http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 마순자(馬淳子) (검색결과 24 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
마순자(馬淳子) 한국미술연구소 2002 美術史論壇 Vol.- No.14
Landscape painting is the type of work in which natural scenery is the essential visual motif. 111e classicism in art is on the other hand characterised through it's normative form with spiritual and moral meaning. The different nature of the two resulting from the naturalism of the one and formal and normative nature of the other raises me question how the two, me landscape painting and the classicism could be united and formed into me classical landscape painting and what does the 'classical landscape painting' mean. This paper aims to clarify the historical process in which the classical landscape painting had been established as a proper genre and to review some of it's conceptual features, The classical landscape painting had been formed during 16-17th century. It was also during these period that the landscape painting had been acknowledged as an independent genre in alt. In the beginning of the 18th century Roger de Piles mentioned the concept 'classical landscape painting' for the first time, He classified the classical landscape painting into 'heroic' and 'pastoral'. As the representative of the heroic he named Nicolas Poussin and the pastoral Tiziano. De Piles valued heroic landscape especially highly as the greatest classical landscape painting because of its formal strictness and moral content. But he did not estimate Claude Lorrain's landscapes as classical because he thought Claude's paintings didn't fulfill the academic norm. Through the influence of de Piles the Academy of the late 18th century in France named the heroic genre as 'the historical landscape painting' De Piles defined the classical landscape painting as the depiction, not of the appearances of nature in chance but of 'the essential qualities of nature'. He insisted that me classical landscape painting should be a composition of perfect elements. It means that the classical landscape painting should be the realization of 'the perfect beauty', i.e. the reality in itself. In this sense it has the same character as the classical art in general. It differs from them that it takes it's motive from nature. De Piles's judgements is formulated on the basis of Poussin's landscapes between 1648 and 1651. But Poussin painted landscapes in other times too, in his early years of 1630's and in the late years between 1657 and 1665. But his landscapes of theses two phases are more naturalistic and even romantic than the landscapes around 1650's. One can ask then: Are not these paintings classical? But the analysis of Poussin's landscapes in all of it's phases shows that all his landscapes have the heroic character. Only me features of me heroic are concealed under the naturalistic appearances. In this respect Poussin's early and late landscapes have similar characteristics with Claude Lorrain's landscape. But Claude's works are more naturalistic than Poussin's both in composition and expression. Both painters selected the subjects from the bible and the classical literature. But Poussin's landscapes are more strict in form and more moralistic in subject while the Claud's are more natural and poetic. In other words Poussin's paintings are heroic while Claude's are pastoral and lytic. Poussin prefered historical subjects more, while Claude depicted the natural scenes independently and transformed it into arcadian landscapes. Despite the minute differences the landscapes of both Poussin and Claude are typically classical because they prefer me general to individual, because the general represents the order and the intrinsic phenomenon of nature. In this point the two painters can be judged as same, And on this point we can reconsider De Piles view on Poussin and Claude. His concept and evaluation was not freed totally from the traditional academic view and on account of it his evaluation of Claude was not fair.
-
-
-
-
생명보험가입자(生命保險加入者)의 사망(死亡)에 관(關)한 고찰(考察)
마순자,Mah, Soon-Cha 한국생명보험의학회 1987 保險醫學會誌 Vol.4 No.1
We've reviewed 704 cases of claims by death that had occured for one year from April, 1985 to March, 1986. As a result, we came to following conclusions; First, the greater part of the death were due to Accidental death(25.0%), Malignant neoplasm(21.2%), Heart disease(12.9%), Liver cirrhosis(9.1%), and the cerebrovascular disease(5.5%), which were occupied by 73.7% of the whole. Second, classifying them by medical examinations or non medical, death in case of non medical examinations showed 94.3% of whole. And for age, section ranging from 40 to 49, from 50 to 59, and from 60 to 69 took the overwhelming portion by 28.6%, 24.2%, and 16.6% respectively, those of wich showed 69.4% of the whole. Third, for the period elapsed, death within 1 year from the entrance showed 16.9% and that from 1 year to under 2 years 18.8%, Thus the rate of early death under 2 years stood for 35.7% of the whole.
-
마순자(Ma Soon-Ja) 현대미술사학회 2006 현대미술사연구 Vol.19 No.-
This article studies the meaning and the truth of Cezanne's myth. Paul Cezanne has been regarded as 'the father of 20th century art'. It means that he is the most important artist who paved the way to abstraction in modern art history. This evaluation was constructed and developed in literatures from early to middle of 20th century, by French and English critics. They interpreted Cezanne's paintings as a search for a 'pure form'. And on this account the myth of Cezanne was constructed. They regarded ‘modernity’ in art as a way to abstraction, and found a proper model for it in Cezanne. The concept lasted during the modernist period, specially in England and America. The first formation of Cezanne's myth began in his life time from young followers of him. The symbolists Emil Bernard and Maurice Denis saw Cezanne's mature painting as a search for a 'pure form'. As symbolists, hoping to depict essential essence of the world in painting, they preferred the flat plane to three dimensional space. They found a similar form in Cezanne's painting and made him a 'quasi idol' of the new art. From here began Cezanne's myth. But the understanding of french symbolists about Cezanne was not totally correct. They didn't notice the importance of nature in Cezanne's painting. In 1910's the interpretation of the symbolists was introduced to english critics. Roger Fry and Clive Bell constituted their own aesthetic concept on this base. They regarded form as the essential quality of art and named it 'pure form' or 'significant form'. They established from it their formalism aesthetics, which evaluate abstraction as modern character for autonomy and purity. But it was not a sufficient understanding of symbolists 'pure form'. It nevertheless contributed to make Cezanne's myth firm. This concept of modernity in painting spread throughout Europe and America until 1960's. Clement Greenberg declared the modern painting as a search for a pure form, which logically reduced to flat plane and the division of the plane. The phrase "refaire(vivifier) Poussin sur nature" means that Cezanne thought nature as the most important model for art. Either it means that Poussin lacks in nature or it urges to return to nature to do Poussin, the concern is the nature. In fact Cezanne thought nature as the most important thing in art. He aimed to render 'nature into art'. And he thought the duty of a painter as representing nature's primordial quality(such as light, colour and atmosphere)in art. Cezanne insisted the ability of strong sensation' to be a painter of nature. He named the method to transfer this 'sensation' into painting as 'modulation'. For him sensation and modulation should be the artist's own and it is the very originality in art. For Cezanne the classic and the modern in painting has the common feature, of the primordial originality. And it explains why the modernity of Cezanne and the classicism of Poussin can be compared. The myth of Cezanne as the father of 20th century art was formed as above mentioned partly on the ground of incomplete understanding of his art. Cezanne never thought art as a pure form in itself. The most important reason for him was nature. Cezanne's painting is original because it is live and stable, natural and formal at the same time once. Cezanne never planned to abstract nature, he wanted only to render nature into art in his original form.
-
-
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
