RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
자동완성 버튼

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력
    あ ぁ か が さ ざ た だ な は ば ぱ ま や ゃ ら わ ゎ ん い ぃ き ぎ し じ ち ぢ に ひ び ぴ み り う ぅ く ぐ す ず つ づ っ ぬ ふ ぶ ぷ む ゆ ゅ る え ぇ け げ せ ぜ て で ね へ べ ぺ め れ お ぉ こ ご そ ぞ と ど の ほ ぼ ぽ も よ ょ ろ を
    ア ァ カ サ ザ タ ダ ナ ハ バ パ マ ヤ ャ ラ ワ ヮ ン イ ィ キ ギ シ ジ チ ヂ ニ ヒ ビ ピ ミ リ ウ ゥ ク グ ス ズ ツ ヅ ッ ヌ フ ブ プ ム ユ ュ ル エ ェ ケ ゲ セ ゼ テ デ ヘ ベ ペ メ レ オ ォ コ ゴ ソ ゾ ト ド ノ ホ ボ ポ モ ヨ ョ ロ ヲ ―

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    ㅥ ㅦ ㅧ ㅨ ㅩ ㅪ ㅫ ㅬ ㅭ ㅮ ㅯ ㅰ ㅱ ㅲ ㅳ ㅴ ㅵ ㅶ ㅷ ㅸ ㅹ ㅺ ㅻ ㅼ ㅽ ㅾ ㅿ ㆀ ㆁ ㆂ ㆃ ㆄ ㆅ ㆆ ㆇ ㆈ ㆉ ㆊ ㆋ ㆌ ㆍ ㆎ
    Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ Ν Ξ Ο Π Ρ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π ρ σ τ υ φ χ ψ ω
    á à Á À é è É È ç Ç ê
    Ä Ö Ü ä ö ü ß
    ְ ֳ ֲ ֱ ָ ַ ֵ ֶ ִ ֹ ּ ֻ ׂ ׁ ּ פ ם ן ו ט א ר ק ף ך ל ח י ע כ ג ד ש ץ ת צ מ נ ה ב
    ‘ ’ “ ” 〔 〕 〈 〉 「 」 『 』 【 】 ＂ （ ） ［ ］ ｛ ｝
    ± × ÷ ≠ ≤ ≥ ∞ ∴ ♂ ♀ ∠ ⊥ ⌒ ∂ ∇ ≡ ≒ ≪ ≫ √ ∽ ∝ ∵ ∫ ∬ ∈ ∋ ⊆ ⊇ ⊂ ⊃ ∪ ∩ ∧ ∨ ￢ ⇒ ⇔ ∀ ∃ ∮ ∑ ∏ ＋ － ＜ ＝ ＞
    、 。 · ‥ … ¨ 〃 ― ∥ ＼ ∼ ´ ～ ˇ ˘ ˝ ˚ ˙ ¸ ˛ ¡ ¿ ː ！ ＇ ， ． ／ ： ； ？ ＾ ＿ ｀ ｜
    ½ ⅓ ⅔ ¼ ¾ ⅛ ⅜ ⅝ ⅞ ¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁿ ₁ ₂ ₃ ₄
    Æ Ð Ħ IJ Ł Ø Œ Þ Ŧ Ŋ æ đ ð ħ ı ij ĸ ŀ ł ø œ ß þ ŧ ŋ ʼn
    А Б В Г Д Е Ё Ж З И Й К Л М Н О П Р С Т У Ф Х Ц Ч Ш Щ Ъ Ы Ь Э Ю Я а б в г д е ё ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я
    ′ ″ ℃ Å ￠ ￡ ￥ ¤ ℉ ‰ ＄ ％ Ｆ ￦ ㎕ ㎖ ㎗ ℓ ㎘ ㏄ ㎣ ㎤ ㎥ ㎦ ㎙ ㎚ ㎛ ㎜ ㎝ ㎞ ㎟ ㎠ ㎡ ㎢ ㏊ ㎍ ㎎ ㎏ ㏏ ㎈ ㎉ ㏈ ㎧ ㎨ ㎰ ㎱ ㎲ ㎳ ㎴ ㎵ ㎶ ㎷ ㎸ ㎹ ㎀ ㎁ ㎂ ㎃ ㎄ ㎺ ㎻ ㎽ ㎾ ㎿ ㎐ ㎑ ㎒ ㎓ ㎔ Ω ㏀ ㏁ ㎊ ㎋ ㎌ ㏖ ㏅ ㎭ ㎮ ㎯ ㏛ ㎩ ㎪ ㎫ ㎬ ㏝ ㏐ ㏓ ㏃ ㏉ ㏜ ㏆
    § ※ ☆ ★ ○ ● ◎ ◇ ◆ □ ■ △ ▽ → ← ↑ ↓ ↔ 〓 ◁ ◀ ▷ ▶ ♤ ♠ ♡ ♥ ♧ ♣ ⊙ ◈ ▣ ◐ ◑ ▒ ▤ ▥ ▨ ▧ ▦ ▩ ♨ ☏ ☎ ☜ ☞ † ‡ ↕ ↗ ↙ ↖ ↘ ♭ ♩ ♪ ♬ ㉿ ㈜ № ㏇ ™ ㏂ ㏘ ℡ ＃ ＆ ＊ ＠ ª º
    ⅰ ⅱ ⅲ ⅳ ⅴ ⅵ ⅶ ⅷ ⅸ ⅹ Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ Ⅴ Ⅵ Ⅶ Ⅷ Ⅸ Ⅹ
    ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ک ل م ن ه و ی
    닫기

