데이비드 스미스의 조각에 보이는 “프리미티비즘”: 오스트레일리아 원시미술과 에른스트 크리스의 정신분석학

정무정 서양미술사학회 2002 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.18 No.-

춘추회와 1960년대 한국현대미술

정무정 미술사연구회 2020 미술사연구 Vol.- No.39

The Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was founded in Berlin, June 26, 1950, published over 20 magazines in 35 countries, held international conferences and seminars and awarded artists and intellectuals prizes and financial grants. In this way, it tried to induce intellectuals and artists in Europe and Asia, who might otherwise had been tempted to opt for Marxism and Communism, to support the anticommunist camp led by America. The Korean Committee of Congress for Cultural Freedom (Chunchu-hoe) was founded in 1961 and engaged in several activities for Korean art community. Regrettably however, it have not received much scholarly attention so far. The purpose of this paper is to figure out to what extent Chunch-hoi affected the development of modern Korean art of the 1960s by reviewing Chunch-hoi’s bulletins which were published from September 1962 to February 1968. Chunchu-hoi contributed greatly to the growth of modern Korean art by holding exhibitions and seminars, and publishing magazines where critical issues were discussed by artists and art critics. In this sense, it is possible to characterize Chunchu-hoi’s activities as ‘a project for modernizing Korean art.’ On the contrary, it also did much for abnormal prolongation of Informel aesthetic in Korean art world.

