it aims at the centralization of the surroundings against western contemporary art with the idea of ‘post-post-modern’ which focuses on the spatial diffusion and change. I roughly divide the contemporary art into three types based on the three arguments, actively accepting the concept of the ‘miscellaneous form of art’(which is similar to Nicolas Bourriaud’s Archipelago) suggested by the Japanese art critic Midori Matsui. The miscellaneous form of art is summarized into (1)hypertext or time-based art (2)humanized conceptual art (3)Hybridity or non-western art. Korean contemporary art is described in this paper within these critical arguments and the ‘miscellaneous form.’These are the ‘imperfect map’ which put more weight on the ‘contemporariness’ with the western art. Therefore, the questions related to non-western concepts, eastern concepts, tradition, local, identity or differences that are competing with the western concepts should be followed. It is why the discourses of post-colonialism or Asian art needs to be regarded as a valid theory in Korean contemporariness and critical discourse. At this point, I am searching its conclusion in the concept of ‘andromodernity’ which was suggested by Okwui Enwezor. If Korean contemporary art is ‘hybrid’ or ‘andro’, the miscellaneous forest should be open against the unilinear pattern. 이 글은 한국미술의 ‘동시대성’에 질문을 던지고, 그 동시대성을 관통하는 비평의 쟁점을 미술 ‘현장’의 작가와 작품 경향을 통해 추적하는 것이 목적이다. 필자는 한국 컨템포러리 아트를 분석하기 위해 먼저 동시대 컨템포러리 아트의 비평 담론 세 가지를 논거로 삼는다. 이 담론은 2009년 유럽, 미국, 아시아에서 각각 제기되었다. 첫째, 비평가 겸 큐레이터 니콜라 부리오가 2009년 런던에서 열린 테이트트리엔날레에서 제창했던 ‘얼터모던(Altermodern)’의 개념이다. 그는 t철저하게 글로벌화된 오늘의 정치 경제 문화(그는 세계 문화의 다중성을 ‘아르키펠라고’로 파악한다)의 토대 위에서 모더니티의 재구성, 얼터모던을 선언한다. 둘째, 미술평론가 할 포스터가 새로운 10년을 마감하는 2009년에 주장했던 ‘앞이 보이지 않는 불안정한(precarious) 상황’에서 야기된 예술의 얼굴이다. 셋째, ‘아시아 담론’이다. 2009년 일본 국제교류기금이 출간했던 『Count 10: Before You Say Asia-Asian Art after Postmodernism』이라는 국제 심포지엄의 보고서다. 이 세 가지 담론은 공통적으로 포스트모더니즘을 뛰어넘어 컨템포러리 아트에 새로운 질문을 던지고 있다. 니콜라 부리오는 ‘포스트모더니즘의 죽음’과 새로운 모더니티를 선언하고 있으며, 할 포스트는 불완전한(precarious) 시대 상황에서 한때 작품과 이론을 좌우했던 네오아방가르드와 포스트모더니즘의 이론적 틀은 궁지에 빠졌다고 지적하고, 또한 아시아미술에서는 포스트모더니즘의 공간적 확산과 변용에 주목하는 ‘포스트-포스트모던’을 내세워 서구 컨템포러리 아트에 대응하는 ‘주변의 중심화’를 지향하면서도 지역 정체성의 문제를 동시에 끌어안고 있다. 필자는 이 세 가지 담론을 반영하여 컨템포러리 아트의 지형을 크게 세 가지로 그린다. 여기에서 일본의 미술평론가 마츠이 미도리가 제기한 ‘잡목림적 군락’(니콜라 부리오의 아르키펠라고와 유사한 형태다)의 개념을 적극 수용한다. 그 군락을 (1)하이퍼텍스트, 시간특정적 미술 (2)인간화하는 컨셉추얼 아트 (3)하이브리디티, 비서구권 미술 등으로 요약했다. 이러한 비평 담론과 ‘잡목림적 군락’ 의 지형 속에서 한국 컨템포러리 아트의 현상을 일곱가지의 군락과 잡목림으로 분석한다. 이상의 지형도는 서구 미술과의 ‘동시대성’에 무게 중심을 둔 대단히 ‘불완전한 지도’다. 따라서 서구와의 길항 관계인 비서구, 동양, 전통, 지역, 정체성, 차이 등과 얽혀 있는 가치 있는 질문들이 마땅히 뒤따라야 것이다. 한국미술의 동시대성과 비평 담론에서 탈식민주의나 아시아미술 담론을 타산지석의 유효한 이론으로 삼아야 하는 이유도 여기에 있다. 이 지점에서 필자는 오쿠이 엔위저가 주장한 ‘안드로모더니티(andromodernity)’에서 결론을 찾는다. 한국 컨템포러리 아트가 ‘하이브리드 형’ 혹은 ‘안드로 형’이라면, 그 잡목림의 숲은 수직적 범주화, 단선적 양식화에 저항하며 늘 열려 있어야 할 것이다.

