문헌소개 XII : 로버트 넬슨ㆍ리처드 쉬프 편, 『미술사를 위한 비평용어』

정무정(Chung Moojeong) (서평자) 서양미술사학회 2001 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.16 No.-

1950-1970년대 권영우의 작품과 ‘동양화’ 개념의 변화

정무정(Chung, Moojeong) 한국근현대미술사학회 2016 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.32 No.-

《Korea: Five Artists, Five Kinds of White》, a group show held at Tokyo Gallery in May 1975, is often credited as an epoch-making event in the development of the so-called ‘Dansaekjo’ (monochrome) painting. The exhibition, which contributed to the elevation of ‘Dansaekjo’ painting as Korea’s representative modernism, featured works of art by Kwon Young-woo, Lee Dong-yeop, Hur Hwang, Suh Seung-won and Park Seo-bo. Kwon Young-woo (1926-2013) must have been quite an exceptional figure among the group. He was the eldest and the only one who graduated from Seoul National University with a major in Eastern brush painting, while the other 4 artists all graduated from Hongik University with a major in Western oil painting. Kwon’s inclusion in the show can be seen as result of his hard efforts to open up a new type of Eastern painting, in which he excluded all the elements of Eastern brush painting except paper. It was his alternative to the then popular style of brush and ink abstraction. Thereby Kwon could succeed in modernizing Eastern painting and establishing the foundation for a new meeting of Western and Eastern paintings, where the distinctions between West and East was any more insignificant.

1950년대 미국에 소개된 한국미술

정무정(Chung Moojeong) 한국근현대미술사학회 2005 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.14 No.-

환원과 확산의 미학

정무정(Chung, Moojeong) 한국근현대미술사학회 2006 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.17 No.-

한국미술에 있어서 ‘모더니즘’의 의미와 특징

정무정(Chung, Moojeong) 한국근현대미술사학회 2011 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.22 No.-

In the discourses of Korean art history, the concept of modernism has tended to be used in an equivocal way. This ambiguous usage may cause a confusion in discussions of Korean art history. This paper aims to explore the characteristics of modernism in Korean art by distinguishing its different usages. According to Charles Harrison, who is professor of the history and theory of art at the Open University in England, the concept of modernism has been used in three different ways in Western art history. First, as the substantive form of the adjective ‘modern,’ modernism is used to refer to the distinguishing characteristics of Western culture from mid-nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth. The second sense of modernism refers to the modern tradition in high art and to the grounds on which a truly modern art may be distinguish not only from classical and conservative types of art but from the forms of popular and mass culture. Finally, the third sense of modernism stands not for the artistic tendency but for the usage itself and for a tendency in criticism which this usage is thought to typify. The first documented use of the term modernism in Korean art history can date as early as 1931, when the artist Kim Yongjoon argued that “we should not hastily disregard all the modern art movements as superfluous” in his review for the second exhibition of the Dongmi Association. As an argument against Hong Deuksoon’s criticism of its first exhibition, Kim’s review advocated the establishment of a true Chosun art. In this sense, Kim’s theory of native art can be considered both a part of modernity in Korean art and a characteristic of Korean ‘modernism’. Not only did the information about current artistic trends from the Japanese art community play an important role in forming the concept modernism in Korean art, but the interaction between artists and writers in the 1930s did too. Especially, members of the Guin Association came to understand modernity and got their literary inspirations through modern art. While expounding his theory of modernism, Kim Kirim, one of it members, proposed a solution to correct the literary tendency toward technicalism by criticizing modern civilization, whose parallel can also be found in Kim Bokjin’s theory of art. With the intervention of Japanese colonial policy, however, the balance between modern and proletariat art was broken and Korean modernism’s potential for criticizing modern civilization was also dissipated. The theory of modernism proposed by Lie Yll, who came out in favor of the so-called ‘Monochrome Painting’ in the middle of the 1970s, corresponds exactly to Clement Greenberg’s Modernist art. In ‘Monochrome Painting’, Lie Yll saw not only a complete command of medium but also a Korean outlook on nature. Thus, he regarded it as the most fruitful example for advanced Korean art. His view of ‘Monochrome Painting’, which was presented at length in his subsequent critical writing, formulated arguments for a compelling theory of Korean modernist painting. In this sense, his theory of ‘Monochrome Painting’ can be seen as a Korean version of Clement Greenberg’s modernist theory. Considering that he tried to differentiate his Modernism from Greenberg’s one by introducing east asian thoughts on nature, however, we can also find a characteristic of Korean Modernism in Lie’s theory.