미술사와 내셔널리즘:정체성과 보편성의 역학

정무정 서양미술사학회 2009 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.31 No.-

In the Korean art community, Nam June Paik has secured so absolute an position as the creation of ‘Nam June Paik Study’ can be possibly discussed to take its root as a great thinker in the end of the 20th century beyond the assessment as ‘the creator of video art’ or ‘a world avant-garde artist born in Korea.’ However, could it be confidently said that a desire to reveal the potentiality and excellency of Korean art does not twist through his fame behind the praise of Nam June Paik? It is not easy to pick out Korean tradition or national factors based on the artistic foundation of Nam June Paik, who majored in art history and aesthetics at Tokyo University, Japan and modern music at Freiburg Music School and München University, Germany and mainly worked in Europe and in the State. Thus when we look back on the contention of scholars such as Benedict Anderson or Eric Hobsbawm explaining nationalism as ‘imagined community’ or ‘invented tradition’, it can be said not to be unreasonable understanding high compliment of Nam June Paik in the Korea art community as a result of reflection of nationalistic vision. Then how is the assessment of Nam June Paik in Europe and the States where he mostly worked? The modifier ‘a Korea-born world video artist’ commonly used in the Korean art circles has also been utilized in the western art community, though it is a somewhat transformed form. For example, let’s look into the explanation of Nam June Paik appearing in H. W. Janson’s History of Art, having become the model of the survey of art history and the most widely used art text since it was first published in 1962: “His chief legacy today lies perhaps in the stimulation he provided his many students and collaborators. Among them was Nam June Paik (born 1932). The sophisticated video displays of the Korean-born Paik fall outside the scope of this book.” In Janson’s text, Nam June Paik is simply mentioned as a witness displaying John Cage’s legacy and an important person of video art going beyond the range of the text. In case of making quite detailed explanation of his video art, Nam June Paik’s biographical background mostly accounts for that part. For example, Laurie Schneider Adams wrote in her book, A History of Western Art as below. “One of the leading exponents of video art is the Korean-born composer, performer, and visual artist Nam June Paik. He studied philosophy, aesthetics, and music at the University of Tokyo, and in 1956 went to Munich to study music. In Germany Paik met the avant-garde musician John Cage and worked with Joseph Beuys. In the late 1960s Paik began to create video sculptures consisting of television monitors arranged in significant shapes.” What is the reason for that mentioning a nationality or biographical background for non-European artists does not drop out in art history texts? On one hand, it can be considered inevitable due to limit on information and knowledge of non-western culture in this kind of writing. In fact, the author of History of Art wrote in his preface “Why, indeed, should one not include artists who embody very different sensibilities from that of the European and American mainstream? There is, in principle, no reason to exclude them. However, I have decided to limit this edition to Western art for reason both practical and philosophical.” However, on the other hand, it is not unrelated to an attempt to grant an oriental identity to non-western artists. Namely, it is said to be the device of discrimination and elimination trying to typifying and stereotyping non-western artists and having them stay around the marginal of the U. S. art circles. The only inclusion of non-western artists in the category of western art history is that the fantasy of such typifying and stereotyping becomes impossible as Homi Bhabha indicated in his book The Location of Culture. In this sense, Nam June Paik incorporated to western art history is the only Korean... In the Korean art community, Nam June Paik has secured so absolute an position as the creation of ‘Nam June Paik Study’ can be possibly discussed to take its root as a great thinker in the end of the 20th century beyond the assessment as ‘the creator of video art’ or ‘a world avant-garde artist born in Korea.’ However, could it be confidently said that a desire to reveal the potentiality and excellency of Korean art does not twist through his fame behind the praise of Nam June Paik? It is not easy to pick out Korean tradition or national factors based on the artistic foundation of Nam June Paik, who majored in art history and aesthetics at Tokyo University, Japan and modern music at Freiburg Music School and München University, Germany and mainly worked in Europe and in the State. Thus when we look back on the contention of scholars such as Benedict Anderson or Eric Hobsbawm explaining nationalism as ‘imagined community’ or ‘invented tradition’, it can be said not to be unreasonable understanding high compliment of Nam June Paik in the Korea art community as a result of reflection of nationalistic vision. Then how is the assessment of Nam June Paik in Europe and the States where he mostly worked? The modifier ‘a Korea-born world video artist’ commonly used in the Korean art circles has also been utilized in the western art community, though it is a somewhat transformed form. For example, let’s look into the explanation of Nam June Paik appearing in H. W. Janson’s History of Art, having become the model of the survey of art history and the most widely used art text since it was first published in 1962: “His chief legacy today lies perhaps in the stimulation he provided his many students and collaborators. Among them was Nam June Paik (born 1932). The sophisticated video displays of the Korean-born Paik fall outside the scope of this book.” In Janson’s text, Nam June Paik is simply mentioned as a witness displaying John Cage’s legacy and an important person of video art going beyond the range of the text. In case of making quite detailed explanation of his video art, Nam June Paik’s biographical background mostly accounts for that part. For example, Laurie Schneider Adams wrote in her book, A History of Western Art as below. “One of the leading exponents of video art is the Korean-born composer, performer, and visual artist Nam June Paik. He studied philosophy, aesthetics, and music at the University of Tokyo, and in 1956 went to Munich to study music. In Germany Paik met the avant-garde musician John Cage and worked with Joseph Beuys. In the late 1960s Paik began to create video sculptures consisting of television monitors arranged in significant shapes.” What is the reason for that mentioning a nationality or biographical background for non-European artists does not drop out in art history texts? On one hand, it can be considered inevitable due to limit on information and knowledge of non-western culture in this kind of writing. In fact, the author of History of Art wrote in his preface “Why, indeed, should one not include artists who embody very different sensibilities from that of the European and American mainstream? There is, in principle, no reason to exclude them. However, I have decided to limit this edition to Western art for reason both practical and philosophical.” However, on the other hand, it is not unrelated to an attempt to grant an oriental identity to non-western artists. Namely, it is said to be the device of discrimination and elimination trying to typifying and stereotyping non-western artists and having them stay around the marginal of the U. S. art circles. The only inclusion of non-western artists in the category of western art history is that the fantasy of such typifying and stereotyping becomes impossible as Homi Bhabha indicated in his book The Location of Culture. In this sense, Nam June Paik incorporated to western art history is the only Korean ar...

전후 추상미술계의 에스페란토, ‘앵포르멜’ 개념의 형성과 전개

정무정 한국미술사교육학회 2003 美術史學 Vol.17 No.-

파리 비엔날레와 한국현대미술

정무정 서양미술사학회 2005 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.23 No.-

록펠러 재단의 문화사업과 한국미술계 (I)

