보들레르와 근대 : 1846 미술비평」을 중심으로 A Reading of "Salon de 1846"

양효실 한국미학회 2002 美學 Vol.33 No.-

New approaches to Charles Baudelaire's texts since 1970, more correctly since the experience of the 1968 revolution, are generally originated from the reading of Baudelaire texts in relation to the political and social context of the period. Until then, Baudelaire had been positioned as one of the literary origins of Modernism. Regarding Modernism as the theory making the concepts of progress or History absolute, the interpreters of Baudelaire with new methods attempt to insert him into the context of the mid-1800s European modern society. In this new interpretations "Salon de 1846" is regarded not as an art criticism but as a reference to the reality of 1846, especially the regime of Bourgeois Monarchy. Interpreters concentrate primarily on three sections of that text, which have not yet attracted critics attention because of their uncertainty in meaning or its irrelevance to the art criticism of the modern period. The difficulty of reading those sections lies in the way Baudelaire wrote. He uses ironies, ambivalence, or paradoxes for the understanding of the ambivalence of human beings and the world, and for the hatred to logical writing. His text is unclear and open to double or multiple readings. The first section, 'Au Bourgeois' can be primarily read as Baudelaire preferring bourgeois, the dominant class. He accepts the political and economical power of the bourgeois class, and he ascribes its inability of art appreciation to the society of artists. The latter society does not want the bourgeois class to enjoy authentic works of art, and even does not want to try to educate them and to give them an opportunity to appreciate art. But is this the real intention of Baudelaire? Does he just criticize artists instead of bourgeois' bad understanding of art? Thus, we attempt to see the other side of the text or the deep side of the text, the first reason of the apparent admiration of bourgeois by Baudelaire can be traced in the political censorship. The regime of Bourgeois Monarchy makes eclecticism, that is juste milieu its political ideal. And that regime makes it illegal to say or write any political intent Any writer who wants to make political comments must use secret reference, a joke, or a paradox Baudelaire pretends as if he flatters bourgeois. But his real readers can catch the real meaning of his text In short, he brings bourgeois into contempt by using double writing. The 17th section, "Des Ecoles et Des Ouvriers" begins with reference to a street scene relating to a policeman attacking a republican. Baudelaire is on the side of the policeman because in his opinion the republican is against Art. From the next sentence on, he separates trivial present art from great art in the past. The latter is great because it is the art of great genius possessing power and sovereignty. But the former is made by apes or emancipated laborers, that is, atomistic individuals. Baudelaire's attitude towards his contemporary bourgeois individuals is largely influenced by Fourierism. It insists that the great past is gone, the present little individual society is passing, and its ideal society, that is, Phalange made of association community is soon coming. Baudelaire agrees on the diagnosis of his time by Fourierism, but he withdraws himself from Fourierism about the art society of the future. He wants art in the future to be led by great elitist artists such as Delacroix or Ingres. His antipathy towards the republican seems to agree to the attitude of Fourierism towards the republican. In 1846, being a republican meant a legitimist republican. They did not intend to overthrow the regime, but just wanted to reform the laws. In the Fourierist's eye, therefore, they are the same individuals as the ones from the bourgeois class. But does Baudelaire take sides of the policeman attacking a republican just because of his antipathy to the republican? Or is it possible to interpret his action as staging a confrontation between the police and the republican that will throw into the face of bourgeois a dilemma of their own making, a dilemma to which they can offer no response save that of violence, which can only exacerbate tensions and risk precipitating civil war? Baudelaire's prosaic poem, "Assommons les Pauvres!", published in 1865, portrays the same thoughts about the poor. Hence, we interpret Baudelaire's attitudes towards the poor in two different ways. Fist, he anticipated the 1848 revolution in 1846, and after the failure of that revolution he became an anti-political man. Second, not only in 1846 but also in 1865, he is apolitical and just reflects the contradiction and misery of actual reality. His antipathy to bourgeois society makes his art writing a kind of political activity. He doesn't believe actual political change contributes to the authentic development of human beings. The last section, "H'eroisme de la vie imoderne" is also ambiguous. There appears actual documents of the event in 1844. Baudelaire calls two persons heroes : the one is the Prime Minister Guizot, and the other Poumlann, the assassin of an old man, sentenced to death. According to some interpreters, Baudelaire says there are no modern heroes because Guizot is a bourgeois hero and Poulmann is a proletariat hero. Thus, they cannot be compatible. According to other interpreters, He says there are modern heroes because they are not heroes, compared to the ancient ones. Baudelaire's anti-heroic heroes correspond with the modern society and Baudelaire's anti-artistic painter, Constantin Guys. Baudelaire wants to say that modern life, modern heroes, and modern painters are all unimportant. Paris as modern city is full of modern poetic subjects. In conclusion, in "salon de 1846", Baudelaire reflects his contemporary society, that is, the actual influential power of bourgeois, his antipathy to that class, contemporary situation of the artist society and the subjects of modern art. He always uses ironies, and makes his writing unreadable and paradoxical. The complete understanding of his text might be impossible. His texts awaits yet another reading.