    '뉴다큐멘터리 연극' 연구 : 사실과 허구의 경계 허물기

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=T13673214

    • 0

      상세조회

    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    영어
    한국어
    This thesis aims to examine the tendency of contemporary documentary theatre, referred to as new documentary theatre, in terms of the perspective between the real and the fiction. In order to come to fore of the subject, it starts to deal with some old doubts/prejudices and critical issues related to the identity of documentary theatre: What is documentary theatre? Is documentary theatre really non-fictional? And is documentary theatre really political?
    Documentary theatre has highly tries to capture and stage the reality as it has a sort of artistic duty to do in-depth reporting the world as documentary. For almost one hundred years, many practitioners of documentary theatre experimented with how they could achieve the theatrical value of documentariness through various theatrical methods. Also documentary theatre, as an umbrella term, has become multiplied its kind: living newspaper, theatre of the fact, theatre of the witness, verbatim theatre, reality theatre, ethnography theatre, non-fiction drama, research-based theatre, theatre of the real and etc. As you see, it is hard to categorize them in terms of same aesthetic perspective of documentary theatre because they all have different theatrical purpose and apply own methods. This is why it is hard to define and categorize the (new) documentary theatre.
    However, we can find that one thing is in all of these: All these different experiments under documentary theatre have been developed based on the relation between the real and the fiction. It means, they are situated in the tension between objective representation of the real and subjective theatrical fiction. Here are some representative forerunners.
    Erwin Piscator, regarded as the first director of documentary theatre, paid attention to using film and photos in order to portray the reality on stage. He considered that film and photos as documents could bring the reality into fictive stage. In particular, he tried to the experiment with a montage-like interplay between actor (fictive performance) and film (real document). By doing so, he made the action placed in broad social and historical context.
    Peter Weiss, a representative figure of German documentary theatre in 60s, wished to have a theatre as a sort of court to judge world war, Nazi, new colonialization and so on. He did not create a drama but only edit and rearrange document-materials, mainly judicial reports and official records, by sticking to apply verbatim method in order to bring the reality into stage, and represented it in minimalist and epic theatrical style. In doing so, he made audience face the current situation and history with very cool head.
    New documentary theatre, which began with experimentation of postmodern flow, was affected by historical documentary attempts, while it extremely enlarges the realm of the real compared to the earlier. They have pursued performative aspects not by staging the reality contained in document like the former documentary theatre, but by performing and remediating the real in itself. For example, new documentary theatre is willing to give an authority to phenomenological and immaterial aspects as a document such as private memory and experience, individual body, place etc. They also adopt a variety of theatrical experiments such as real verbatim methods, staging real people, remediation of the real by digital media, site-specific notion and so on. Therefore, traditional distinction between the real and the fiction should be reconsidered. It proves itself as a quite flexible notion constantly changing its theatricality as documentary theatre went through its hundred years of history.
    In new documentary theatre, the distinction between the real and the fiction is no longer considered as a modern binary structure. Rather, new documentary theatre comes to break down the boundary between two values by floating between real fiction and fictional realities. Furthermore, it even strengthens a suspicion around the fiction as it deals with fictive elements intentionally. Then, can we say that new documentary theatre is willing to lose documentariness in historical sense spontaneously? Does new documentary theatre no longer share documentariness? So to speak, new documentary theatre maintains a provocative stance to documentary value compared to former documentary theatres.
    Then, irony happens: Even though new documentary theatre is mixed up with real fictions and fictional realities and it even shows strong fictive quality, it achieves to show off "really real reality". This reality does not come from a display or re-mediation of the reality, however, it is the reality which is ultimately constructed by spectators' perception and experience: With their performativity, the real becomes the fiction, and the fiction becomes the real, so the distinction becomes broken down. Hereby, spectators are able to perceive a sense of presence of the reality in fictive theatre. This study focuses on the issue to analyze: what are the different theatrical qualities and characteristics for new documentary theatre compared to historical documentary theatres, how they play two different elements of the real and the fiction, and how they achieve documentariness, a sort of new reality in fictional representative theatre. As we go through a series of points, we will confirm the important questions around documentary theatre that I have raised before: Is documentary theatre really real?
    번역하기

