도자사 연구에서 '수용(受容)'의 문제 (The Matter of 'Reception' in Study of Ceramic history)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국미술사교육학회
· 수록지 정보 : 미술사학 / 21권 / 293 ~ 322페이지
· 저자명 : 장남원

초록

The idea of ‘reception’ was adopted from ‘reception-aesthetics Rezeptionsasthetik.’ It refers to the act of reading, understanding and perceiving a work of literature. It is a criticism against traditional artist-centered or formalist perspective and description in art history, through which started the study in literature based on centrality of the reader, who would understand the historical character of art in a reception-aesthetical way. According to reception-aesthetics, a work of literature as a text is only completed through a communicative process of reception by the reader, and has as its objective the analysis of the process of reception, which is the final stage in completing a piece of literature.
The history of ceramics is categorized as ‘industrial art’ within art history, but at the same time, it has attained a somewhat meaningful sphere due to the abundance of material and the development of particular research methodology specific to the genre of ceramics. In addition to the accumulation of original material attained through excavation, the increase of relics that are worthy of analysis and that have been gained from descent through generations and collections, is faster and broader than any other area in art history. Therefore, chronological work is being done as well as primary archeological categorization and interpretation, and it has become a general trend to also study the detailed form and production technology.
However, in the study of ceramics history, we have now passed the stage whereby one would consider ceramics simply as artwork for sentimental appreciation or work of one particular artist–work that delivers a fixed meaning or an object for formative or aesthetic observation. It is a well known fact that, since long ago, in the study of ceramics history, only a multilateral approach will allow a three-dimensional interpretation. Recently, quite a few researchers have expressed their agreement to this perspective. However, in the study of ceramics history, the matter of ‘reception’ is difficult to be dealt as an independent research method, and is instead adopted as a complementary methodology. This thesis proposes the expansion of research area from the perspective of ‘reception,’ as follows: (1) Consumption and circulation–The rebirth of the user / (2) Reflection in the production process: The receptive perspective of the producer / (3) The tradition formed by the recipient: The usage and labelling of ceramics / (4) Collection and appreciation.
Of course, in the study of ceramics history, basic matters such as chronology and form have not been solved and remain debatable. Moreover, materials that need to be solved continuously accumulate. Therefore, there is still a lot to be done in terms of traditional research centered on the production site or producer, such as the study of kilns, workshops, sedimentary layers, artisans, materials, technology and chronology. However, a multilateral and an in-depth approach to the content can be possible when research centered on the producer is done together with the study from the perspective of the recipient. The wild enthusiasm for the Full Moon Jar during late Chosun period, or the masterpiece exhibitions that expanded this enthusiasm were new traditions made by recipients. Understanding of ceramics focusing on masterpieces made ceramics, which were everyday goods for thousands of years, become ‘creation’ and ‘art work.’ Therefore, an approach to texts such as artifacts that have been handed down across generations and fragments, and to general recipients who circulated and used these ceramics, are very much needed in study of ceramics history.

영어초록

The idea of ‘reception’ was adopted from ‘reception-aesthetics Rezeptionsasthetik.’ It refers to the act of reading, understanding and perceiving a work of literature. It is a criticism against traditional artist-centered or formalist perspective and description in art history, through which started the study in literature based on centrality of the reader, who would understand the historical character of art in a reception-aesthetical way. According to reception-aesthetics, a work of literature as a text is only completed through a communicative process of reception by the reader, and has as its objective the analysis of the process of reception, which is the final stage in completing a piece of literature.
The history of ceramics is categorized as ‘industrial art’ within art history, but at the same time, it has attained a somewhat meaningful sphere due to the abundance of material and the development of particular research methodology specific to the genre of ceramics. In addition to the accumulation of original material attained through excavation, the increase of relics that are worthy of analysis and that have been gained from descent through generations and collections, is faster and broader than any other area in art history. Therefore, chronological work is being done as well as primary archeological categorization and interpretation, and it has become a general trend to also study the detailed form and production technology.
However, in the study of ceramics history, we have now passed the stage whereby one would consider ceramics simply as artwork for sentimental appreciation or work of one particular artist–work that delivers a fixed meaning or an object for formative or aesthetic observation. It is a well known fact that, since long ago, in the study of ceramics history, only a multilateral approach will allow a three-dimensional interpretation. Recently, quite a few researchers have expressed their agreement to this perspective. However, in the study of ceramics history, the matter of ‘reception’ is difficult to be dealt as an independent research method, and is instead adopted as a complementary methodology. This thesis proposes the expansion of research area from the perspective of ‘reception,’ as follows: (1) Consumption and circulation–The rebirth of the user / (2) Reflection in the production process: The receptive perspective of the producer / (3) The tradition formed by the recipient: The usage and labelling of ceramics / (4) Collection and appreciation.
Of course, in the study of ceramics history, basic matters such as chronology and form have not been solved and remain debatable. Moreover, materials that need to be solved continuously accumulate. Therefore, there is still a lot to be done in terms of traditional research centered on the production site or producer, such as the study of kilns, workshops, sedimentary layers, artisans, materials, technology and chronology. However, a multilateral and an in-depth approach to the content can be possible when research centered on the producer is done together with the study from the perspective of the recipient. The wild enthusiasm for the Full Moon Jar during late Chosun period, or the masterpiece exhibitions that expanded this enthusiasm were new traditions made by recipients. Understanding of ceramics focusing on masterpieces made ceramics, which were everyday goods for thousands of years, become ‘creation’ and ‘art work.’ Therefore, an approach to texts such as artifacts that have been handed down across generations and fragments, and to general recipients who circulated and used these ceramics, are very much needed in study of ceramics history.

참고자료

· 없음