신미술사 vs. 시각문화연구: T.J. 클락과 키스 먹시의 미술사론 비교연구 (New Art History vs. Visual Culture Study: A Comparative Study on the Art Historical Theories of T.J. Clark and Keith Moxey)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 서양미술사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 서양미술사학회 논문집 / 35호 / 113 ~ 138페이지
· 저자명 : 강미정

초록

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.

영어초록

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.

참고자료

· 없음