신미술사 vs. 시각문화연구 = T.J. 클락과 키스 먹시의 미술사론 비교연구

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

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.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 들어가면서
• Ⅱ. T.J. 클락의 미술사회사와 신미술사
• Ⅲ. 키스 먹시의 클락 비판과 문화정치로서의 미술사
• Ⅳ. 신미술사와 시각문화연구
• Ⅴ. 나가면서
• 참고문헌
• Abstract