한국전쟁과 국보해외소개(疏開/紹介) 그리고 록펠러재단

정무정(Chung Moojeong) 한국근현대미술사학회 2020 한국근현대미술사학 Vol.40 No.-

한국전쟁 당시 북한으로 이전될 뻔한 국립박물관 소장품을 극적으로 부산으로 대피시킨 일은 문화재의 수호와 보존의 중요성을 상기시키는 일화로 자주 언급된다. 이 연구에서는 록펠러 아카이브 센터에 소장된 기초사료를 토대로 국립박물관 소장품 해외소개를 둘러싸고 표출된 한국과 미국 측 관계자들의 이해관계를 살펴보고 그 과정에서 록펠러재단이 어떠한 역할을 했는지 조명해보고자 한다. 한국전쟁 중 국립박물관 소장품의 해외소개를 둘러싼 관계자들의 다양한 시각과 이해관계가 얽히며 해외소개의 성격이 대피에서 전시로 바뀌는 양상을 엿볼 수 있다. 첫 단계에서는 한국 정부의 제안으로 박물관 소장품 미국 이송 작전이 시작되었고, 미국의 학자와 박물관 관계자가 호응하여 추진되다가 재원의 부족과 정치적 이유로 일본으로 이송하는 결론이 나면서 중단되었다. 두 번째 단계에서는 호놀룰루 미술관의 적극적인 소장품 보관 및 전시계획이 이승만 대통령의 강력한 의지와 결합하여 상당히 구체적으로 진행되었으나 역시 재원 확보에 실패하고 미 대사관의 반대 그리고 한국 국회의 거부로 흐지부지되었다. 세 번째 단계에서는 이승만 대통령이 재선에 성공하고 1955년 4월에 ‘문화재해외전시에 관한 동의안’이 국회의 동의를 얻으면서 대피가 아닌 전시로 성격이 바뀌어 추진되었으나, 《한국국보전》 추진과정의 주도권이 미국 정부와 박물관 관계자에게 넘어가는 한계가 나타났다. 각 단계에서 한국과 미국의 정치, 외교, 미술 분야 관계자들의 다양한 사적, 공적 이해관계가 뒤얽히고 충돌하고 그로 인해 계획이 중단되고 제지되는 모습을 찾아볼 수 있다. 특히 소장품 해외 대피가 정치적 고려 때문에 번번이 제지되는 것은, 긴박한 전쟁의 위기 속에서 시작된 박물관 소장품 해외 대피가 냉전으로 인해 옴짝달싹 못 하게 된 역사의 아이러니를 보여준다. 이 과정에서 1947년부터 한국의 박물관에 관심을 보였던 록펠러재단의 존재는 이해당사자들 사이의 보이지 않는 중재자로 규정할 수 있다. 이는 한국의 영향력 있는 문화기관이나 개인에 긴요한 최소한의 지원을 통해 미국 정부의 정치적, 경제적, 문화적 이해관계를 관철시키는 데 은밀하게 기여하고자 했던 록펠러재단의 입장을 잘 보여주는 것이라 하겠다. The story of how the collection of the National Museum of Korea was evacuated during the Korean War, often serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting and preserving cultural properties. This paper is an attempt to examine primary materials contained in the Rockefeller Archive Center and investigate what the interested parties such as government authorities of Korea and America, museum personnel and university professors, thought of and how the Rockefeller Foundation reacted to the issue of moving art treasures of Korea to overseas. The evacuation plans were made over three stages. In its first stage, the Korean government asked the American government to transport its art treasures to America, which was not put into action due to the lack of financial resources and political reasons. In its second stage, the Honolulu Academy of Arts tried to keep Korean art treasures in its museum storage, which eventually failed because of the opposition of the Korean parliament. With having parliamentary approval, in its third stage, Korea could sent its art treasures to America not for evacuation but for circulating exhibition. In each stage, the conflicting interests of relevant parties prevented the moving of Korean art treasures to overseas. In January 1953, Kim Chewon, then the director of the National Museum of Korea, anticipated the advent of a cultural historian who would write how cultural properties of Korea were preserved during the Korean War. For a more complete history being written, it will be necessary to discover more historical records and refer to primary materials produced by the other parties of the Korean War.

국립 4.19 민주묘지 조형물의 변천과 그 의미

정무정(Chung moojeong) 서양미술사학회 2013 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.38 No.-

Right after the April revolution in 1960, the efforts to erect monuments to the victims of the revolution were mainly led by such organizations as the April Revolution Student Commission and the Association of the April Revolution Bereaved, and such newspaper publishing companies as Dong-A Ilbo and Kyunghyang Shinmun. After the May 16 military coup in 1961, however, the headquarters of the national reconstruction movement took the initiative in commissioning public monuments. The headquarters, which tried to carry out a reform of the national spirit, took it as an opportunity to secure the legitimacy of the illegal military coup. In doing so, it appropriated the visual idioms such as sturdiness of male nude figures and ideological themes such as warrior and comradeship during the Third Reich, which supported a new type of sculpture embodying the ideology of National Socialism. It is not surprising, thus, that <Guardian>, part of the monuments of April Student Revolution, bears a striking resemblance to the works of Josef Thorak and Georg Kolbe. Especially, the sword and rifle held by guardians, which were the very cause of the victim"s death, remind us of the leading figures in the military coup. In this sense, it is no exaggeration to say that the Monument of April Student Revolution virtually commemorates the May 16 military coup rather than the April revolution.