정무정 한국미술사교육학회 2019 美術史學 Vol.- No.37

The purpose of this paper is to examine the Rockefeller Foundation's cultural projects in Korea during the 1950s, specifically focusing on the three projects for the National Museum of Korea, Art Society of Korea, College of Fine Arts, Seoul National University. The paper is mainly based on primary materials such as Record Group 12.1-Officers’ Diaries, Charles Burton Fahs Papers, Rockefeller Foundation records, projects, held in the Rockefeller Archive Center located in Wetchester County, New York. Charles Burton Fahs who was director for Humanities in the Rockefeller Foundation, was responsible for the entire cultural program in Korea during the 1950s. In fact, the Rockefeller Foundation's projects for Korean art world were driven through Charles Burton Fahs' Korean network which he had established since 1946. While visiting Korea 8 times, he tried to check and understand what were being done with the financial aid of RF. In particular, Fahs saw the National Museum of Korea as the key institution which would stimulate and inspire the entire Korean culture and society in the long term. Rockefeller Foundation’s cultural projects in Korea were instrumental in making possible the preservation of the collection of National Museum of Korea, the introduction of education programs and the establishment of cooperative workshop for contemporary arts. Although it had a strategic interest in keeping Korea away from Communism, thereby making Korean culture deeply dependent on American one, it is also true that it contributed largely to the development of Korean culture and art. 이 논문은 지금까지 국내 연구에서 한 번도 소개되지 않은 미국 뉴욕 주 웨체스터 카운티에 위치한 록펠러 아카이브 센터를 방문하여 록펠러 재단의 한국에서의 문화지원 사업의 규모와 양상을 살펴본 연구이다. 2부 중 1부에 해당하는 이 논문에서는 국립박물관, 한국조형문화연구소, 서울대 미대를 중심으로 1950년대 록펠러 재단의 한국 미술계 지원의 구체적 양상과 특성을 살펴본다. 록펠러 재단의 한국미술계를 위한 사업은 해방 직후인 1946년부터 록펠러 재단에서 재직하며 1961년 사임할 때까지 총 8차례 한국을 방문하며 문화지원 사업을 총괄한 찰스 버튼 파스가 한국에 구축한 인맥을 중심으로 전개되었다. 한국 측 인맥의 핵심 축은 국립중앙박물관을 중심으로 형성되었으며 한국조형문화연구소와 서울대 미대 지원 사업도 국립박물관 직간접적인 관계 속에 진행되었다. 록펠러 재단의 지원으로 국립박물관은 혼란한 전후시기에 한국 문화의 중심축으로 자리매김할 수 있었다. 록펠러 재단의 문화지원사업은 미국 정부의 정치, 경제적 이해와 긴밀한 관계 속에 진행되었다. 파스와 한국 측 인사와의 서신교환에서 자주 언급되는 반공이념과 월남한 문화계 인사에 대한 지원은 공산주의 봉쇄라는 미국의 동아시아 정책기조가 민간재단의 문화사업에 투영된 증거라 판단된다. 그로 인해 록펠러 재단의 지원을 받은 기관이나 개인의 문화적 영향력으로 한국문화계의 대미 종속적 구조가 심화되었다는 비판이 제기될 수 있다. 그러나 록펠러 재단의 지원으로 국립박물관의 소장품이 온전히 보전 되고 박물관 시설과 인력이 확충되었으며, 어수선한 전후의 혼란기 속에서도 전시회가 꾸려지고 동서양의 미술과 문화가 망라된 한국 최초의 본격적 박물관 교육프로그램이 진행되는 등 한국문화와 미술의 제도적 정착이 순조롭게 진행된 것도 사실이다. 따라 서 록펠러 재단의 문화지원 사업에 대한 고찰은 그 정치적 성격에 대한 이해만이 아니라 사업담당자와 수혜국 관계자라는 변수를 통해 나타난 효과까지 함께 고려되어야 할 것이다. 다음 호에 게재할 2부에서는 파스의 주도로 확립된 록펠러 재단의 한국 미술계 지원사업이 1960년대에 어떠한 양상으로 전개되는지 살펴보고자 한다.

