마이클 프리드의 미술비평과 이론 = The Art Criticism of Michael Fried; the power of 'coup d'oeil'

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The art criticism of Michael Fried was bom out of the conviction that art history has come to a crisis. What is at stake in this critical situation is whether the painting or sculpture in question are experienced as art or mere objecthood. If art reduces to objecthood, then art history, at least the modernist art history comes to an end. Fried wanted to watch over the modernist art history.
The importance of Michael Fried as a aritic lies in the situation in which he participated as a par-excellent, the last modernist art critic. In other words, modernist art criticism climaxed by Fried but also dissolved by himself while he was fighting with Literalism for the right way of art history.
The aesthetic of Michael Fried was that of tableau or screen. It is interesting that he made reference to the movies as the one art which escapes theater entirely by its very nature. According to him, the screen is not experienced as a kind of object existing in a specific physical relation to us. But because it escapes the war with theater or theatricality automatically by its own nature, even the most experimental cinema cannot be a modernist art. What he meant by the ‘modernist’ sensibility was to find it imperative that art defeats or suspends its own objecthood, and to experience the art-object that exist as an physical entity visually as shape. Modernist art only yields to the beholder’s coup d’ oeil.
The ‘coup d’ oeil’ of modernism denies the ‘mise en scene’. Fried wanted art to defeat the condition of theater, to defeat dramaturgy. However art after “art and objecthood” developed with an interest in the vety ‘mise en scene’, with the interest in the psychological and physical beholder and his or her situation in the world.
Yet, the purpose of this essay is not to reveal whether Michael Fried was right or wrong. Fried says: “... in fact it is inconceivable that he will not be wrong a fair amount of the time. But being wrong is preferable to being irrelevant.” This article is about the “fair amount of the time” in which Fried’s criticism paradoxically played a role.
In a sense, ‘a fair amount of the time’ always betrays a coup d’ oeil. But Michael Fried’s moment in its historical sense deserves to be taken seriously. He run the same risks as the artist whose work he criticized. Today, the word ‘aesthetic judgment’ as a critical terminology sounds rather classical and worn-out. If we are able to give up any kind of aesthetic judgment in appreciating contemporary art it would be the transformation of critical semantics that modernist criticism ultimately bring about. Unintentionally though.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 평론가의 임무
• Ⅱ. 모더니즘 회화의 위기
• Ⅲ. 그림(tableau) vs. 연극(theatre)
• Ⅳ. 예술과 물체
• Ⅴ. 맥락 Ⅰ
• Ⅵ. 맥락 Ⅱ
• Ⅶ. coup d' oeil
• Bibliography
• Abstract