브레히트의 독자, 랑시에르 -"불화"의 연극과 리얼리즘의 갱신-

김겸섭 ( Kyoump Sup Kim ) 대구가톨릭대학교 인문과학연구소 2013 인문과학연구 Vol.0 No.20

This paper will try to look into Jacques Ranciere` Reading of Brecht who was a theatre practitioner of the 20th century and innovator. In his speech on The Emancipated Spectator, Jacques Ranciere examines the ideas of the spectator and the theater. He aligns Artaud`s, Brecht`s criticisms of the theater and spectacle with Plato`s fulminations against mimesis(representation and art) and spectatorship with passivity. He explains that the actor-spectator relationship is too much like traditional pedagogy: hierarchical, passive, stultifying. Brecht and A. Artaud hoped their innovative theatres can awaken a intelligence and sensibility of passive spectators. But Ranciere argues that these theatrical reformers failed to make new audiences because they couldn`t change unequal relationship between the stage and audience. For Ranciere, Brecht and Artaud are no different than reformative schoolmasters who have been reform-minded, but adhered traditional relation between teachers and students. Ranciere argues that all of the members within theatrical ecology have equal intelligence and creativity, such as students of Joseph Jacotot who was described in The Ignorant Schoolmaster. So one must accept premise of equality and construct new theatrical practices on the basis of it. But Ranciere, reader of Brecht, misreads Brecht` the epic theatre and artistic perspective. Brecht believed all spectators have potential power to become rational and change their problematic situation. He worked from this premise of equality, as his theatre and culture theory have shown. Of course, Ranciere also admits theatrical authenticity when he translates Verfremdungseffekt(“making strange” effect) into ‘deplacement’ and seeks practical possibilities of such a translation. One may construct an alternative artistic discussion, by appropriating Ranciere`s translation of V-effekt. Brecht` opened Realism can help we construct new critical art. It complements vacuum of Ranciere` Brecht-reading. Brecht was open realist who actively accepted heterogeneous artistic tendencies and the socialistic realism that was designed by Stalin` totalitarian political system and was schematic, ideological. Though Ranciere misunderstands Brechtian the epic theatre, he can go with Brecht, because Brecht was open to a heterogeneity and challenging and experimental arts. Especially, they stress that art should be on accord with the development of politics. One can imagine new critical thoughts that might help to overcom contemporary thoghtlessness.