모더니티와 모더니즘 회화

양효실 신라대학교 예술연구소 1996 예술연구 Vol.1 No.-

크로스오버를 통해서 본 포스트 모더니즘 비판

양효실 연세대학교 음악연구소 2003 음악이론포럼 Vol.10 No.-

Cross-Over as an aesthetic phenomenon is closely associated with postmodernism. So we have to return once again to the relation between modernism and postmodernism. Postmodemism especially relating to cross-over is defined as anti-modernism. Postmodernism as antimodemism considers modernism as too intelligent, difficult, elitisic art. Moreover modernism is no longer an actual artistic theory but just a past theory. Elitism of modernism is replaced by populism of postmodemism. Especially after 1980's, Crossover, characteristic of postmodernism as being oriented towards popular culture has been seen in every apect of life. For example, crossover between high culture and popular culture, between history and fiction, even between image and reality. Postmodemism is a principal logic in society where every hierarchy is demolished and an aesthetic version of democracy, pluralism and relativism. In this essay, Postmodernsim relating to crossover is regarde and interpreted as an American cultural theory. So it is a very serious problem that Postmodemism as a national and local theory is accepted as if it is a global cultural theory. The call for modernism in the middle of 19th century was in connection with the question of the status of art in the capitalism. In the capitalist society where every human action and meaning was reduced to money, modernism chose to isolate itself from contemporary society and dedicated itself to art. It limited its main question to the artistic experiment. The Art Cult of Modernism was a resistent activity of modem artists against their society. In that process, art inevitably became esoteric, ambiguous and difficult. Because of its difficulty, thus, Modernism is accessible only to a few spectators. In that situation, numerous constructions of museums and concert halls for industrial and financial aim made Modernism much expensive commodity. The others of Modernism, for example, female artists, homosexual artists and artists of colored races criticized occidental, white, male centrality of Modernism. They argued Modernism is not a universal but only a local aesthetic theory. Postmodemism as one of the others of Modernism appears in criticizing those negative aspects of Modernism. It is argued that Postmodemism is not only a new cultural and aesthetic logic but also a new historical theory. But the reason why this essay interprets postmodernism as an American theory or a kind of americanism lies in the fact that the program of postmodernism itself is solely American. In America as multicultural nation, there can be various heterogeneous cultures, and even they can coexist peacefully. America has no dominant high culture handed down fiom old times. American culture is represented as popular culture. So Postmodernism as affirming lightness, joke, style and appearance instead of heaviness, reality and meaning can be propagated in America. It is natural that Postmodemism is an American theory. But it is not a local theory. Postmodemism as Americanism or cultural imperialism wants to homogenize cultures of entire world and at last dominate that world mentally. Postmodernism is cultural logic of political dominance of all the world by America. In conclusion, we must call crossover in question instead of treating it solely as an aesthetic phenomenon.

보들레르의 모더니티에 대한 연구 : 『현대생활의 화가』를 중심으로 Reading "Painter of Modern Life"