    This thesis aims to examine the tendency of contemporary documentary theatre, referred to as new documentary theatre, in terms of the perspective between the real and the fiction. In order to come to fore of the subject, it starts to deal with some ol...

    This thesis aims to examine the tendency of contemporary documentary theatre, referred to as new documentary theatre, in terms of the perspective between the real and the fiction. In order to come to fore of the subject, it starts to deal with some old doubts/prejudices and critical issues related to the identity of documentary theatre: What is documentary theatre? Is documentary theatre really non-fictional? And is documentary theatre really political?
    Documentary theatre has highly tries to capture and stage the reality as it has a sort of artistic duty to do in-depth reporting the world as documentary. For almost one hundred years, many practitioners of documentary theatre experimented with how they could achieve the theatrical value of documentariness through various theatrical methods. Also documentary theatre, as an umbrella term, has become multiplied its kind: living newspaper, theatre of the fact, theatre of the witness, verbatim theatre, reality theatre, ethnography theatre, non-fiction drama, research-based theatre, theatre of the real and etc. As you see, it is hard to categorize them in terms of same aesthetic perspective of documentary theatre because they all have different theatrical purpose and apply own methods. This is why it is hard to define and categorize the (new) documentary theatre.
    However, we can find that one thing is in all of these: All these different experiments under documentary theatre have been developed based on the relation between the real and the fiction. It means, they are situated in the tension between objective representation of the real and subjective theatrical fiction. Here are some representative forerunners.
    Erwin Piscator, regarded as the first director of documentary theatre, paid attention to using film and photos in order to portray the reality on stage. He considered that film and photos as documents could bring the reality into fictive stage. In particular, he tried to the experiment with a montage-like interplay between actor (fictive performance) and film (real document). By doing so, he made the action placed in broad social and historical context.
    Peter Weiss, a representative figure of German documentary theatre in 60s, wished to have a theatre as a sort of court to judge world war, Nazi, new colonialization and so on. He did not create a drama but only edit and rearrange document-materials, mainly judicial reports and official records, by sticking to apply verbatim method in order to bring the reality into stage, and represented it in minimalist and epic theatrical style. In doing so, he made audience face the current situation and history with very cool head.
    New documentary theatre, which began with experimentation of postmodern flow, was affected by historical documentary attempts, while it extremely enlarges the realm of the real compared to the earlier. They have pursued performative aspects not by staging the reality contained in document like the former documentary theatre, but by performing and remediating the real in itself. For example, new documentary theatre is willing to give an authority to phenomenological and immaterial aspects as a document such as private memory and experience, individual body, place etc. They also adopt a variety of theatrical experiments such as real verbatim methods, staging real people, remediation of the real by digital media, site-specific notion and so on. Therefore, traditional distinction between the real and the fiction should be reconsidered. It proves itself as a quite flexible notion constantly changing its theatricality as documentary theatre went through its hundred years of history.
