http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 주제어 : T.J. 클락(T.J. Clark) (검색결과 1 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
강미정(Kang Mi-Jung) 서양미술사학회 2011 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.35 No.-
This paper aims to provide an explanation of what the New Art History and Visual Culture Studies are by illuminating the theoretical positions of each area’s representatives - T.J. Clark’s social history of art and Keith Moxey’s post-structuralist art history. Even though Moxey pursued a social history of art like Clark, but since his theory of art history was so different from the Clark’s, he changed his course to ‘art history as cultural politics.’ The main difference between the two art historians’ theories lies in their conceptions of art and history. According to Moxey, Clark’s social history of art is not innovative enough because he takes the existence of a traditional canon for granted. Moxey thinks Clark’s position could subscribes to a reflection theory of culture if he doesn’t have an appreciation of the role of language in the construction of history. Unlike Clark, Moxey prefers to treat non-canonical works and focuses on the representation itself rather than the reality to which it refers. I think it is because Moxey and his colleagues has accepted post-structuralist view of history and language that they could explore Visual Culture Studies beyond the traditional boundary of art history. In short, although Clark and Moxey are all New Art Historians, when Moxey abandoned his position as a social historian of art and common-sensical concept of history, he could expand the range of the discipline and make it change to Visual Culture Studies.
ScienceON
DBpia연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