글로벌리즘과 한국현대미술의 동시대성

이숙경 미술사학연구회 2013 美術史學報 Vol.- No.40

The impact of globalisation and the evolvement of post-colonial theory have created an urgent need to acknowledge and address art produced in the areas beyond North America and Western Europe. The socio-political conditions of the present in these areas vary widely, which result diverse and plural art practice that requires anapproach contextualised and specific, rather than formalist or universal. These formerly marginalised yet emerging centres of contemporary art often have complex and disrupted relationship to the history of modernity, which poses a challenge and ambiguity in understanding their present. It is necessary to integrate the contempornaneity of histories from around the world with a temporal encasing of historical narratives, in order to develop a lateral trajectory that is capable of incorporating the spatial dimension of the contemporary. Ruptures and discordances are inherent in such a trajectory and the very notion of linear history is questioned, envisioning time as a multiplicity. In this sense, ‘the contemporary’ itself can be understood as a rupture in periodisation, being a period its distinctive nature undermines the notion of coherent history. The art of the new era, what we call contemporary art, embraces not only the perceptual modes required by art of the previous decades but also socio-political reformation of hegemonic orders. Not merely the art contemporaneous to our time, contemporary art involves new modes of understanding temporal and spatial conditions of the contemporary. Perceived as a critical site of multiplicity of geographical expansiveness and historical depth, global contemporary art can promote cultural differentiation and heterogeneity, which were largely absent from modernist discourse. Key shifts include the emergence of new forms of political power and modes of subjectivity that encourages a radical reconsideration of a paradigmatic change without recourse to dominant and pervading discursive models. Cultural difference and inclusivity provide the legitimate potential for global contemporary art, which is carefully distant from a residing sense of neo-colonialism or marginalisation but in anticipation for an alternative system that could realise a more just visibility of the former peripheries of modern art. I aim to understand the present not as the end of history but as representation, which bears the contradictions of contemporary experience as well as the ambivalence and unpredictability of the present. My approach is bound with the specific place of Korea and the specific time of the present, but it is not in tended to view contemporary art as a mere reflection of a specific moment. Rather, I am interested in identifying multiple points of historical connection that question linearity and didactic contextualisation. Addressing temporal and spatial paradigms of contemporaneity is particularly crucial in understanding contemporary Korean art, for its trajectory is intertwined and interconnected with the history of art beyond Korea whiles pecific to its own local history. 한국의 동시대 미술을 이해하는 데 있어서 중요하게 고려해야 할 점은 미술이 역사적, 정치적, 경제적, 사회적, 문화적 맥락 같은 다양한 분야의 특정한 전개와 연관되어 있다는 것이다. 한국의 근현대사가 한편으로는 세계의 역사와 밀접하게 연관되어 있지만, 다른 한편으로는 한국만의 특수한 미적, 문화적 성장의 배경에 바탕을 두고 있다는 점을 이해할 필요가 있다. 특히 한국 동시대 미술은 신자유주의(neo-liberalism)와 글로벌화(globalisation)라는 광범위한 범주, 세계 전체를 엄청나게 빠른 속도와 범위로 재구성하고 있는 역사적 맥락을 고려할 때 비로소 완전히 이해될 수 있다. 이런 점에서 이 글은 비확정적인(indeterminate) 동시에 특정적인(specific), 또한 세계 전체에 대한 것이면서도(global) 동시에 특정 지역에 대한 것인(local), ‘동시대성’의 맥락 속에서 한국의 동시대 미술을 이해하고자 하는 시도라고 할 수 있겠다. 글로벌리즘 속의 동시대 미술이 지리적 확장과 역사적 깊이가 지닌 ‘다중성의 비평적 공간(critical site of multiplicity)’이 되면서, 이는 모더니즘의 담론에 부재했던 문화적 차이와 이질성 개념을 강조할 수 있는 대안으로 인식되기도 한다. 중요한 변화의 요소로는 새로운 형태의 정치적 권력의 등장, 새로운 주체성(subjectivity)의 모델 등을 들 수 있고, 이런 요소들은 지배적인 기존 담론 체계에 의존하지 않는 패러다임의 변화 같은 혁신적인 사고를 가능하게 한다. 문화적 차이와 포용성은 신자유주의 감수성 및 주변화로부터 조심스럽게 거리를 유지하는 반면 근대 미술의 주변지였던 영역들이 더욱 정당하게 가시성을 확보할 수 있는 대안적 시스템을 기대할 수 있게 한다. 한국의 동시대 미술에 대한 담론은 새로운 역사를 창조한다는 문제에 관련되기보다는 ‘역사가 되어 가고 있는(history in becoming)’ 현재에 대한 이해와 결부되어 있다. 이 글을 통해 한국 미술의 특정한 장소성과 현재라는 시간의 특수성을 이해하고, 이런 특수성의 이해가 특정 순간의 단순한 투영(reflection)이 아닌, 단선적이고 교조적인 맥락화를 의문시할 수 있는 다중적인 역사적 연결점(counterpoints)들과 연관된 것임을 밝히고자 한다.