자크 랑시에르의 문학의 정치의 재맥락화: 진은영의 문제제기를 중심으로

정의진 ( Eui Jin Jung ) 국제비교한국학회 2015 비교한국학 Comparative Korean Studies Vol.23 No.2

Eunyoung Jin`s “The Re-distribution of the Sensible: On Poetry of the 2000s,” which was published in the journal “Creation and Criticism (Winter, 2008)” caused a great stir in Korean literature and triggered various follow-up discussions. In this piece, Eunyoung Jin made references mostly from “Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible” by Jacques Ranciere, a French scholar of politics and aesthetics. Her referential focus was to newly consider the relationship between literature and politics. Even afterwards, Eunyoung Jin had drawn from Ranciere new thoughts that could turn a dichotomously contrasting relationship between a poet’s participation in reality and poetry’s artistic value into a (more) productive interactional relationship. In order to plan and practice a reformation of senses and thoughts whose literary and artistic creativity are based on social customs and on a larger scale, a new reformation of the society’s political geography, Eunyong Jin underwent various activities to re-contextualize Ranciere’s argument on constant reformation of “The Aesthetic Regime of Art” for situations in Korea. Writers who actively engaged in situations such as the Yongsan disaster and the Duriban struggle, while choosing to share various poetic tendencies and texts that hover between a so-called dichotomy of art and society are one good example. Ensuring that poetry and literature will maintain a continuous openness toward fluid and complex realities of the society, thereby giving the sensibility of a poet himor herself new artistic and political motives and reset the relationship between literature and politics above a new horizon was the position held by and practiced by Eunyoung Jin. Looking back at Eunyoung Jin’s work from a socio-economic context, her work is interlocked with the need to fundamentally change the way of thinking in respect of Korean society and the current economic system based on capitalism and a series of domestic and foreign situations such as the 2008 Candlelight Protest (in South Korea), the Financial crisis of 2008 that originated in the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis and the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and later spread worldwide and the Yongsan disaster in the beginning of 2009. These situations provided an opportunity to newly refresh in mind the Korean literature’s history of rapid advancement along with the modernization process of and also of rapid decline in the 1990s, i.e., the memory of literature`s revolutionary tendency. However, this memory is also connected with the evils of thought and practice that treat literature as a tool for revolutionary movement(s). Literary practice to confront the socio-economic contradiction that was structural and fixed from an abstract social-scientific perspective often simplified the reality of society where more diverse, complex and foreign situations coexisted and interpenetrated one another. In this regard, the reason Eunyoung Jin actively accepted Jacques Ranciere’s argument that emphasized the independent and creative confrontation of literary works, at least to overcome the abovementioned issue, rather than obsessing over the socio-economic foundation and the structural contradiction can be understood. In the end, regardless of the different socio-economic contexts between France and Korea, (it is clear that) the main idea for both Jacques Ranciere and Eunyoung Jin is the study and practice of possibilities. Eunyoung Jin is faithful to Ranciere’s fundamental principle that there is no pre-determined truth. Therefore, although the task of critically reviewing Eunyoung Jin`s understanding of Ranciere from a perspective of theoretical accuracy is necessary and has meaning, but is not without limitations as the focus of the problem is the study and practice of possibilities.

Belles-Lettres에서 Litterature로의 역사적 전환과정에 대한 Jacques Ranciere의 관점

정의진(Eui Jin JUNG) 프랑스학회 2016 프랑스학연구 Vol.75 No.-

La theorie de la philosophie politique et de l’esthetique de Jacques Ranciere, ayant de l’impact mondial sur les recherches dans plusieurs domaines de la science humaine, est egalement connue en Coree, surtout depuis 2008 avec la traduction de ses ouvrages majeurs comme Le Partage du sensible : Esthetique et politique ou Aux bords du politique. Quant a la recherche de la litterature, Politique de la litterature est largement cite et commente par les chercheurs et critiques litteraires. Or dans le champ de la recherche et critique litteraire coreen, il y a un cha non manquant. En s’interessant d’abord a l’aspect general de la theorie de Jacques Ranciere, on ne remarque pas suffisamment l’aspect specifique de sa theorie artistique et litteraire, basee sur l’histoire de la litterature francaise du 17eme siecle au 19eme siecle. Selon Jacques Ranciere, l’emergence premiere de la litterature est un phenomene particulierement francais parce que c’est la France des ⅩⅦ et ⅩⅧ qui avait fixe et impose a l’Europe les canons des Belles-Lettres. La destruction du modele des Belles-Lettres, a savoir la transition historique des Belles-Lettres a la litterature est donc plus clairement lisible en France. Jacques Ranciere definit d’abord quatre principes du modele des Belles-Lettres : primat de la fiction ; genericite de la representation, definie et hierarchisee selon le sujet represente ; convenance des moyens de la representation ; ideal de la parole en acte. Il montre ensuite le processus de son renversement en analysant la nouveaute du roman de Victor Hugo, Notre-Dame de Paris. Ainsi se figurent les principes de la poetique nouvelle, de la litterature : Au primat de la fiction s’oppose le primat du langage. A sa distribution en genres s’oppose le principe antigenerique de l’egalite de tous les sujets representes. Au principe de convenance s’oppose l’indifference du style a l’egard du sujet represente. A l’ideal de la parole en acte s’oppose le modele de l’ecriture.