美 軍政期의 문화정책과 미술계

鄭茂正 미술사연구회 2004 미술사연구 Vol.- No.18

Since the 1980s the U.S. military government which supervised Korea during the 1945~48 has become one of the most popular topics for Korean historians However, most studies on this period have focused on the political, military and economic aspects of the U.S. occupation. In this paper, I will consider the ideological division within Korean nationalism and its reflection on the art community after the liberation from the Japanese rule in 1945. The ideological conflict is contextualized within the political and cultural policy of the United States Military Government in Korea. I will also examine how the military government affected the discourse on tradition among intellectuals and artists Record Group 332(Records of U.S Theaters of War, World War Ⅱ, USAFIK, Twenty-fourth Corps, G-2, Historical Section), which is stored at the National Archives at College Park, Maryland, U.S.A. provides valuable information on the cultural policies and activities of the American military government in Korea. In particular, two folders m Box 64, entitled "Culture in Korea," and "Culture in Korea Reports and Drafts," are very useful These materials have never been mentioned in the literature on Korean art. Cultural matters m the US military government(USAMGIK) were assigned to the Bureau of Culture within the Department of Education The Bureau of Culture was established in order to carry out the policies of the USAMGIK as stated m Field Order 55, ⅩⅩⅣ Corps, Annexes 7 and 8, which directed that "historical, cultural and religious objects and installations will be carefully preserved and protected." The Bureau of Culture primarily focused its attention on the antiquities of the Korean culture. Considering that it officially neglected the contemporary artists of the time but its interest in ancient Korean art and culture was quite extraordinary The interest in the Korean antiquities of the USAMGIK seems to have been largely derived from a political consideration. It's promotion of ancient Korean art was intended for diverting the artists attention from politics, that is, separating culture from politics. It was only the leftism or the Communism, however, that the USAMGIK sought to separate from culture. In this sense, the promotion of Korean traditional arts could be seen as a part of American anti-communist stance. Here we can see an unique character of American Orientalism that was derived from, according to Said, "Cold War competition with the Soviet Union." In dealing with contemporary cultural matters, American officials were also preoccupied with eliminating leftist forces from the cultural scene When Korean artists submitted the plans for the Choson Arts Academy, American military officials, first of all, examined the political backgrounds of its representatives; the reason why they held the Korea United Fine Arts Exhibition(Choson chonghap misul chollamhoe) was to promote a democratic attitude among Korean artists From 1947, moreover, the USAMGIK began to use oppressive measures against the leftist movement, driving leftists underground and eventually to North Korea In Korean history, the liberation period was an unique moment in which Korean people could dream of building a new culture and a new nation and try to materialize the dreams In this sense, intellectuals, writers, and artists of the period can be said to have been pregnant with the consciousness of the avant-garde in its original sense, implying both innovation and revolution. With the presence of the U.S. and Soviet troops, however, Korean society came to be polarized into two conflicting camps, ultimately two politically opposing countries. The political division at least in theory meant the geographical dissolution of the concept of the avant-garde into artistic innovation for South Korea and political revolution for North Korea. Yet, both Koreas even failed to work out the respective aspects of the avant-garde While political revolution in North Korea turned into dictatorship, artistic creativity m South Korea was stiffened to conservative academism.

박을복(1915~2015) 작품에 나타난 한국 자수의 위상과 의미

정무정 한국대학박물관협회 2017 고문화 Vol.90 No.-

미니멀리즘과 그 유산

정무정 서울여자대학교 조형연구소 2006 조형연구 Vol.12 No.-

백화점으로 간 미술작품: 메이시 극동 페스티벌 한국전시장의 성격과 의미

정무정 한국미술연구소 2022 美術史論壇 Vol.- No.55

일부 앵포르멜 세대의 이력에는 1966년에 미국 뉴욕시에 자리한 메이시 백화점(Macy’s)에서 초대전을 가졌다는 기록이 등장한다. 이 전시는 누가 기획했고 어느 작가가 참여했으며 어떠한 작품이 출품되었는지 알려지지 않은 채 일부 작가의 이력에 흔적으로만 남아 있다. 일반상품을 판매하는 뉴욕의 고급백화점이 어떤 의도와 목적을 가지고 아시아 미술가를 대상으로 전시회를 개최할 생각을 가졌던 것일까? 이 글에서는 1966년 메이시 백화점에서 개최된 것으로 알려진 전시와 관련된 자료의 발굴을 통해 그 전시의 성격과 의미를 규명해보고자 한다. 흥미롭게도 메이시 백화점에서의 전시는 미술 단체가 아닌 1962년 설립된 대한무역진흥공사(코트라)의 주도로 이루어졌다. 전시된 작품은 총 43점(서양화 31점, 동양화 12점)으로 출품작 선정과정은 알려지지 않았지만, 코트라가 위촉한 소수 미협 인사의 일방적 결정으로 이루어졌을 것으로 보인다. 이 전시는 해방 이후 한국이 자기 주도로 한국의 문화와 예술을 해외에 알릴 수 있었던 매우 예외적인 사건이었지만, 코트라가 주최한 전시이다 보니 한국 현대미술 전개에 어떠한 영향도 미치지 못한 채 한국미술사에서 소거되었다. 여기에 수출제일주의 정책을 추진한 정부와 KOTRA가 문화와 예술을 대하는 태도가 큰 역할을 했다. ‘고품질’이라는 무역용어로 미술작품을 호명하는 그들의 인식에 문화와 예술은 수출의 시녀에 불과했다. 백화점으로 간 미술작품, 그것은 수출우선주의 사회에서 설 자리를 찾지 못한 한국미술의 민낯이었다.