21세기 중국에서 바라본 북한미술 -북한미술의 전시 및 유통의 확대와 새로운 사회주의 미술 취향의 형성-

조민주 ( Cho Min Ju ) 덕성여자대학교 인문과학연구소 2021 인문과학연구 Vol.- No.33

사회주의 정치체계를 유지하면서 자본주의 경제체제를 도입한 중국은 모든 면에서 사회주의 노선을 유지하고 있는 북한과 유연하고 개방적인 자세로 교류하고 있다. 최근 중국에서는 북한미술이 많은 인기를 얻고 있으며, 북한식 사실주의 미술작품이 전시회와 박람회를 통해 끊임없이 소개되고 있다. 특히 북한 시민의 일상, 북한의 자연과 도시의 풍경, 어린이, 동물 등을 소재로 하는 사실주의 화풍의 그림이 중국인들로부터 많은 인기를 얻고 있다. 2019년부터 2121년까지 북한미술 전시는 중국 내에서 특별히 많이 진행되었다. 2019년은 북ㆍ중 교류 70주년, 2020년은 항미원조전쟁(6ㆍ25전쟁)으로 불리는 전쟁 발발 60주년 기념 전시가 베이징 만수대창작사 등의 미술관에서 열렸다. 중국공산당 성립 100주년인 2021년에는 북한의 사회주의 미술 전시가 상하이, 산둥성 둥잉시 등지를 중심으로 활발히 개최되었다. 북한미술은 최근 온라인 미술시장을 중심으로 그 영역을 넓혀가고 있어 또한 매우 흥미롭다. 이 글은 21세기 북한미술이 중국에서 이해되고 소비되는 현황을 소개하고, 중국식 자본주의 미술시장에서 북한미술이 작품으로 부상하는 방식을 논의해 본다. China, which adheres to the socialist political system while having integrated the capitalist economic system, openly and flexibly accepted North Korean art and culture. Recently North Korean art has been gaining popularity in China, and North Korean realistic works are constantly being introduced through exhibitions and expositions. Specifically, realistic paintings depicting the daily life of North Korean citizens, North Korean nature, and urban landscape, and animals are gaining popularity among Chinese people. From 2019 to 2021, many exhibitions of North Korean art were held in China. Exhibitions commemorating the 70th anniversary of North Korea-China exchanges in 2019 and the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the war in 2020, the Anti-USAid War in China (the Korean War in Korea), were held as special exhibitions of North Korean art at art museums such as Mansudae Art Museum in Beijing. In 2021, the 100^th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, exhibitions of North Korean socialist art were actively held in Shanghai and Dongying. Meanwhile North Korean are is expanding through the online are market. The phenomenon of the independent expansion of North Korean art in China reflects the preference for various socialist art pieces among Chinese people. This paper will introduce the current situation according to which North Korean art in the 21^st century is understood and consumed at diverse levels in china. Further it will discuss how the art of North Korea is valued on the Chinese Capitalist market.