'미학의 정치'에 있어 유희의 역할 : 랑시에르의 칸트 이해를 중심으로

성기현 이화여자대학교 이화인문과학원 2011 탈경계 인문학 Vol.4 No.3

The purpose of this paper is to read Ranciere's "Aesthetics as Politics" in relation to Kant's aesthetics. The relations between Ranciere and Kant are found in two aspects. The first is the re-joining of two meanings of aesthetics. Following Kant's terminology, aesthetics has been used in two different senses: as a theory of human sensibility and as a theory of art (more exactly, what he calls the "aesthetic regime of art"). Combining the two in his own way, Ranciere argues that politics has a characteristic of the theory of human sensibility (aesthetics of politics) in the same manner that the theory of art has a political characteristic (politics of aesthetics). Especially for the latter, the politics of aesthetics, he makes reference to Kant's "Analytic of Beauty" in the Critique of Judgment. Ranciere defines it as a politics of aesthetic experience/ education, for which Kant's concept of play is used as a theoretical model. In the Kantian sense, play means a sort of aesthetic attitude. It takes on a double role: The first is the transition from regulative judgment to reflective judgment. Through this transition, reason loses its control over sensibility. The second is the indifference of aesthetic judgment. Benefiting from this indifference, aesthetic judgment can assert its universality, despite being a singular judgment. Existing theories of modernism have explained the political function of art based on the autonomy of the artwork and the personality of the artist. Contrary to such theories, Ranciere insists that the main point of his aesthetics is in the aesthetic experience/education (more exactly, the possibility of expanding a certain aesthetic attitude, i.e., play), not in the artwork or the artist. However, the thing with Kant is, he only rediscovers the order of nature in play. In contrast to him, Ranciere expresses sympathy with Schiller's view, insisting on the advent of renewed humanity through aesthetic experience/education. If a new distribution of the sensible (Le partage du sensible) can be established, it would be possible in the aesthetic experience/ education acquired and expanded in play.

자기 해방으로서의 정치와 미학 -랑시에르의 정치와 미학의 동일성-

전혜림 ( Jeon Hye Rim ) 성균관대학교 인문학연구원(성균관대학교 인문과학연구소) 2017 人文科學 Vol.0 No.64

프랑스의 정치철학자 자크 랑시에르는 정치와 미학을 `감각적인 것의 나눔`의 문제로 파악함으로써 미학을 정치의 토대에 위치시킨다. 서양 고대 정치철학의 전통 안에서 정치는 인간 본성에 근거한 `자질`의 `나눔`으로 간주되었다. 각 개인들의 자질에 의해 그가 있어야 할 자리가 나누어지는 것이다. 하지만 랑시에르는 나눔이 정치의 토대가 아닌 정치의 대상이라고 주장하며 나눔 그 자체를 사유할 것을 촉구한다. 나눔은 장소들의 나눔이며, 이는 무엇이 중심에 있고 무엇이 주변에 있으며, 무엇이 안에 있고 무엇이 바깥에 있는지, 무엇이 보일 수 있고 무엇이 보일 수 없는가에 관한 경계들을 설정하는 것이다. 즉 나눔은 근본적으로, 시공간과 관련된 감각적인 것의 나눔인 것이다. 그리고 이것이 미학과 정치의 공통점이다. 미학과 정치 모두 감각적인 것의 나눔의 형식, 다른 말로, 감각적 경험의 문제이기 때문이다. 랑시에르의 정치에 대한 작업은 정치가 `미학적 문제`라는 것을 보여주기 위한 시도에 다름 아니며, 랑시에르의 예술론은 그의 정치철학을 경유해서만, 혹은 반대로, 그의 정치철학은 미학을 경유해서만 이해될 수 있다. 본고는 우선 랑시에르의 예술론을 그의 정치철학적 사유와의 연관성 속에서 살펴볼 것이다. 그리고 이 과정에서 랑시에르의 예술론이 가진 해방의 가능성과 더불어 거기에서 비롯되는 문제를 제기하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 랑시에르는 칸트와 실러의 미학이 보여주는 `탈정체화로서의 미적 실천`을 정치의 발생으로 파악한다. 하지만 미적 실천의 물질적 조건에 대해선 함구한다는 것과, 탈정체화를 핵심으로 하는 미적 실천을 곧바로 정치와 동일시한다는 점에서 논의의 여지를 남긴다. The uniqueness of Jacques Ranciere`s thought is that he grasps politics and aesthetics as the distribution of the sensible, and by doing so he locates aesthetics in the foundations of politics. Ancient political philosophy founds politics a distribution of faculties based on human nature. However, Ranciere argues the distribution is not the foundation of politics but the object of politics, and encourages us to think about the distribution itself. Distribution is the distribution of place, which is to establish borders regarding what is inside and what is outside, what is seen and what is not seen. That is to say, it is basically the distribution of the sensible, and it is what politics and aesthetics have in common. Aesthetics and politics, both of them are the matter of form of the distribution of the sensible and sensible experience. Ranciere`s work on politics is an attempt to show politics is a matter of aesthetics; therefore, his theory of art should be understandable through his political philosophy. This thesis aims at examining Ranciere`s theory of art by means of his political thought, and suggesting the limit of his thought.