    In new documentary theatre, the distinction between the real and the fiction is no longer considered as a modern binary structure. Rather, new documentary theatre comes to break down the boundary between two values by floating between real fiction and fictional realities. Furthermore, it even strengthens a suspicion around the fiction as it deals with fictive elements intentionally. Then, can we say that new documentary theatre is willing to lose documentariness in historical sense spontaneously? Does new documentary theatre no longer share documentariness? So to speak, new documentary theatre maintains a provocative stance to documentary value compared to former documentary theatres.
    Then, irony happens: Even though new documentary theatre is mixed up with real fictions and fictional realities and it even shows strong fictive quality, it achieves to show off "really real reality". This reality does not come from a display or re-mediation of the reality, however, it is the reality which is ultimately constructed by spectators' perception and experience: With their performativity, the real becomes the fiction, and the fiction becomes the real, so the distinction becomes broken down. Hereby, spectators are able to perceive a sense of presence of the reality in fictive theatre. This study focuses on the issue to analyze: what are the different theatrical qualities and characteristics for new documentary theatre compared to historical documentary theatres, how they play two different elements of the real and the fiction, and how they achieve documentariness, a sort of new reality in fictional representative theatre. As we go through a series of points, we will confirm the important questions around documentary theatre that I have raised before: Is documentary theatre really real?

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • Ⅰ. 서론 1
    • 1. 연구목적 및 문제제기 1
    • 2. 선행연구 및 연구방법, 연구범위 11
    • Ⅱ. 다큐멘터리 연극을 둘러싼 기본 쟁점들 18
    • 1. 다큐멘터리 연극이란 무엇인가? 18
    • Ⅰ. 서론 1
    • 1. 연구목적 및 문제제기 1
    • 2. 선행연구 및 연구방법, 연구범위 11
    • Ⅱ. 다큐멘터리 연극을 둘러싼 기본 쟁점들 18
    • 1. 다큐멘터리 연극이란 무엇인가? 18
    • 가. 다큐멘터리의 어원과 합의 18
    • 나. 다큐멘터리 연극과 유사 용어들 25
    • 2. 다큐멘터리 연극은 논픽션인가? 32
    • 가. 다큐멘터리 연극에서의 사실과 허구의 문제 32
    • 나. 사실의 적법성을 넘어서는 진실의 형태 38
    • 3. 다큐멘터리 연극은 정치적인가? 44
    • 가. 연극과 시대의 내적 관계 44
    • 나. 지각의 정치성 52
    • Ⅲ. 다큐멘터리 연극의 역사적 전개과정 62
    • 1. 1920년대 아방가르드 운동과 에르빈 피스카토르의 다큐멘터리 연극 63
    • 2. 1960년대 냉전시대와 페터 바이스의 다큐멘터리 연극 74
    • 3. 1990년대 포스트모더니즘과 뉴다큐멘터리 연극 85
    • Ⅳ. 뉴다큐멘터리 연극의 특성: 사실적 허구이자 허구적 사실 95
    • 1. 허구성이 강조된 다큐멘트 96
    • 가. 새로운 다큐멘트의 등장: 기억과 경험 96
    • 나. 플롯 없는 역사와 인물 없는 전기 106
    • 다. 허구적 텍스트의 개입과 모크-다큐멘터리 연극의 실험 115
    • 2. 실제 인물의 연기적 수행 129
    • 가. 공동창작과 버바텀 텍스트에 내재된 수행성 130
    • 나. 실제 인물의 허구성과 진정성 136
    • 다. 디에게시스적 자기 이야기하기 149
    • 3. 장소 특정적 뉴다큐멘터리 연극의 장소성 159
    • 가. 보행으로 쓰는 서사 160
    • 나. 헤테로토피아와 중첩된 시공간 170
    • 다. 공간을 전유하는 수행적 관객 176
    • 4. 현실을 대체하는 가상적 실재 184
    • 가. 디지털 시뮬레이션 퍼포먼스 186
    • 나. 부재하는 배우가 드러나는 방식 193
    • Ⅴ. 뉴다큐멘터리 연극의 의의와 전망 204
    • 1. 허구에서 창출되는 새로운 리얼리티 205
    • 2. 포스트서사 퍼포먼스로서의 정치성 213
    • Ⅵ. 결론 225
    • 참고문헌 232
    • ABSTRACT 248
    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1. 『국가론』, Platon, 박영사, 서울:집문당, , 2005

