http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
정헌일,박조원 한국예술경영학회 2013 예술경영연구 Vol.0 No.28
국제영화제 방문객의 방문 동기와 방문 만족의 관계를 분석한 이 연구는 선행 연구와 달리 단순히 방문 동기 요인들이 만족에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지를 확인하는 것에서 나아가 영화제별 특성과 방문객의 특성을 조절 변인으로 설정하여 국제영화제 동기와 만족의 관계를 더욱 입체적으로 파악하고자 하였다. 또한 선행 연구의 경우 단일한 영화제 방문객을 대상으로 한 것이었던 반면 이 연구의 경우 우리나라의 주요한 5개 국제영화제의 방문객을 대상으로 실시한 조사 결과를 분석함으로써 영화제에서의 문화 소비에 대한 일반화의 가능성을 높일 수 있도록 하였다. 우선 요인분석을 통해 국제영화제 방문 동기가 “영화감상/문화예술 향유 동기”, “여가 향유 동기”, “축제 참여 동기”의 세 차원으로 구성됨을 밝혔다. 이어 실시된 회귀 분석 결과요인 분석에서 확인된 3개의 동기 요인들 가운데 만족에 가장 큰 영향력을 미치는 요인은 “영화감상/문화예술 향유 동기”임을 밝혔다. 영화제별 특성과 방문객의 특성을 조절 변인으로 설정해 좀 더 심층적인 회귀 분석을 실시한 결과 여전히 “영화감상/문화예술 향유 동기”가 만족을 결절하는 가장 중요한 요인임이 밝혀졌으나 “축제 참여 동기”도 만족에 영향을 미치고 있음을 확인하였다. 분석 결과를 토대로 실용적인 측면에서 영화제의 방문객 만족도 제고를 위한 방안이 논의되었다. The present study explored the relationship between visitors’ motivation and satisfaction in the international film festivals. The study tried to grasp the relationship between the motivation and satisfaction more comprehensively by putting the different attributes of various film festivals and visitors. In addition, since this research analyzed the visitors of five major international film festivals held in Korea, it is expected that the result of the study may be generalized, comparing most other previous studies that focused on a single film festival. The factor analysis identified three dimensions of visitor motivations; “movie appreciation and enjoyment of culture and arts,” “leisure,” and “participating in festival.” Subsequently, multiple regression analyses were performed to explore how motivations predict satisfaction. Regression analyses indicated “movie appreciation and enjoyment of culture and arts” was the factor that explained the satisfaction. When the intermediate variables such as the different attributes of various film festivals and visitors were considered, motivation to participate in festivals partially predicted the satisfaction. On the basis of the findings, managerial implications to enhance the visitors’ satisfaction.
반 고흐의 〈낡은 구두〉 : 하이데거, 메이어 샤피로, 자크 데리다의 논쟁을 중심으로
정헌이(Hunyee Jung) 서양미술사학회 1998 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.10 No.-
This essay deals with the debates between Martin Heidegger, Meyer Schapiro and Jacques Derrida on the truth in Vincent Van Gogh’s Painting of Pair if Shoes. Heidegger said that this painting let us know what shoes are in truth. This represented equipment belongs to the earth, and it is protected in the world of the peasant woman. Van Gogh’s painting is the disclosure of what the equipment, the pair of peasant shoes, is in truth. This art work opens up in its own way the Being of beings, and this opening up, i.e., this deconcealing, i.e., the truth of beings, happens in the work. Shapiro criticized Heidegger that this attribution of Van Gogh’s picture of the shoes to a peasant woman is false. The shoes are not those of a peasant woman but of a male city dweller, Van Gogh’s own shoes at the time he was living in Paris. He accused Heidegger that he deceived himself, that he imagined everything and projected it into the painting. According to Schapiro, this painting is worth Van Gogh’s self portrait. Derrida argues that this episode is not a theoretical or philosophical dispute for the interpretation of a work but a matter of history and politics. He says that this shoes are painted shoes and they will not returned to the rightful owner, to the original subject. Painting is anterior to the discourse about truth, anterior to the desire for restitution. Finally, his essay is lodged against the discourse of belonging, against the discourse of attribution. Art History is based on the connoisseurship, in other words, the discourse of attribution. Then how can we art historians react to Derrida’s accusations? Derrida says that “one dreams of a painting without truth, which without debt and running the risk of no longer saying anything to anyone, would still not give up painting”. Yet, this resembles Kant’s definition of aesthetic experience which is ‘without purpose’, ‘without use’, ‘without interest’. The ghost step which still comes to haunt the painted shoes is not so much peasant woman’s nor Van Gogh’s, neither Heidegger’s nor Schapiro’s, but Kant’s. Derrida further claims that painting suspends its own meaning, risking the loss of meaning. The truth may have something to do with the ownership of the history rather than the truth, or than the origin of truth, the truth of truth. There exist contests for the identity and truth. Then this debate is not so much the debate between disciplines, i.e., between art histoy and philosophy of art, but a matter of world-view. Do we believe that we owe the world some debt? The debt of meaning, truth, whatever. The promise of Cezanne, “I owe you the truth in painting, and I wil tell it to you” is only a performative promise. Yet, do we expect something in his promise? Truth or not, the promise always belongs to the future which is not yet rome. Thus, promise, the promise on the truth of painting always takes the form of belief and expectation before it turns into mere traces of truth.