텍스트의 정치: 버지니아 울프와 자크 랑시에르의 미학적 체제

이주리 ( Joori Lee ) 한국제임스조이스학회 2015 제임스조이스저널 Vol.21 No.1

This paper explores ways of rethinking politics of the works of Virginia Woolf with particular reference to Jacques Ranciere’s conceptions of the distribution of the sensible and the aesthetic regime of literature. Ranging from the feminist and marxist scholars from the 1970s to the critics today, a number of academic readers have struggled to draw political meanings from the textual surfaces of Woolf’s texts. Despite their contributions to placing Woolf’s works in political discourse on class, gender, and nation, their studies have been exclusively focused on the act of deciphering political codes and symbols inscribed in her texts. In challenge of the critical reception in which Woolf’s texts are reduced to political allegories, this paper seeks to argue that the works of Woolf become political not because her texts convey the author’s political messages but because they engender new forms of discourse, what Ranciere called an aesthetic regime or a dissensual community. Relating Woolf with Ranciere, both of whom believe that politics begins when impossibilities are challenged, this paper presents the ways in which Woolf’s texts create the “dissensual” effects on the existing social system. By focusing on two lectures addressed to working-class men and women, this paper is to reconsider the politics of Woolf’s texts.

공동의 공간형성의 관점에서 바라본 화면에서 스크린으로의 전환에 대한 고찰

김희영(Hee-Young Kim) 서양미술사학회 2013 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.39 No.-

This paper pays attention to a conceptual path from the picture plane to the screen by alluding to the metaphor of the window, with which Alberti invented the perspectival system in Renaissance, and goes on to investigate the socio-cultural, aesthetic, and political implications of the screen-based art by referring to Jacques Ranciere’s notion of the aesthetic regime. It starts with the material and conceptual continuity between the flat surface of canvas and that of screen, on which reality has been represented to be open onto other worlds. A medium is essential for the work of art as a physical and conceptual site. It is a space where images are made, viewed, and interacted with the viewer. Yet, Greenbergian Modernism has crystallized the medium of picture plane into an autonomous realm of art, separating it from life. Against the autonomy in art, Ranciere proposes to embrace differences to revitalize art deprived of life. To remedy the lost link between art and life, he stresses that the picture plane has never been as pure as the Modernist aesthetic claims because it is contaminated by ideas and words. Taking on Ranciere’s notion of the flat surface as “a surface of conversion,” this paper examines the screen as an arena, in which conventional boundaries are blurred. The binaries of inside and outside, front and back, here and there, now and then, the material and the immaterial, the self and the other no longer determine and condition our perception of the world. Owing to the technological development, the screen has radically transformed our viewing experience and challenged the traditional relation between the self and the world. This paper asserts the theoretical relevance of Ranciere’s notion of the aesthetic regime in understanding the goal of new media art. As opposed to the representative regime, the aesthetic regime eliminates the hierarchy imposed on the rules of representation, thereby asserting equality among differences. By provoking the viewing subject to become an active participator, physically and conceptually, the screen-based art has contributed to generating changes in life as well as in art. In search of the active meaning of the new media art, this paper ultimately aims to resurface its embedded spirit of the avant-garde, which seeks to bring life back into art.