    2. 다큐멘터리, 차민철, 서울:커뮤니케이션북스, , 2014

    3. 공간의 기억, 박상진, 『공간과도시의의미들』,철학아카데미엮음, 서울:소명출판,,p.13-36, , 2004

    4. 모바일 미디어, 이재현, 서울:커뮤니케이션북스, , 2013

    5. 연극이론의 탐구, 김용수, 서울:서강대학교출판부, , 2012

    6. 시뮬라크르의 시대, 이정우, 서울:거룸, , 1999

    7. 기록극이란 무엇인가, 황성근, 서울:한국학술정보, , 2008

    8. “다큐와연극의접목”, 권재현, <동아일보>,(http://news.donga.com/3/all/20130627/56148722/1), , 2013

    9. “디지털이미지와몸”, 박영욱, 경기대학교미디어예술문화연구소학술대 회자료집,경기대학교미디어예술문화연구소, , 2014

    10. 「다정도병인양하여」, 성기웅, 년4월기준공연본, , 2014

    1. 『국가론』, Platon, 박영사, 서울:집문당, , 2005

    2. 다큐멘터리, 차민철, 서울:커뮤니케이션북스, , 2014

    3. 공간의 기억, 박상진, 『공간과도시의의미들』,철학아카데미엮음, 서울:소명출판,,p.13-36, , 2004

    4. 모바일 미디어, 이재현, 서울:커뮤니케이션북스, , 2013

    5. 연극이론의 탐구, 김용수, 서울:서강대학교출판부, , 2012

    6. 시뮬라크르의 시대, 이정우, 서울:거룸, , 1999

    7. 기록극이란 무엇인가, 황성근, 서울:한국학술정보, , 2008

    8. “다큐와연극의접목”, 권재현, <동아일보>,(http://news.donga.com/3/all/20130627/56148722/1), , 2013

    9. “디지털이미지와몸”, 박영욱, 경기대학교미디어예술문화연구소학술대 회자료집,경기대학교미디어예술문화연구소, , 2014

    10. 「다정도병인양하여」, 성기웅, 년4월기준공연본, , 2014

    11. 『문학비평용어사전』, 이상섭, 서울:민음사, , 2007

    12. 포스트모더니즘의 이론, 김욱동, 서울:민음사, , 1992

    13. 『역사가기억을말하다』, 전진성, 서울,휴머니스트, , 2002

    14. 포스트드라마 연극의 미학, 김형기, 서울:푸른사상, , 2011

    15. 「신연극성과비평의대응」, 김윤철, 『오늘의세계연극읽기』,서울: 연극과인간,,p.6-30, , 2007

    16. 「실재에대한철학적이해」, 이중원, 『철학과인접학문의대화』,한국 철학회편,서울:철학과현실사, , 2004

    17. 모바일미디어와 모바일사회, 이재현, 서울:커뮤니케이션북스, , 2004

    18. “씨어터드벨트프로그래머”, 신민경, 프리레이슨과의인터뷰,,,10. (http://m.kor.theapro.kr/GM/main.asp?cate=2&idx=154&ord=1&or dt=1&pageNo=6&state=view&sub_num=15), , 2010