양효실 한국미학회 2003 美學 Vol.34 No.-

「1846 미술비평」에서 '관습적이고 전톨적인 모든 것'(OC, Ⅱ.468)은 상투어에 속한다며 진정한 예술가들은 상투어를 경계해야 한다고 역설했던 보들레르는 말년에 이르러서는 자신의 상투어를 하나 창조하고픈 희망을 품었다. 그리고 그의 그러한 희망은 이제 모더니티 개념을 통해 실현된 듯 하다. 모던, 모더니티, 모더니즘, 포스트모더니즘을 중심으로 한 논쟁에서 보들레르의 모더니티는 빠지지 않고 등장한다. 모던한 미적 의식, 혹은 현재에 대한 심미적 의식을 일컫는 모더니티는 오늘날 문막과 예술의 논쟁에 있어서 이미 하나의 상투어로서 기능하고 있다고 보아도 무방하다. 이미 너무나 친숙해져 버린 모더니티 개념은 그럼에도 관습적이고 전통적인 의미에서의 상투어가 되었다고 보기 어려운데, 이는 보들레르가 모더니티에 대탄 명로한 정의를 이미 차단하고 있기 때문이다. 그의 모든 논의가 역설의 공존이 주는 긴장에서 멈춰버리게 되는 것처럼, 모더니티 역시 일의적인 의미로 고착화될 수 없는 개념이다. 모더니티는 보들레르가 열어놓은 틈에서 유동한다. 그리고 그 모호성과 유동성을 통해서 모던 아트에 생기를 부여한다. 모더니즘이 종식되었다면 이는 보들레르의 모더니티가 그 안에 들어있지 않은 모더니즘이었기 때문일 수 있다. 심지어 모더니티는 역사적 사실로서의 모던 아트를 뛰어넘어 오늘날의 예술 포스트모더니즘이건 컨템포러리 아트이건 의 기원이 될 수 있는 가능성을 담고 있다. 본 논문은 19세기 중엽 '도시'가 갖는 시간적 ·공간적 특수성과 새로운' 예술의 자기정의가 어떤 필연적인 관계를 맺고 있는가를 성찰한 문화비평가이자 예술사회학자로서의 보들레르의 미막을 그의 모더니티개념을 중심으로 고찰할 것이다. 또한 예술은 현실에서 시작해서, 현실로부터 초월로 나아갈 수 있다는 그의 형이상학적 미론 역시 모더니티 개념 안에서 고찰될 것이다. 따라서 본 논문은 보들레르의 모더니티 개념의 역사성(시간성)과 예술성(초월성)에 대한 연구가 될 것이다. 보들레르의 모더니티 안에는 근대성 우리의 시각으로 보아 이미 지나간 시대의 가치개념 과 현대성 모든 예술의 현재의식과 초월성에 대한 사유를 일컫는 말이라면 어느 시대에든지 질적으로 적용될 수 있는 - 의 개념이 모두 포함피어 있다고 볼 수 있다. 보들레르의 모더니티 개념은 1863년 출판된 논문 「현대생활의 화가 le peintre de la Vie Moderne」 에서 처음 나타나고 정교화된다. 그의 초기의 대표적 미술비평문인 「1846미술비평」 은 새로운 예술과 예술가가 나타나야 할 필요성을 '현대 생활의 영웅주의'와 연관지워서 피력하고 있기는 하지만 본격적인 논의는 하지 않는다. 초기의 예술론을 대표하는 그 논문은 모더니티 개념의 맹아적 형태로서의 '낭만주의' 개념을 통해 그러한 필요성을 전개하기는 하지만 이후 후기의 「현대생활의 화가」 에서 수정을 거쳐 모더니티 이론으로 정립된다. 보들레르는 1848혁명의 실패를 경험하고, 또 1852년 이후 제2제정기로서의 프랑스 사회를 경험하면서 초기의 미술비평문에서 보여주던 것과 같은 정치적 사회적 낙관주의로부터 완전히 등을 돌리게 된다. 이제 정치적 사회적 변혁의 가능성에 대한 믿음을 상실한 보들레르는 오로지 예술을 통해서만 현실과 관계한다. 그는 자신의 현재를 '예술적으로' 성찰하는데 골몰한다. 탈정치적이고 심미적인 현실 이해를 통해 보들레르는 비필소 자신의 독자적인 미론을 창안해낸다. 보들레르의 모더니티 논의는 우리에게는 모더니즘과 밀접히 연관된 예술론으로 널리 알려져 있지만, 사실 '현재'라는 개념의 이중적인 함의를 통해 모던한 사회에서 '심미적 삶'의 가능성을 고심하는 일종의 문화 철학적 논의이기도 하다. 본 논문은 삶과 예술, 현재성과 영원성, 현실과 이념의 관계가 보들레르의 논문에서 어떻게 논의되고 있는지를 이제 보여줄 것이다. 보들레르의 논의 자제로 들어가기 전 먼저 살펴보아야 하는 것이 모더니티의 형용사로서의 모던이라는 개념의 문학적이고 예술적인 변천사이다. 이는 보들레르의 모더니티가 문학과 예술의 역사에서 전적으로 새로운 미적 의식을 갖고 왔다는 판단에 기인한 것으로 각 시대가 자신의 현재를 모던이라는 개념을 사용하면서 어떻게 의식하고 있는가를 연대기적으로 살펴봄으로써 그러한 평가의 의의를 더욱 더 잘 이해해 볼 수 있을 것이다. Baudelaire´s main aesthetic position is reflected on Modernity. In the context of literary and artistic history of the Modern, Baudelaaire´s Modernity concludes periodically-repeated debates between the Ancients and the Moderns from medieval age. Before modernity, modern, consciousness of present or now has defined itself as lackness, in comparison with the antiquity, which is ahistorical, transcendental and eternal ideal of art. But by definition of modernity, ˝´La modernite´, c´est le transitoire, le fugitif, le contingent, la moitie´ de l´art, dontl´autre moitie´ est l´e´ternel et l´immuable´, Baudelaire makes it impossible for present or modern refer to past or be compared with ancient as great art. From then on, every art or every present consciousness stops comparing with past, instead makes eternity as its binary opposition. But unlike traditional thought, eternal beauty is not atemporal but temporal and embeded in concrete actuality. ´Peintre de la Vie Moderne´, published in 1863, has some important aesthetic concepts, for example, dandysm, artificiality as antinaturalism as well as modernity. This essay concentrates on the analysis of modernity in relatin to representation of the present and Guys as painter of modern life. By the concept of represention of the present, Baudelaire questioned traditional and classical strategy of representation. Traditionally, re-presentation has been understood as secondary and cognitionally inferior to presence because the object of represention, entity, transcendental beauty, or meaning as full presence is prior and superior to representation activity. But by making the present the object of represention, Baudelaire makes us rethink the meaning of the present and representation. He suggests double meaning of the present, first, authentic present which has full presence, and second, historical present which lacks life, meaning. He hates his contemporary society, where every progress results in decadence. He suggests that representatin is better than historical present and that representation changes modern present into aesthetic present, thanks to the artist's ability. Baudelaire designates Constantin Guys, a minor artist as painter of modern life. Baudelaire's choice is not a mistake, as most post-generation critics believe. Baudelarie praises Guys in two respects. First, He goes out in the street and experiences the crowd and street scenes to the full before drawing. As phantasmagoria having self-consciousness, Guys sufficiently espouses people. And then, He returns to his studio. His painting, Baudelaire calls a perfect dessin. Finally I would like to make it clear that two different definitions of modernity in ´Peintre de La Vie Moderne´ can be compatible even thogh they totally look like different. First definition is about modernity and then modernity concludes two elements, the eternal and the transient in itself. Second definition is about art and then modernity is identified with nly the transient. Modernism defined as pursuit of the new makes Baudelaire's Modernity is not only about modern art theory but also aabout aesthetic life. Moreover, modernity is always related with Eternity. Baudelaire always gives his aesthetic concepts double meaning and makes that two meanings be collided. In his definition, Modernity is trasitory, that is new, or at the same time transitory and eternal. But Moderism theorists missed half of the definition of modernity. So, Baudelaire is not the origin of modernism as traditiom of rupture. In conclusion, by modernity, Baudelaire as modern thinker wants to reformulate his contemporary society aesthetically and ´modern´ beauty.

대중예술의 미학을 어떻게 볼 것인가? : 슈스터만의 " 대중예술의 미학적 도전"의 소개를 중심으로

양효실 서울대학교 예술문화연구소 2002 예술문화연구 Vol.12 No.-

텍스트 실천의 관점에서 보들레르의 「현대적 삶의 화가」 읽기

양효실 ( Hyo Sil Yang ) 한국미학회 2011 美學 Vol.67 No.-

세계에 대한 객관적인 인식을 통한 현실 변혁을 이야기한 리얼리즘은 구조주의적 인식에 의한다면 재현의 수단, 혹은 매체로서의 언어 자체의 불투명성을 통찰하지 못함으로써 권력으로서의 언어를 벗어나지 못한 채 중심의 권력을 반복하고 강화한 이데올로기로서의 한계를 드러냈다. 언어가 재현의 주체라는 구조주의적 인식 이후 지배하고 총체화하는 언어 자체를 경계하고 성찰하는 언어적 실천에 대한 논의가 새로이 전개되었다. 이런 맥락에서 이미 언어에 깃들어 있는 권력과 지배의 욕망을 성찰하는 이른바 "텍스트적 실천"은 예술의 정치성을 논하는 데 새로운 방향을 제시한다. 텍스트적 실천은 깊이/표면, 의미/무의미, 동일자/타자, 중심/주변, 생산/소비와 같은 이미 항상 이항대립적으로 움직이는 언어의 욕망에 저항하는 글쓰기이다. 의미와 깊이의 권력에 지배당하지 않는 글쓰기, 무의미와 표면이 벌이는 유희에 천착하는 글쓰기는 이항대립적 서열이 지배하는 언어의 권력에 저항한다는 점에서 정치적이고 심지어 윤리적이다. 언어를 통해 말하고 쓰는 주체의 사유의 일관성, 의도를 전달하는 대신 텍스트적 실천은 기표들의 연쇄로서의 언어의 무늬, 차이를 제시하려고 한다. 본 논문은 보들레르의 「현대적 삶의 화가」를 텍스트 실천의 관점에서 읽는다. 보들레르는 미학적으로 뛰어난 "예술가"가 아닌 시시한 이류화가 M. G. - 보들레르는 의미의 주인/주체로서의 작가의 이름을 이니셜로만 남겨둠으로써 저자의 권위를 최소화한다 - 의 풍속화를 중심으로 "현대적 삶"의 특성과 그것의 미적 재현 방식을 논하는 가운데 현대적 삶을 "닮은" 글쓰기를 실천한다. 즉, 현대적 삶을 재현한 글이 아니라 현대적 삶을 반복하는 글쓰기를 통해 겉으로 보이는 것이 전부인 현대적 삶과 무한한 환유의 연쇄로서의 글쓰기를 등치시킨다. 보들레르의 글(쓰기)은 깊이 없는 세계에서 여전히 깊이를 논하는 부르주아적 삶을 반복·재현하는 대신에 모든 것이 유령 같은 환영성을 드러내는 현대적 삶을 드러내는 글쓰기를 실천함으로써 삶을 닮은 글을 성취한다. With the advent of cognition that language is not a medium of representation but the subject in itself, new discussion about discourses rises reflecting on language itself. "Textual practice" struggling against the structure of language appears as political writing, which delimits desire of dominating power dwelling on the language. It is against the binary opposition of language such as depth/surface, sense/nonsense, the same/the other, center/margin, production/consumption. By way of post-structuralism, modernist writers until now regarded as formalistic modernism are redistributed as an example of discursive and textual practice criticizing modern reality and presenting other world. Textual practice tries to represent the difference of language as signifying chains instead of carrying coherence and intention of speaking and writing subject. Not writing about what but writing how appears political stance of writing. In this essay, I read "Painter of Modern Life" by Baudelaire through the perspective of textual practice. In discussing character of modern life and its aesthetic way of representation, Baudelaire practices writing which mimes modern life. M. G., painter of modern life is in fact a minor artist. So, he is the antithesis to Art. Nevertheless, Baudelaire "calls" him painter of modern life. The Practice of naming is important in his writing practice because he never defines the essence of painter but only continues to name M. G. differently. Baudelaire equates modern life which is nothing but the appearance with writing as continuous chains of metonymy. Writing of Baudelaire is not based on the question of essentialist who tries to define substance of what the modern life is. Instead, He calls various names of modern painter and exposes its undecidability. Moreover, He shows how the writing as criticism on genre painting converges on the meaningless play of surface, fragmental signifier or language. Instead of repeating or representing bourgeois life focusing on the depth of meaning in a superficial world of the modern, Baudelaire achieves modern writing by writing modern life as ghostlike phantasmagoria.

차이의 코뮌, 감각의 연대: 두리반농성과 자립음악생산조합의 경우

양효실 ( Hyo Sil Yang ) 한국미학회 2014 美學 Vol.80 No.-

2009년부터 장장 531일 동안 벌어진 홍대 근처 칼국수 식당 두리반의 철거 반대 농성은 철거민 문제에 인디 음악가들과 시민들이 연대해서 건설시공사와 협상에 성공한 예외적 사건이다. 청년 인디음악가들은 농성장에서 정기적으로 공연을 했고, 그 과정에서 자립음악생산조합이라는 단체가 조직되기도 했다. 철거민의 문제에 공감한 음악가들, 문학인들, 청소년 활동가들, 시민들이 함께 거주하면서 놀고 춤추고 대화했던 두리반 농성은 기존 농성의 문법으로는 분석불가능한 사건이다. 본 논문은 이러한 두리반 농성의 특이성을 랑시에르, 바디우, 낭시와 같은 이론가들의 이론으로 분석한다. 지도자나 대의도 없이, 진지함보다는 유쾌함이 압도한 두리반 농성은 함께 있음(코뮌)의 정치, 감각의 공동체를 현시했다. 근대적인 정체성/동일성의 정치로 환원불가능한 사건-두리반은 감각적이고 우발적인 연대, 상황이나 장소가 출현시키는 공동체의 형상을 통해 정치와 미학, 미적인 것과 윤리적인 것이 접합되는 지점을 구현해 냈다. The purpose of this paper is to analyze differences and diversities of participants in sit-in protest, ‘Duriban’, small noodle restaurant near Hongik University, against building demolition. It lasted for 531 days from 26th december in 2009 to 6th May in 2011 and finally succeeded in negotiation with construction firm. During that event emerged a rare and unprecedented commune, consisted of eccentric voices like restaurant owner, novelists, artists, activists, adolescent activists, anonymous citizens, etc. Especially a number of Indie musicians usually performing at clubs near Duriban played their music periodically in Duriban, and the protest changed into something like music festival. Accordingly, political subjects in classical meaning were transformed into aesthetic subjects. People inhabiting or visiting Duriban, just played music, wrote the novel or poetry, or enjoyed music all together. They fought against the power not as political subjects but as aesthetic subjects. During that movement, indie musicians organized ‘Independent Music Manufacturing Union(Jarip)’ in 2010, main concern of which until now focuses on the independent production and distribution of underground music. Without any collective cause and leader, people in Duriban, just existed together, with their senses and bodies. They were in common, eating noodle together around duriban and sharing corporeal contiguity.