설치예술이 지니는 정치성, 네트워크와 그 언설에 있다

김영미(Kim Young mi) 중국문화연구학회 2015 중국문화연구 Vol.0 No.27

This paper has its focus on examining two contemporary Chinese artists, Ai Weiwei and Huang Yongping, and the politics that is created by a discourse strategy in the works of these two installation artists. The main focus of this essay are twofold. One is the materiality that is in the installation artwork itself. This indicates a one-time, space taking and planetary object in the artwork. This kind of installation artwork that contains a planetary characteristic forms a discourse that uses a metaphor which does not indicate the reality directly. The other is the futility that is within the artwork. The phrase “No use for anything” indicates everyone aesthetically or economically, and the artwork that is visible to the naked eye is made up of things that have nothing to do with political issues. These works are made impossible to be a private artwork or goes through a list of a stunning visualization and incredible size for the audience to experience a event-like nature. This is new form of knowledge network operation that does not become abandoned. Intense feelings that the artwork gives does not directly contact with the physical materialization that the artwork shows, but the message that the artwork gives is strongly performed. Therefore by a new discourse strategy that is created between Ai Weiwei and Huang Yongping that contains the two natures above, the matter that is created by a materialization and the abstraction that seems useless embodies into the political domain. In addition, the overall framework of this paper, so to speak, submitting invisible testimonies and the theory that artworks can be made political through the materializing operation was brought from Jacques Ranciere.

월북문인 해금의 이면—‘불화’의 소멸 그 이후

김미지 구보학회 2018 구보학보 Vol.0 No.20

This study examines the politics of ‘the lifting of the publish ban’ on the writers who went to North Korea during the Korean War, by focussing on two symbolic scenes before and after the lifting of the ban. In Korea after the Korean War, publishing and research on the works of writers(artists) who chose communist North Korea were strictly banned for several decades. Before the official announcement of ‘the lifting’ in July 7th 1988, a son of poet Jung Ji-yong appealed that his father did not voluntarily go to the North, that is, he was forcibly taken to there, therefore works of Jung Ji-yong should be(could be) released. This request lasted for several years but South Korean government based on the security police and military force didn’t accept it before the democratization of 1987. Inside of the police order which devide and exclude ‘the sensible’(Jacques Ranciere’s term), politics or strategy of ‘identification’ (voluntary/forcible moving to the North) was not efficient. On the other hand, after the lifting of the ban in 1988, the most important issue on publishing released works was copyright problem. The North Korean writer’s heirs who lived in South Korea earned and approved the status of copywriters. And in this aspect, a publisher, who had fought for long time against the police government by publishing ‘banned books’, instituted lawsuits against the government for its illegal confiscation and ban which it had committed before the lifting. The publisher lost lawsuits because he was not qualified as a copyrighter. But this judicial events evoked that discords among political subjects never finished after 1987-1988, and democracy after the democratization were always problematic in the police order. 이 글은 1988년 발표된 월북문인 해금이라는 사건의 ‘이면’을 들여다보기 위해 쓰인 것으로, 1988년 7월 19일 이전과 이후 즉 월북작가와 그들의 작품이 공안 질서(사법, 제도) 바깥에 있었던 시절과 그들이 치안 질서의 내부로 들어온 이후에 벌어진 일을 두 개의 상징적인 장면으로 들여다보았다. 해금 이전, 한국의 공안 질서는 여느 치안의 질서와 마찬가지로 보고 듣고 말할 수 있는 것들을 끊임없이 분할하며 정체성을 규정하고 배제된 타자들을 만들어냈지만 ‘정체성의 정치’는 그 공안의 질서에 맞서 할 수 있는 것이 별로 없었음을 한 납북작가 아들의 절절한 호소가 보여준다. 정지용 아들이 ‘아버지는 월북이 아닌 납북’임을 확인받고 또 주장하며 해금을 요청했던 수 년 동안의 노력에도 민주주의와는 거리가 멀었던 공안 권력은 요지부동이었기 때문이다. 한편 해금 이전부터 끊임없이 공안 정치 세력과 싸웠던(불화했던) 한 출판사 대표는 사법체계 안으로 들어온 해금의 문제에 역시 이의를 제기하면서 불화가 끝난 시점에 다시 싸움을 시작했다. 월북작가 작품을 둘러싼 사법적 계쟁은 불온 문서를 출판했느냐, 이적표현물이냐의 범주가 더 이상 아니라 ‘저작권’ 문제로 전환되었고 남한의 유족들에 대한 저작권은 거의 전적으로 속속 인정되었다. 출판사 사계절이 출간한 『임꺽정』은 해금 이전에는 금지된 ‘불온문서’였고 해금 이후에는 저작권을 확보하지 않은 ‘해적판’이 되었다. 따라서 이 싸움은 어쩌면 당연히도 실패가 예정돼 있었던 매우 불리한 싸움이었다. 그러나 거듭된 재판과 항소, 기각, 패소의 과정에서 이 싸움은 사법적 계쟁의 한계와 불일치를 드러내며 새로운 불화의 장, 정치적 주체화의 가능성을 열어 보였기에 완전히 무의미한 도전은 아니었다. ‘해금’이라는 사건이 ‘문학사의 새 전기’임을 넘어서 진정 문제적인 것은 바로 민주화(합의민주주의) 이후의 민주주의, 불화의 소멸 이후의 민주주의를 사고하는 데 있어서 하나의 가능성의 계기를 열었다는 점일 것이다.

