생몰정보
소속
직위
직업
활동분야
주기
서지
국회도서관 서비스 이용에 대한 안내를 해드립니다.
검색결과 (전체 1건)
원문 있는 자료 (1) 열기
원문 아이콘이 없는 경우 국회도서관 방문 시 책자로 이용 가능
목차보기더보기
목차
1970년대 이후 영국 '신미술사(New Art History)'의 방법론 : 클락(T. J. Clark)과 폴록(G. Pollock)의 미술사 담론의 형성과 영향 / 全英柏 1
I. 글을 열며 1
II. 신미술사에 대한 '별칭'들 2
1. 클락의 '미술의 사회사' 4
2. 폴록의 '후기구조주의 미술사' 11
III. 글을 마치며 19
[주] 21
[참고문헌] 28
[요약] 30
초록보기 더보기
방법론의 차원에서 '신'미술사학의 혁신은 미술사의 역사에 큰 족적을 남겼고 그 이름은 이제 더 이상 낯선 용어가 아니다. 그러나 신미술사라는 명칭은 ‘새롭다’는 뜻 외에 내용적인 설명을 전달하지 못한다. 논문은 그 새로웠던 방법론을 당시 맥락에서 되새겨보고, 그것에 영향을 준 근본 사상이 구체적인 작품의 해설에 어떻게 작용하는가를 고찰하고자 한다. 따라서 이 글은 1975년부터 형성된 신미술사학의 문화적 배경과 그 담론적 토대를 고찰하는 연구라 할 수 있다. 구체적인 사례연구로 대표적 신미술사가인 클락(T.J.Clark)과 폴록(G. Pollock)의 방법론을 집중적으로 다룬다. 더불어, 90년대 이후 시각문화연구의 출현 또한 신미술사와의 연계성으로 제시한다.The name of 'new art history' was turned up when Block and its seed-bed Middlesex Polytechnic held a conference in 1982 on 'The New Art History?'. Since the first public use of the discipline in England, it has gained many names such as 'social history of art', 'radical art history', 'critical art history' and 'post-structuralist art history'.
Those art historians under the name of new art history have developed a critique of the traditional art history, and pursued what could be called a 'horizontal' study of an object or range of objects. That is to say, they've highlighted the social conditions under which it was made, for whom, by whom, and most importantly, how it is signified in the cultural context. They've regarded that art is not hermetic and autonomous, but bound up with the social and economic structure of its time, as well as conditioned by artistic tradition and institutions.
That all sounds natural in terms of methodology of art history in these days. But it was received rather 'radical' back in 1970s - to be exact, in 1975 at Leeds University when MA course under the name of Social History of Art began. It means that new art history has drastically affected on the discourse of art history for the last 35 years. This research thus has been launched especially to look into academical backdrop and intellectual influence on this 'new' methodology of art history. I thought that it is necessary to take into account the British cultural background, its intellectual tendency in particular in which new art history was formed to be an established academic discipline.
This paper, therefore, explores what grounds under the discourse of new art history in terms of theoretical methods and how it works to the point of reading certain artworks in specific time and space from multi-layered perspectives. Among them, Timothy.J.Clark and Griselda Pollock are the representative art historians who are dealt in detail in this research. The former is introduced along the category of Social History of Art of which theoretical backdrop is mainly from Neo-Marxism. And the latter's perspective is shown as is charged with post-structuralist theories especially of Foucault and Lacan.
What Clark counts most in his sociological approach of art history is, above all, class and its social apparatus in visual representation. He has always shown however that artworks are only really intelligible within accounts that demonstrates their complex 'situatedness' within many contexts of relation to other forms of historical evidence.
On the other, in Pollock's case, sexual difference and its configuration in signifying network is what has been most concerned. Devoted to methodological approaches of semiotics and psychoanalysis particularly, she has been keen on what could be represented and what could not, focusing on sexuality and race as well as class.
Apart from their different approaches, Clark and Pollock as new art historians have pit themselves against the dominant art-historical account of history as anaemic background or inert backdrop to study the work of art, then they are equally critical of the 'mechanistic Marxist's notion that artworks simply 'reflect' ideologies, social relations, and history. Clark's and Pollock's social history of art has remained focused on questions to do with the way to make sense of specific artworks. In this paper, this has been analysed in relation to the British positivist tradition, which avoided general theoretical ideas in favour of piecemeal and eclectic approaches to their subjects.
Influenced by the revolutionary move set in 1968, new art history can be said to be an intellectual product of the late-sixties tolerance for left-wing and 'continental' ideas which has changed the nature of academic methods of art history. Since then, traditional style scholarship such as formalism and iconography has been challenged by new art historians like Clark and Pollock who were affected by the sixties brand of marxism and post-structuralism. In this paper I attempted to show how their fundamental bases for their methodology actually work in their reading of art works. Clark's reading of Courbet and Pollock's reading of Degas were examplified as case studies among many.
The issues that the new art history challenged are still in much use in most current art histories. Those are the tradition's claim to be value-free, its belief in the impartiality or neutrality of historians, its suspicion of theoretical reflection, its ignorance of aesthetics and criticism, its obsession with fact-gathering and its blindness to social structures and political conditions. Those criticism came up with the critical aspiration of the new generation of art history at that time. It seems important to trace and learn from the way new art history challenged and thus pushed the boundary of its discipline in order to cope with demands and enquiries of art history today.
권호기사보기
참고문헌 (26건) : 자료제공( 네이버학술정보 )더보기
원문구축 및 2018년 이후 자료는 524호에서 직접 열람하십시요.
도서위치안내: / 서가번호:
우편복사 목록담기를 완료하였습니다.
* 표시는 필수사항 입니다.
* 주의: 국회도서관 이용자 모두에게 공유서재로 서비스 됩니다.
저장 되었습니다.
로그인을 하시려면 아이디와 비밀번호를 입력해주세요. 모바일 간편 열람증으로 입실한 경우 회원가입을 해야합니다.
공용 PC이므로 한번 더 로그인 해 주시기 바랍니다.
아이디 또는 비밀번호를 확인해주세요
