1970년대 이후 한국미술의 내셔널리즘과 미술비평 (Bias in Art Criticism: Looking through the Nationalism in Korean Art since 1970s)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서양미술사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 서양미술사학회 논문집 / 31호 / 267 ~ 291페이지
· 저자명 : 정헌이

초록

This article started from the question as “what relation does art criticism has to a discourse of identity?”. That ‘nationalism’ is brought as one of discourse of identity is because ‘nationalism’ relates to a border distinguishing ‘the inside’ and ‘the outside’ despite a number of abates surrounding the term. This writing is divided into three parts as a whole. First part will examine the notion of nationality in relation to art criticism. What do the nationalities mean when we say for example, “American Type Painting”, “German Neo Expressionism”, “Young British Artists”? Is it just the nationality to which the artist belong? Or is it a specific trend that identifies the national origin? Second part will generally explore the problem of nationalism in the recent history of Korean art and art criticism. I will expecially study the case of “Minjok Girokhwa(Documentary Paintings for the Korean People)” of 1970s, and the case of “Minjoong Misul(People’s Art Movement)” of 1980s. The final part will discuss the relationship between nationalism and art critical practice. If art criticism lost its critical vantage point from which to make an aesthetic judgment, how will a critic from the third world critically be able to reveal “difference” of the culture he or she belongs to?
Recent post-colonial arguments were pointing out that overheated nationalism in independent nations after colony these days challenges imperialistic culture too easily, and unmaturely refuses it. Accepting nationalism is to receive the racial, religious and political separation imposed by imperialism. Then, “will to such difference” falls into self-defeating excuse to be resulted in understanding his or her society as defensive and negative compared to the counterpart, far more developed western world. Since it simply repeats dichotomized contradictory structure and hierarchy of a discourse on colony.
However, in the political, economic and cultural context of globalized international capitalism nowadays, the issue as to how non-western, non-European countries will initiatively participate is not properly theorized as yet. Nationalism is laid in conflicting desire. It maintains support for development for the future, strong attachment and nostalgia to convention and tradition. Thus nationalism is paradox encouraging something to go forward a target with face toward the past, and it can’t help being disrupted by this paradox.
This paper attempted to specifically investigate how this paradox functions in Korean circumstances. This is paradox, so does not come up with a solution, but it is expected that nationalism is a discourse on both identity and subjectivity, so that art criticism will more effectively perform its parametric play by shifting dischotomized border called ‘the inside’ and ‘the outside’ to more relational and indra-network mechanism. The failure of nationalism may have been stemmed not from the fact that they do not exist, but an excessive attachment to that they can be found. Like a zen monk’s “hwadu” for example, the query of “what is this?”, the question concerning one’s own identity or subjectivity cannot be avoided if only it is just to arrive to the point of enlightenment of “nothing there” Art critics always reposit the questions for the artworks as a kind of their own way of cultural participation.

영어초록

This article started from the question as “what relation does art criticism has to a discourse of identity?”. That ‘nationalism’ is brought as one of discourse of identity is because ‘nationalism’ relates to a border distinguishing ‘the inside’ and ‘the outside’ despite a number of abates surrounding the term. This writing is divided into three parts as a whole. First part will examine the notion of nationality in relation to art criticism. What do the nationalities mean when we say for example, “American Type Painting”, “German Neo Expressionism”, “Young British Artists”? Is it just the nationality to which the artist belong? Or is it a specific trend that identifies the national origin? Second part will generally explore the problem of nationalism in the recent history of Korean art and art criticism. I will expecially study the case of “Minjok Girokhwa(Documentary Paintings for the Korean People)” of 1970s, and the case of “Minjoong Misul(People’s Art Movement)” of 1980s. The final part will discuss the relationship between nationalism and art critical practice. If art criticism lost its critical vantage point from which to make an aesthetic judgment, how will a critic from the third world critically be able to reveal “difference” of the culture he or she belongs to?
Recent post-colonial arguments were pointing out that overheated nationalism in independent nations after colony these days challenges imperialistic culture too easily, and unmaturely refuses it. Accepting nationalism is to receive the racial, religious and political separation imposed by imperialism. Then, “will to such difference” falls into self-defeating excuse to be resulted in understanding his or her society as defensive and negative compared to the counterpart, far more developed western world. Since it simply repeats dichotomized contradictory structure and hierarchy of a discourse on colony.
However, in the political, economic and cultural context of globalized international capitalism nowadays, the issue as to how non-western, non-European countries will initiatively participate is not properly theorized as yet. Nationalism is laid in conflicting desire. It maintains support for development for the future, strong attachment and nostalgia to convention and tradition. Thus nationalism is paradox encouraging something to go forward a target with face toward the past, and it can’t help being disrupted by this paradox.
This paper attempted to specifically investigate how this paradox functions in Korean circumstances. This is paradox, so does not come up with a solution, but it is expected that nationalism is a discourse on both identity and subjectivity, so that art criticism will more effectively perform its parametric play by shifting dischotomized border called ‘the inside’ and ‘the outside’ to more relational and indra-network mechanism. The failure of nationalism may have been stemmed not from the fact that they do not exist, but an excessive attachment to that they can be found. Like a zen monk’s “hwadu” for example, the query of “what is this?”, the question concerning one’s own identity or subjectivity cannot be avoided if only it is just to arrive to the point of enlightenment of “nothing there” Art critics always reposit the questions for the artworks as a kind of their own way of cultural participation.

참고자료

· 없음