자크 랑시에르의 평등 개념 : 평등 개념의 방법론적 위상에 대한 분석을 중심으로

정의진(Jung, Euijin) 인천대학교 인문학연구소 2021 인문학연구 Vol.36 No.-

자크 랑시에르의 작업을 관통하는 핵심 문제의식은 평등이다. 랑시에르에게서 평등의 문제는 연구의 기본 대상이자, 이 개념을 통해 사유의 형식과 전개 양상이 구체화 되는 이론적 방법론의 위상을 동시에 점하고 있다. 그의 평등 개념은 역사학, 정치철학, 미학, 문학론, 이미지론 등 랑시에르의 작업과 연계된 연구 영역이 변화하는 과정을 관통한다. 평등 개념이 랑시에르의 작업 전반을 가로지르고 있는 만큼, 이 개념은 다양한 해석과 논쟁의 대상이다. 그런데 그에게서 평등 개념은 이론적인 개념인 동시에 구체적인 실천적 개념이기도 하다. 랑시에르의 평등의 방법론은 1968년 5월 운동을 전후한 시기 그의 정치적 경험, 이에 연계된 그의 이론적 작업, 이로부터 촉발된 1830년 7월 혁명 이후의 노동자들의 글에 대한 연구 등을 모태로 하고 있다. 현재적 상황에 대한 역사적 성찰을 통해 문제를 재구성해 나가는 랑시에르 이론의 실천적 성격을 포괄적으로 고려할 때, 그의 평등 개념의 방법론적 역동성을 이해할 수 있다. Jacques Ranciere’s core consciousness of a problem that consistently penetrates his works is equality. To Ranciere, the issue of equality is not only the basic subject of research, but also occupies the lofty position within theoretical methodology to realize the form of thinking and development aspect through this concept. The concept of equality is evident Ranciere’s overall work, so this concept serves as the object of various interpretations and disagreements. However, his concept of equality is not only a theoretical concept, but also a very concrete and practical notion. The dynamic nature of his theory on equality originated from his own political experiences around the May Movement in 1968, his theoretical work connected to it, and his research on laborers’ personal notes after the July Revolution in 1830 which were triggered by it.