록펠러 재단의 문화사업과 한국미술(II): 록펠러 3세 기금 (JDR 3rd Fund)

정무정(Chung, Moojeong) 한국미술사교육학회 2020 美術史學 Vol.- No.39

이 논문에서는 1963년 설립되어 자동차 사고로 인해 존 록펠러 3세(John D. Rockefeller 3rd)가 급작스런 죽음을 맞이한 1978년까지 지속한 록펠러 3세 기금(JDR 3rd Fund)을 중심으로 록펠러 재단이 한국미술계를 위해 펼친 지원사업의 양상과 특징에 대해 살펴본다. 록펠러 3세 기금은 미국과 아시아 사이에 시각예술과 공연예술 분야 문화교류 지원을 위해 1963년에 설립된 기구로서 록펠러 아카이브 센터에서 검색한 자료를 토대로 미술 분야에 한정해서 한국의 미술가와 학자가 수혜를 받은 사례를 살펴보면 회화/조각 분야에 김창열, 윤명로, 최만린, 김환기, 김차섭, 김병기, 박종배, 미술사 분야에 안휘준, 박물관학 분야에 김재원, 권이구, 손보기, 고고학 분야에 김원룡, 건축 분야에 강홍빈 등이 있다. 록펠러 3세 기금이 동서문화 이해를 도모하기 위해 1963년에 시작한 아시아 문화프로그램 (Asian Cultural Program)은 1) 아시아인에게 기회를 제공하기 위해 아시아인이 미국과 때로 유럽 또는 아시아에서 훈련을 받고 예술활동을 시찰할 수 있도록 여행과 유학 장학금을 제공하고, 2) 아시아 문화전통의 검토와 보존을 고무하기 위해 아시아 박물관 인력이 등록, 목록작성, 사진 자료, 설치, 보존, 교육프로그램 같은 분야에서 박물관 훈련 쌓을 수 있도록 지원하며, 3) 아사아의 문화적 업적이 미국에서 전시, 공연되는 것을 촉진하기 위해 전시, 공연 투어, 강연-실연 투어, 레지던시 프로그램을 제공하고, 4) 아시아에서 미국의 문화적 업적의 전시와 공연을 촉진한다는 4가지 사업목표를 갖고 있었다. 이 프로그램을 기획한 포터 맥크레이(Porter McCray)는 다양한 가치를 지니고 서로 다른 발전단계에 있는 나라들이 공존하는 상황에서 각 나라가 지닌 독특한 문화에 대한 상호존중과 교류가 필요하고 그것을 토대로 생산적인 문화 관계가 가능하다는 전제하에 아시아 문화프로그램의 운영을 위한 모델을 개발했다. 사업의 목표와 대상 지역 그리고 지원 분야를 고려할 때 록펠러 3세 기금의 프로그램은 1950년대 파스가 아시아에서 추진한 문화지원 활동이 고도화된 것이라 평가할 수 있다. 1975년 아시아 문화프로그램 운영 12년간의 활동을 평가하기 위해 록펠러 3세 기금은 개인 수혜자들을 대상으로 기금의 지원이 수혜자의 개인적 발전과 경력 그리고 소속기관의 업무에 어떤 영향을 끼쳤는지에 대한 설문조사를 했다. 한국인 수혜자 총 55명 중 설문지를 작성하여 보낸 사람은 총 11명으로 추정되는데, 이 설문지 내용을 살펴보면 수혜자들이 록펠러 3세 기금의 지원 덕택에 한국의 박물관 제도가 정착되고 고고학과 미술교육 분야가 발전하게 되었다는 인식하고 있음을 확인할 수 있다. 그러나 많은 수혜자가 한국으로 귀국하지 않고 미국에 정착함으로써 록펠러 3세 기금의 애초 의도가 제대로 구현되지 못하는 한계도 찾아볼 수 있다. 1970년대에 록펠러 3세 기금은 문화교류의 정치, 경제적 가치를 중시하며 일방적으로 지원에서 방식에서 벗어나 상호교류를 강조하는 방식으로의 변화를 꾀한다. 그 과정에서 경제성장을 배경으로 등장한 한국문예진흥원이나 대우재단과 같은 한국 공 · 사립 문화재단은 상호교류의 주요한 파트너였다. 이러한 문화재단의 출현은 록펠러 재단이 아시아에서 펼친 문화사업의 의미 있는 성과로 평가할 수 있다. 록펠러 재단이 한국 공 · 사립 문화재단의 형성과 활동에 어떠한 영향을 주었는지는 1970년대 ACC의 사업에 대한 분석을 토대로 한 후속 연구를 기대한다. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Rockefeller Foundation’s cultural projects in Korea during the 1960s~1970s, specifically focusing on the JDR 3rd Fund. The JDR 3rd Fund was established in 1963 to support cultural exchanges in the visual and performing arts between the United States and Asia. The Fund had four objectives: “(1) to foster advancement of opportunity for Asians, (2) to encourage evaluation and preservation of Asian cultural tradition, (3) to promote exhibitions and performances of Asian cultural achievements in the United States, (4) to promote exhibitions of performances of American cultural achievements in Asia.” As a way to achieve some of these objectives, the Fund made grants to Asian artists, scholars, and cultural leaders pursuing such activities as research, study, and creative work in the United States. Porter McCray, director of the Fund, tried to search for individuals with unique potential and motivation. