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 : 윤자정 (검색결과 33 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
-
윤자정 한국미학회 2022 美學 Vol.88 No.1
주지하듯이 존 듀이(John Dewey)의 입장에서 예술과 일상(생활) 간의 분리는 타파되어야 할 ‘이원론적 잔재’에 불과했고. 양자 간의 연속성 회복은 그의 예술철학이 닿고자 한 귀착지였다. Dewey는 생활 속, 일상적인 경험 속에 들어있는 예술적 성격을 드러내 보임으로써 생활을 일반적으로 운위되는 ‘예술’의 지위까지 격상시켜 주는 방식으로 생활과 예술의 연속성을 확립하고 있다. 그리고 이 점은 듀이에 대한 기왕의 많은 연구를 통해 비교적 충분히 논의된 것으로 생각된다. 그러나 필자가 보기에 이 연속성 회복의 ‘방법론’에 대해서도 충분히 해명이 되었는가는 점에 대해서는 다소간 의문이다. 필자는 이 연속성 회복의 메커니즘을 이해하기 위해서는 무엇보다도 그의 독특한 자아론, 특히 이른바 ‘습관적 자아론’에 대한 해명이 있어야 하지 않을까 생각한다. 필자가 보기에 듀이 사상의 강점 혹은 매력은 어떠한 과도한 의미부여 없이, 인간과 삶과 예술을 해명하는 것이다. 그런 점에서 별다른 형이상학적 의미부여 없이 냉정하게 봐서 인간은 어떤 존재인가, 어떤 존재로 얘기될 수 있는가는 문제를 놓고 씨름하는 듀이 사상의 그 어떤 ‘품격’은 그가 말하는 ‘유기체적 자아’의 구성요소인 ‘습관’의 역할이 좀더 주목될 때 부각되는 것으로 생각된다. 본 논문은 대체로 이러한 문제를 다루고자 한다. 구체적으로는 듀이가 말하는 ‘유기체적 자아’(organic self)가 ‘습관’(habit)과 ‘충동’(impulse)이라는 두 가지 구성 요건으로 이루어져 있음에 주목하여 이 습관 개념에 의거해서 ‘상호작용’(interaction), ‘연속성’(continuity), ‘지배적 성질’(pervasive quality) 등 그의 ‘경험’의 일반적 특징들을 살펴봄으로써 결국 그가 말하는 ‘미적 경험’이나 ‘예술’이 어떻게 일상과 연결되는지를 확인해보고자 한다. As is well known, in Dewey's aesthetic point of view the division between art and everyday life was nothing but 'dualistic remnants' which should be broken down, and the recovery of continuity between the two was the aiming point that his philosophy of art should be reached. Dewey establishes continuity between the two in the way of revealing the artistic character of daily life or ordinary experience and according them to elevate the generally mentioned 'status of art'. And I think this point have been fully discussed through past lots of studies on Dewey. But I have an element of doubt about the point that the 'methodology(or mechanism)' of that recovery of continuity between the two indeed be elucidated fully. I think that to understand this mechanism of recovery it's necessary above all to elucidate his unique theory of self, especilly his 'theory of habitual self'. In my view, when all is said and done, what makes Dewey's thought brilliant and great(in other words, the strength and attraction of his thought) is his elucidation on life and art without any giving excessive metaphysical meaning. In that point the essence of Dewey's philosophy of art which come to grips with the problems such as 'what is the existence of human beings?', 'how can we say fundamentally about human beings?', and on that context 'what is art?' and 'what is aesthetic experience?' will be standing out when we pay much more attention to the role of 'habit' which is the component of his 'organic self'. And in this essay I exactly deal with the role of habit as the component of organic self. To say concretely, in paying attention to the fact that Dewey's organic self is comprised of 'habit' and 'impulse', I will find out the generally features of 'experience' such as 'interaction', 'continuity', 'pervasive quality' depending on this very notion of habit, and ultimately the continuity between our daily life with 'aesthetic experience' and 'art'.
-
-
-
윤자정 한국미학회 2014 美學 Vol.78 No.-
Putting to brilliant use his stylistic virtuosity and his awesome abilities as a polemicist, Diderot launched with enthusiasm into art criticism and gave it new status as a literary genre worthy of the best efforts of a philosopher. That Diderot greatly relished his role as art critic is borne out by the zest, humor, and piquancy of his descriptions and comments. The tone throughout of <Salons> is engagingly informal, and the style ranges from playful bawdiness to highly lyrical flights. From Diderot’s detailed and lively descriptions of the numerous paintings he reviewed it is obvious that he welcomed the challenge of transposing line, color, and form into words, since the far-off subscribers to the <Correspondance littéraire> could not see these works of art for themselves. In this essay I inquire into the special features of <Salons> as art criticism through the comments on works of Francois Boucher, Jean-Baptiste Greuze, and Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin. When we think of Diderot’s status and importance in the history of modern art criticism, this inquiring give us the opportunity of awakening the historicity of art criticism. In this issue-making context I find out Diderot’s critical standards such as ‘morals’ and ‘reality’ in Boucher, and the powerful disposition of making stories from paintings (and the rhetoric such as ‘conversation style’) in Greuze, and the queen sensibility on the form (not subject matter) of artworks in Chardin. Since the nineteenth century, <Salons> have been regarded as the inaugural works of modern art criticism, and the reputation is deserved for they present us with the spectacle of a brilliant intellect grappling with the central issues of visual representation and signification at the moment of transition between the classic and romantic approaches to these problems, between the regimes dominated by, respectively, theories of mimesis and of subjective expression. 드니 디드로(Denis Diderot, 1713~1784)는 18세기 프랑스 계몽사상의 핵심인물로서 흔히 근대 미술비평의 정초자로도 얘기된다. 1750년대 후반, 그는 『문예통신(Correspondance littéraire)』이라는 문예지로부터 당시 파리에서 2년마다 열리던 관(官)주도 미술전람회인 <살롱전>의 비평문을 기고해달라는 부탁을 받는다. 그래서 1759년부터 1781년까지 2년마다 총 아홉 번(1759, 1761, 1763, 1765, 1767, 1769, 1771, 1775, 1781)을 해당 문예지에 비평문을 게재하게 되는데, 이 비평문이 바로 『살롱(Salons)』이다. 『살롱』은 1759년 첫 출간 이래로 지속적으로 그 의미나 중요성이 평가되어온 저작이다. 칼라일은 1833년 자신의 한 글을 디드로의 『살롱』에 바치면서 디드로를 ‘근대 최고의 미술비평가’로 평가했다. 생트 뵈브는 디드로를 미술비평의 특별한 시원으로 간주한다. 한편으로 미술비평가로서의 디드로에 대한 비판의 목소리도 적잖이 있다. 아세자(Assezat)는 디드로가 작품을 평함에 있어서 그 내용을 위해 형식을 과도하게 희생시켰다고 평가하였으며, 토파지오(V. W. Topazio)는 디드로를 편견의 비평가, 방법론이 결핍된 비평가, 예술의 창조적 역할과 비평의 역할을 구분하지 못한 비평가라고 비판한다. 이 글은 이런 찬사와 비난이 교차하는 디드로의 『살롱』을 두고, 그러한 찬사와 비난의 실체를 확인하기 위해, 『살롱』이 보여주는 디드로 비평의 특징들을 검토한다. 미술비평사에서 그가 차지하는 위상을 고려할 때 이 검토 작업은 우리에게 비평의 역사성을 일깨우는 기회가 될 것이다. 디드로가 무수한 화가들의 작품을 평하였지만 특히 부셰(Francois Boucher), 그뢰즈(Jean-Baptiste Greuze), 샤르댕(Jean-Baptiste- Siméon Chardin)에 대한 평이 대체로 디드로 비평의 입장과 특징을 잘 부각시킨다고 보고, 이들 화가에 대한 평을 중심으로 살핀다. 부셰의 경우에는 당시 디드로가 예술에서 도덕과 사실성의 가치를 매우 중시했다는 점, 그뢰즈의 경우에는 마찬가지로 도덕과 사실성의 가치를 중시하면서 더불어 그림에 대한 ‘문학적’ 접근을 즐겨 했다는 점, 마지막으로 샤르댕의 경우에는 작품의 형식에 대한 고려가 우세했다는 점을 밝히고 그 각각의 의미를 음미한다.
-
윤자정 현대미술학회 2009 현대미술학 논문집 Vol.1 No.13
In contemporary art world, the 1960s was a dynamic period of important activity and new movements which straddle or override the traditional categories of painting and sculpture. Especially minimalism which came out in this period caused significant debates in spite of (or, because of) the 'simple' appearances. On the one hand the debates testify the dynamism of this period, and on the other hand they become the key of understanding subsequent contemporary arts. Some critics avoid the problem of interpretation altogether claiming that there is nothing to interpret on it, others acknowledge that minimalism is one of the primary artistic legacies of the 1960s. I feel sympathy with the latter viewpoint. But, in my opinion, the majority of critics who have written about minimalism spent little time addressing the specifics of minimalism's material aspects or its initial, heterogeneous exhibition situations. A formal simplicity or reduction to a shared set of repeated geometric forms is evident in all of these contemporary works, but these qualities were not the only attributes that concerned the artists who made these works, and some of their initial critics. In fact, their significance depends on 'situation', the viewer's engagement with them as physical objects that occupy the same space in the world as the viewer. If 'minimalism' is to continue to be the preferred descriptive term for the rich and vital moment in postwar art, its history needs to incorporate the very situational circumstances as well as discussions of the physical characteristics of individual works. In contemporary art world, the 1960s was a dynamic period of important activity and new movements which straddle or override the traditional categories of painting and sculpture. Especially minimalism which came out in this period caused significant debates in spite of (or, because of) the 'simple' appearances. On the one hand the debates testify the dynamism of this period, and on the other hand they become the key of understanding subsequent contemporary arts. Some critics avoid the problem of interpretation altogether claiming that there is nothing to interpret on it, others acknowledge that minimalism is one of the primary artistic legacies of the 1960s. I feel sympathy with the latter viewpoint. But, in my opinion, the majority of critics who have written about minimalism spent little time addressing the specifics of minimalism's material aspects or its initial, heterogeneous exhibition situations. A formal simplicity or reduction to a shared set of repeated geometric forms is evident in all of these contemporary works, but these qualities were not the only attributes that concerned the artists who made these works, and some of their initial critics. In fact, their significance depends on 'situation', the viewer's engagement with them as physical objects that occupy the same space in the world as the viewer. If 'minimalism' is to continue to be the preferred descriptive term for the rich and vital moment in postwar art, its history needs to incorporate the very situational circumstances as well as discussions of the physical characteristics of individual works.
-
윤자정 한국미학회 2004 美學 Vol.37 No.-
Today we live in the image world. We live every day in an inundation of images through mass med ia, and in broad sense, those images are kinds of arts, so that it can be said tha t art is more or less like the air which is essential for life. With the shift of the c enter of culture from literary to image(visual and audial), it would not be easy to gu ess how greatly and far the spectacle of image will influence our livings. Tra ditional artists who had enjoyed exclusive claims in image production has confron ted new reality that new communication system exceeds the communicat ive power of existing fine arts, demanding them to have new mindset and solut ion. From the aspect of artistic response of new image environment, the common a xis of works of modern artists can be derived out. In the same vein, it is of cour se natural to guess that arts(or artlike things) in the era of image inundation should be given broader and deeper thought. In shortly speaking our artistic enjoy ment doesn't automatically lead to enrichment of our life. Endless occurring of such matters that need our self awareness and caution contributes ot the enr ichment of our thought of self-examination. In the era of arts, something such as theory is necessary not to drown in the sea of image but surmount simple e njoyment of arts. This essay aims at thinking about several matters for desirable meeting between art and semiology, with the increased necessity for theoretical development and systematic research in arts, as the influence of arts on our lif e becomes ever increasing, considering that semilolgical approach is very prospecti ve as one way of systematic researches for it. In fact, the increasing importance of systematic approach in arts was continuously raised in various fields of h uman studies. Especially in such era as modern society flooding with images , the necessity for seeing into images deeper that its simple superficial pleas ure is increasing and I think semiology has to most possibility to help with it. Se miology is a branch that sees human culture, including language, as signs and tries to give us systematic explanation about it. In this essay, with such a critica l mind, I examine several matters as below. First, I am going to look at what are signs all about in principle, and what it means to us. And then brief introduction t o the field is going to be given considering that the field is comparatively young so that most of us are unfamiliar with this branch. For the last, principle o pinions about semiological nature of arts and the tasks that are in the meeting be tween arts and semiology are going to be looked at.
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