    19. 뉴미디어와연극언어의재매개, 이진아, 한국드라마학회, 『드라마연구』,39호, ,p.157-189, , 2013

    20. 『세계를뒤흔든미래주의선언』, 이택광, 그린비, 서울:그린비, , 2008

    21. (JeromeBel),<장애극장(DisabledTheatre)>, 제롬벨, 벨기에‘쿤스텐페 스티벌데자르(Kunstenfestivaldesarts)’,년5월, , 2012

    22. 「에르빈피스카토르의정치극연구」, 김용한, 서울대학교대학원독어 독문학과박사학위논문, , 1995

    23. 드라마투르기와포스트드라마투르기, 파트리스파비스, 『드라마연 구』,43호,,p.195-208, , 2013

    24. 『연극과정치:탈정치시대의독일연극』, 이상복, 서울:연극과인간, , 2008

    25. 재현의 관점에서 본 예술과 실재의 관계, 이주영, 『미학예술학연 구』,22호,,p.5-38, , 2005

    26. “미디어테크놀러지와가상공간의위상”, 이원곤, 경기대학교미디어예술 문화연구소학술대회자료집,경기대학교미디어문화예술연구소, , 2014

    27. 극단 리미니 프로토콜과 다큐멘터리 연극, 김성희, 『브레히트와현 대연극』,25호,,p.141-165, , 2011

    28. 「9/11과 아방가르드 연극-실재, 가상, 재현」, 최성희, 한국연극학회, 『한국연극학』, 47호,,p.197-221, , 2012

    29. “아프리카르네상스-쿤스텐페스티벌데자르”, 남지수, <연극평론>, 66호,2012,p.147-153, , 2012

    30. /극단제12언어연극스튜디오,<다정도병인양하여>, 성기웅, 국립극장소 극장판,년12월, , 2013

    31. “연극은폭동에어떻게대응할것인가-《폭동》”, 김소연, <연극평론>, 64호,,p.155-160, , 2012

    32. 「리미니프로토콜-일상의연극화,연극의일상화」, 이은기, 『동시대 연출가론:서구편Ⅱ』,최영주엮음,서울:연극과인간,,p. 77-110, , 2010

    33. “새로운형식과내용으로확산되는다큐멘터리연극”, 강일중, <한팩 뷰>,년5월호, , 2012

    34. TV리얼리티: 다큐멘터리, 뉴스, 리얼리티 쇼의 현실구성, 이종수, 서울:한나래, , 2004

    35. “숫자에감춰진리얼리티-리미니프로토콜의<100%광주>”, 남지수, 리미니프로토콜과의(슈테판카에기,헬가르트하우그)인터뷰, ,(http://kor.theapro.kr/?sub_num=143&pageNo=1&state=view&idx =399), , 2014