여성주의적 개입의 한 사례 - 메리 켈리의 < 산후기록(Post-Partum Document), 1973~1979 >

양효실 ( Yang Hyosil ) 한국미학회 2016 美學 Vol.82 No.4

2세대 개념 미술가 중 한 사람인 메리 켈리는 자신의 설치작품 <산후기록>을 “엄마로서의 나의 경험, 그리고 그 경험에 대한 여성주의자의 분석”으로 간주한다. 1973년에 시작되어 1979년에 끝난 <산후기록>은 6개의 섹션, 135개의 단위로 구성된 설치작품이다. 본 글은 메리 켈리가 “나의 이야기도, 어머니의 이야기도 아닌, 1970년대 일어난 영국 여성 운동 내부 여성주의 논쟁에 대한 일종의 연대기”라고 평가한 <산후기록>의 역사적 의의를 분석한다. 메리 켈리가 속한 영국 여성주의 집단은 마르크스주의에서 정신분석으로 분석틀을 바꾼 특이한 과정을 갖는다. 초기 그들의 쟁점은 `성적 노동 분업`이었지만 곧 `성차`나 `여성 심리`가 중요 쟁점이 된다. 그러나 프로이트와 라캉에 대한 이들 여성주의자들의 전유는 남성 이론가들에 충실하기 위해서가 아니라, 인용하되 그들을 여성주의의 관점에서 해체하기 위해서였다. 메리는 라캉의 상상계 도식에 할당된 유아의 나르시시즘적 동일시 경험을 여성의 나르시시즘과 겹쳐지도록 구성함으로써, 즉 유아의 관점에서는 임박한 상징계로의 진입과 그것에 필요한 상상계적 동일시의 경험을 “아이와의 관계에서 주이상스를 발견하는, 적어도 일시적으로 아버지-의-법을 위반하는 여성”의 경험과 함께 구성함으로써 지금까지는 단지 `기능`으로 간주되었거나 자연적 능력으로 간주된 모성의 경험을 여성의 욕망, 불안, 쾌락을 가시화했다. 그러나 메리는 자신의 설치 작업을 물리적 현존의 지표들―기저귀, 아이와의 대화를 녹음한 뒤 필사한 글, 석고로 뜬 유아의 손, 흔적으로서의 글쓰기―로 구성함으로써 `문화적 여성주의`와는 거리를 두려고 했다. 여성의 경험, 여성의 몸을 재현한 문화적 여성주의와 달리 메리 켈리는 여성은 문화적 구성물임을, 남성적 이데올로기로서의 상징계에 개입하고 차이를 만들어내는 `부정적` 자리임을 보여주려고 했다. Mary Kelly`s installation < Post-Partum Document > is, according to her, "not my story, or the mother`s story, but a kind of chronicle of feminist debates within the women`s movement in Great Britain during the 1970s". Started in 1973 and ended in 1979, PPD consisted of 6 sections and 135 units and was published in the form of a book in 1983. In this essay, I try to understand the historical significance of PPD in regard to the feminist intervention in the ideology of maternity. First influenced by Marxism, feminist groups to which Mary Kelly belongs, finally went to the unconscious of Freud, and chose, instead of the sexual division of labour, the sexual difference or feminine psychology as their main issue. But their appropriation of Psychoanalysis was not for affirmation of it but for deconstruction or parody. Through PPD, Mary Kelly made visible the maternal experience as a feminine desire, anxiety and pleasure, by weaving together the imaginary identification of an infant of Lacan`s mirror stage and the maternal experience "which finds jouissance in relation with the child, at least temporarily transgressing the law-of-father". Mary Kelly, however, used indexes of the physical presence, for example, diapers, writings of the record of conversation between mother and her son, or the scribblings of him, so that she may took distance from cultural feminism, which privileged the feminine/female experience and body for the feminist representation. In sharp contrast to cultural feminism, Mary Kelly regards the feminine or the maternal as a signifier only existing within the problematic, not as a pure entity or an essence beyond ideology.

아방가르드 모더니즘에 대한 비판적 고찰

양효실 ( Hyo Sil Yang ) 한국미학회 2004 美學 Vol.40 No.-

보들레르의 모더니티와 풍속화

양효실(Yang Hyo-sil) 현대미술사학회 2007 현대미술사연구 Vol.21 No.-

The Modernity of Baudelaire as the mental base of Modernism, needs a revision from the aesthetics of transiency to that of the transfiguration of reality by the artist's aesthetic competence. His essay in 1863 entitled 'the painter of modern life' includes both definitions but until now the implication of the latter has been forgotten because of the power and influence of modernist theorists. The Postmodern reading changes the meaning of Baudelaire's modernity. By the concept of Modernity, Baudelaire formulates the theory of the art of modern life. In his view, the new art should be independent of moral value, which exists prior to the artistic practice and constrains it. The proper value of art lies in its ability to make the actual the aesthetic. Baudelaire's modernity posits art as the aesthetization of the actuality. He despises the modern values such as progress, utopian future, and utility. So He rids the art of the moral values of his rime and gives it sovereignty and autonomy. The modern artist referred to as "the painter of modern life" by Baudelaire was an anonymous genre painter C. Guys, not the great artists like Courbet or Manet. Baudelaire did know his modernity's painter belonged to the category of minor art or a vulgar culture. Baudelaire gives C. Guys various names such as 'dandy' 'convalescent' 'man among the world' 'flaneur' so on. Before drawing and painting at the studio, C. Guys experiences street scenes and absorbs the essence of life, and then he returns to the studio. Baudelaire calls his "finished" painting a sketch. It is not a painting in the strict sense of painting because it looks like an unfinished drawing. Baudelaire's modernity does not fall on the context of the tradition of art. His concern is not about what art is but about the new method of art to represent modern life. Baudelaire's action of naming C. Guys 'the painter of modern life' is very calculating and correct. It is outside the tradition of Modernism criticism. So the postmodern reading of Baudelaire reveals the gap between the appropriation of Baudelaire by Modernism and the real implication of his Modernity. It restores the authentic significance of Baudelaire's theory of art concentrating on the transcendence over modern life by artistic transfiguration. What the painter of modern life, not the modern painter, thinks important is primarily how to represent modern life not how to rupture the traditional techniques of art.