http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
지각, 상징, 예술 : Cassirer의 상징형식철학을 중심으로
안원현 新羅大學校 1988 論文集 Vol.26 No.-
In the building up of the artistic function of man, Cassirer says there is a general law of three stages; the mimetic, the analoical, and the symbolic. According to him, art falls short of self-determination in so far as it is copy or analogue. Cassirer rejects the notion of art as imitation, lyricism, or analogue. He carries over elements from these into the one he accepts. Art for him is a symbolic form; a living shape worked out in a sensuous medium, expressing tension and release. The tension holds man over against the world, the release means reconsiliation with it. In Cassirer's last statement of what art is various expressions are used rather than "smbolic form" to convey both the auto-nomy and the richness of the idea as he holds it: "the constructive eye", "contem-plative creation", "intuitive form", "sympathetic vision". In each of these phrases it is obvious that the opposition between the subjective and the objective contribu-tions to the act and fact of art is meant to be resolved. Therefore, we must try to come to an understanding of what Cassirer means by the "symbolic" form. Generally Cassirer is called to be a Neo -Kartian. Gowever, then, Cassirer's theory of symbolic forms makes contact with Kant's "transcen-dental method" is notable. Kant's merit-in Cassirer's interpretation- was to have discouraged the philosopher's concern with 'being qua being" and to have turned it, instead, toward an inquiry that would isolate -in a "Kritik"- those principles and categories which can be recognized as being "constitutive" of experience (as science). Kant's error was not to have considered alternatives to these "ordering principles" and thus to have "frozen" them into immutable faculties. The Philosophy of symbolic forms is Kantian in spirit only insofar as it, too, declares it to be the task of philosophy to formulate the most universal functions of organization and sythetizing for all types of human experience. Neither Kant nor Cassirer depart from the evidences of "introspection" of the sense-data; both start with experience as publicly accessible, be it the factuality of science of that of myth, religion, art and the perceptual world of commonsense. So far their agreement. In contra-diction from Kant, Cassirer has not sought for an "anchoring ground" of the various symbolic "perspectives" which condition all culturally encountered "orders" in any intrinsic constitution of the human "mind". Only "pragmatic" considerations can account for the special directions of "sigh" which organize the sensory impressions into representative contexts of meaning. Thus, Cassirer speaks of the "teleological structure of our commonsense world" as it is reflected in our"language concepts". In one of his last books, he remarks: "Between our practical and theoretical concepts there is no basic difference insofar as allour theoretical concepts share the character of in strumentality. They, too, are but tools which we have to create for the solution of specific tasks and which we have ever to rectreate". Goethe is another ancestor of Cassirer's theory of symbolic form. Goethe appears, in Cassirer's studies, as the highest development in the historical relation between form and freedom. For Goethe, objective existence itself provides the material for freedom. But it is more notable for Cassirer to call attention to Goethe's term "Ur-phanomenen". The "Urphanomenen" appears in a dialectic play of antitheses (Polaritat and Steigerung), ultimately reducible to the basic antithesis of rest and motion. This concept is accepted in Cassirer's symbolic forms, I think. In conculsion, Cassier's art as symbolic form is, yet rooted in Kant's transcen-denal idealism and Goethe's symbolism, but further more, his ides syggests a new way of thinking about all human culture including art.
로버트 메플도프의 동성애 작품에 나타나는 그로테스크 연구
안원현,이한나 신라대학교 예술연구소 2007 예술연구 Vol.13 No.-
1960년대 산업화로 인한 사회의 변화는 동시에 사람의 인식에도 변화를 가져다주었는데, 그들의 인식이 사회에서 관심 받지 못했던 비주류의 영역에까지 확대되었다. 이는 성이라는 관념을 주변적 자리에서 벗어나 중심으로 진입하게까지 한다. 특히, 동성애(homosexuality)와 에이즈(AIDS), 성전환(transgender) 수술, 나아가 양성동체적(兩性同體的) 경향까지 보인다. 위와 같은 사회 격동기 때 로버트 메플도프(Robert Mapplethorpe)가 있었다. 그의 중추적인 성 담론 작품들이 이를 겪고 난 후의 것들이기에 그의 작품을 연구한다는 것은 큰 의미가 있다. 특히, 동성애 작품은 이전의 사진작가들보다 더 직접적이고도 충격적인 작품을 공개적으로 발표하였기에 그 의의는 더하다. 또한 로버트 메플도프가 살았던 20세기 중후반에는 동성애에 대한 인식이 비정상적인 관계로 인식되어졌기에 그로테스크의 일반적 개념인 부조리, 이상한, 기괴한 등의 개념을 접목시키는 것이 가능하다. 하지만 모든 것은 정상적인 것 위에 비정상적인 것이 있고, 낯익은 것 위에 낯선 것이 있기 때문에 그로테스크는 기본적으로 양면성을 가지고 있다. 이러한 양면성은 메플도프의 동성애 작품 중 S&M사진에서 대부분 살펴볼 수 있다. 동성애자 중 한명, 가령 남성이지만 여성의 역할을 하는 게이는 여장을 할 수도 있지만 메플도프의 사진에서는 강한 남성을 상징하는 가죽옷을 입고 그 자세에서는 매우 여성적인 면을 보인다. 여기에서 양면성을 살펴볼 수 있다. 메플도프 작품에 대한 해석들 중 대부분은 이 양면성을 간과하고 있다. 그렇기에 이 글은 메플도프 작품에 대한 해석에 있어 다양한 논의를 가져다 줄 초석이 될 것이다.