    36. 「”새로운드라마”와떼아트르.doc의다큐멘터리연극」, 김혜란, 『러시 아어문학연구논집』,44집,,p.61-84, , 2013

    37. 매체 다원화 시대 다큐멘터리 장르의 경계에 관한 연구, 전평국, <영화연구>,37호,,p.351-382, , 2008

    38. 「정치연극의 언어-년대 피스카토르의 연극 실험 연구」, 남상식, 『한국연극학』,6호,1994,p.305-337, , 1920

    39. 「한국연극의새발화주체-호모사케르와공적영역의복원」, 이경미, 『드라마연구』,43호,,p.27-54, , 2014

    40. 『페르세우스의방패:페터바이스의《저항의미학》읽기』, 문광훈, 고려대학교, 서울:고려대학교출판부, , 2012

    41. 레만의 포스트드라마 연극론에서 수행성과 매체성의 문제, 유봉근, 『브레히트와현대연극』,26집,,p.83-104, , 2012

    42. /극단크리에이티브바키(VaQi),<남산도큐멘타:연극의연습-극 장편>, 이경성, 남산드라마센터,년3월, , 2014

    43. 「장소특정적연극-퍼포먼스연구한국의공연작품들을중심으 로」, 신현숙, 한국연극학회, 『한국연극학』,49호,,p.169-206, , 2013

    44. 『장소특정적미술(Oneplaceafteranother:site-specificart andlocationalidentity)』, 권미원, 김인규,우정아,이영욱역,서울:현실 문화, , 2013

    45. 현대연극에 나타난 포스트아방가르드적 전환 및 관객의 미적 경험, 이경미, 『한국연극학』,37호,,p.205-244, , 2009

    46. 『이미지문화와시대쟁점:영상문화의세계는어떻게발전해왔 는가』, 박명진, 문학과지성사, 서울:문학과지성사, , 2013

    47. “오늘여기,한국희곡의양상;새로운글쓰기의한양상,다큐멘 터리연극”, 이은경, <연극평론>,68호,,p.93-98, , 2013

    48. “뉴다큐멘터리연극의영향미학과정치성-리미니프로토콜을중 심으로”, 김형기, 한국드라마학회추계학술대회자료집, , 2014

    49. 「연극의정치성에대한새로운접근-실험을통한감각의분할 과타자의현시」, 이경미, 한국연극학회, 『한국연극학』,48호,,p.171-196, , 2012

    50. 「에르빈피스카토르의『야!우리는살아있다!』상연에서의다 매체적실험」, 정동란, 한국브레히트학회, 『브레히트와현대연극』,10호,,p.145-164, , 2002

    51. 「매체성의관점에서바라본연극,연극성-디지털미디어시대 와‘inter-’의미학」, 이경미, 한국연극학회, 『한국연극학』,43호,,p.153-187, , 2011

    52. 새로운 서사와 연기의 진정성에 관한 연구 —르 롸와 제롬 벨의 작업을 중심으로—, 김수진, 『드라마연구』,37호,,p.5-32, , 2012

    53. “포스트드라마이후독일드라마의새로운글쓰기-데아로어와 시멜페니히의내러티브씨어터”, 장은수, <연극평론>,72호,,p. 81-87, , 2014

    54. “말하는극장,말하게하는극장-<남산도큐멘타:연극의연습- 극장편>과<투표는진행중입니다>”, 송현민, <문화+서울>,서울문화재 단,년4월호, , 2014

    55. 상호매체적 공연에서 배우의 역할 구현의 문제 — 얀 라우어스의 <이사벨라의 방 >을 중심으로, 이진아, 『드라마연구』,44호,, p.91-127, , 2014

    56. 「에르빈피스카토르의연출작업에나타난서사화와집단주의 -년대민중극장에서의작업을중심으로」, 김화임, 『브레히트와현 대연극』,9호,2001,p.111-128, , 1920

    57. 「한국다큐멘터리연극에관한연구:성기웅의<다정도병인 양하여>와윤한솔의<나는야?스왕>을중심으로」, 이은경, 『인문언 어』,15(1)호,,p.69-96, , 2013

    58. 「독일기록극에나타난사회역사의식-피스카토르의극작술과 호흐투흐,킵하르트,바이스의작품을중심으로」, 김희열, 『독어문학』, 54(1)호,,p.232-280, , 1994

    59. 「포스트드라마시대의배우의방향성에과한연구:포스트드라 마연극에나타난‘자기이야기하기’서사를중심으로」, 나경민, 중앙대학 교대학원연극학과석사논문, , 2013

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