미술사, 신미술사, 시각문화연구 (Art History, New Art History, and Visual Culture Studies)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국미학회
· 수록지 정보 : 美學(미학) / 58호 / 113 ~ 151페이지
· 저자명 : 조주연

초록

The Arthistoriography goes far back to the Antiquity, but the history of Art History as a discipline in the modern academic institution just began as late as in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Looking back upon this history, two critical moments are found which has brought the radical changes in its crust: the early 1970s and the late 1980s. While the first decade is remembered as the time when new attempts within Art History called as 'new Art History' came out, the second as the time when newer attempts not just within Art History called as 'Visual Culture Studies' appeared. Since its appearance, new Art History has expanded the subjects and methods of Art History. Subjects like class, gender, and race, and methods like Marxism, Feminism, and Post-colonialism were introduced in the field of Art History which had been a very narrow and aloof discipline concentrating on the art of aesthetic value by the method of Positivism. The expansion of Art History as new Art History was something we would welcome, as it made immanent both art and Art History. As time goes by, however, the explosion of subjects and methods in new Art History got so much entangled that it becomes riddlesome to get the map of it. This article is an attempt to draw the map of new Art History.
If the dominant paradigm of 'old' Art History was, say, aesthetic positivism, that of new Art History is the social history of art. This means not just that new Art History began as the social history of art, but it became expansive to include a variety of subjects and methods. Since its beginning in the early 1970s, the social histories of art expanded its subject from class to gender and race, and its method from Marxism to Feminism and Postcolonialism. The tenor which brings together these different subjects and methods is the common perspective about art as social product. As such, social historians of art in the broad sense regard art as having historical truth, and their practice is composed of investigating as much context as possible which would help them find out and establish that truth.
What is interesting, however expansive the social history of art gets, there seems one exception in the map of new Art History: Post-structuralist Art History. Post-structuralism entered relatively late in the discipline in the late 1980s. Looking at the rising of visual culture, a group of scholars in the new Art History took the theory to activate the discipline from the persperctive of the present. They saw linguistic turn as pivotal, and argued that no one could reach beyond text the historical reality which the social historians of art called 'context'. They see context as constructive as text, and regard both of them as something to interpret.
In conclusion, the history of Art History as an academic discipline can be distinguished in 3 parts. The old Art History from the 19th century to the mid 20th century had art of aesthetic value as its object and positivism as its method based on realism about historial reality and correspondence theory about historical truth. The new Art History appeared since the early 1970s, the mainstream of which is the social history of art, and as such it had art of historical value as its object and various theories from Marxism to Postcolonialism as its method. The old and new Art Histories are very different in their objects and methods, but still they shared common premises on historical reality and truth. Both of them believe that the work of art is an embodiment of this or that value which is real either in the transendental realm or in the immanent world, and the arthistorian is someone who tries to find out that value, no matter what methods she or he would use. When she or he discover the evidence to support that value, she or he can be said also to discover the truth about that value. That the historian can approach to the value of art, and record its truth is what the Post-structuralist historians of art deny. They see their job not as recording but as interpreting. To decide what to interpret is the concern of the present.

영어초록

The Arthistoriography goes far back to the Antiquity, but the history of Art History as a discipline in the modern academic institution just began as late as in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Looking back upon this history, two critical moments are found which has brought the radical changes in its crust: the early 1970s and the late 1980s. While the first decade is remembered as the time when new attempts within Art History called as 'new Art History' came out, the second as the time when newer attempts not just within Art History called as 'Visual Culture Studies' appeared. Since its appearance, new Art History has expanded the subjects and methods of Art History. Subjects like class, gender, and race, and methods like Marxism, Feminism, and Post-colonialism were introduced in the field of Art History which had been a very narrow and aloof discipline concentrating on the art of aesthetic value by the method of Positivism. The expansion of Art History as new Art History was something we would welcome, as it made immanent both art and Art History. As time goes by, however, the explosion of subjects and methods in new Art History got so much entangled that it becomes riddlesome to get the map of it. This article is an attempt to draw the map of new Art History.
If the dominant paradigm of 'old' Art History was, say, aesthetic positivism, that of new Art History is the social history of art. This means not just that new Art History began as the social history of art, but it became expansive to include a variety of subjects and methods. Since its beginning in the early 1970s, the social histories of art expanded its subject from class to gender and race, and its method from Marxism to Feminism and Postcolonialism. The tenor which brings together these different subjects and methods is the common perspective about art as social product. As such, social historians of art in the broad sense regard art as having historical truth, and their practice is composed of investigating as much context as possible which would help them find out and establish that truth.
What is interesting, however expansive the social history of art gets, there seems one exception in the map of new Art History: Post-structuralist Art History. Post-structuralism entered relatively late in the discipline in the late 1980s. Looking at the rising of visual culture, a group of scholars in the new Art History took the theory to activate the discipline from the persperctive of the present. They saw linguistic turn as pivotal, and argued that no one could reach beyond text the historical reality which the social historians of art called 'context'. They see context as constructive as text, and regard both of them as something to interpret.
In conclusion, the history of Art History as an academic discipline can be distinguished in 3 parts. The old Art History from the 19th century to the mid 20th century had art of aesthetic value as its object and positivism as its method based on realism about historial reality and correspondence theory about historical truth. The new Art History appeared since the early 1970s, the mainstream of which is the social history of art, and as such it had art of historical value as its object and various theories from Marxism to Postcolonialism as its method. The old and new Art Histories are very different in their objects and methods, but still they shared common premises on historical reality and truth. Both of them believe that the work of art is an embodiment of this or that value which is real either in the transendental realm or in the immanent world, and the arthistorian is someone who tries to find out that value, no matter what methods she or he would use. When she or he discover the evidence to support that value, she or he can be said also to discover the truth about that value. That the historian can approach to the value of art, and record its truth is what the Post-structuralist historians of art deny. They see their job not as recording but as interpreting. To decide what to interpret is the concern of the present.

참고자료

· 없음