국사형 미술사의 영욕: 조선 후기 회화의 해석과 평가 문제
* 본 문서는 배포용으로 복사 및 편집이 불가합니다.
서지정보
ㆍ발행기관 : 한국미술연구소
ㆍ수록지정보 : 美術史論壇 / 33권
ㆍ저자명 : 홍선표
ㆍ저자명 : 홍선표
영어 초록
One of the most important issues in art history is how to evaluate and interpret the significance of artworks within specific historical contexts. Matters of evaluation and interpretation in art historical studies are inseparable from the art historian’s nationality, political and historical views, and ideological perspectives. This is why works of art have had different values and significances according to each art historian’s judgment criteria. The modern discipline of Korean art history was founded by Japanese scholars during the Japanese colonial period(1910-1945). The invention of Korean art history was closely related to the Japanese enterprise of nationalism, whose essential features were introduced to Japan from Germany. Japanese scholars used nationalism as a means of glorifying the culture and history of Japan. For nationalist purposes, art history served to highlight the timeless value of Japanese art. The notion of masterpieces and monuments in Japanese art was greatly emphasized in nationalist art history in order to perpetuate the myth of a national past and identity. Nationalist art history was primarily concerned with the justification of ethnocentric supremacy, a belief in the superiority of one ethnicity over others. In nationalist art historical writings, works of art were considered the cultural and visual expressions of national identities. The origins of Korean art history stemmed from Japanese nationalist art historical discourses. Following the footsteps of Japanese nationalist art historians, Korean art historians greatly emphasized the glory of the national past and the creation of the myth of national purity and supremacy. The primary task of art historians was to discover various aspects of Koreanness in works of art. The celebration of Koreanness closely associated with the patriotic spirit of nationalist art history has played a central role in the evaluation and interpretation of late Joseon painting(1392-1910). Kim Hong-do’s(1745-after 1806) genre painting and Chŏng Sŏn’s(1676-1759) true-view landscape painting were considered visual representations of Koreanness and gained enormous attention in art historical writings. Issues of nationalism, colonialism, and post-colonialism have been discussed in the field of Korean art history. The problems of Koreanness have also been much debated. Competing viewpoints and perspectives will provide a critical reexamination of the origins and current status of Korean art history and offer alternative ways of understanding how Korean art must be evaluated and interpreted within the larger context of East Asian art. The notion of ‘East Asian art history’ is of great significance in moving beyond the prejudices and shortcomings of nationalist Korean art history. Comparative perspectives will lay the foundation for a new Korean art history. The field of Korean art history must embrace a wide range of new methods and interdisciplinary approaches to reestablish itself as a humanistic discipline. More attention has to be paid to the dynamics of artistic interaction among China, Korea, and Japan to expand the territory of Korean art history.참고 자료
없음"美術史論壇"의 다른 논문
창작과 평가: 요로즈 데츠고로 <풍선을 든 여인>을 중심으로17페이지
愛情의 誤謬: 鄭敾에 대한 평가와 서술의 문제27페이지
산수장권 고찰: 셋슈(雪舟)에 대한 재평가를 위하여35페이지
石濤, 近代의 個性이라는 평가의 시선30페이지
에도 시대 초기 풍속화의 표현세계24페이지
중국 〈郭子儀祝壽圖〉 연구: 연원과 발전38페이지
北宋·金代 裝飾古墳의 소개와 기초 분석34페이지
日本 아이치 현(愛知縣) 지역 조선시대 전기 불화의 조사 연구33페이지
비교맥락적 관점에서 살펴본 러시아 리얼리즘 미술25페이지
심포지엄 보고(일본 / 한국)14페이지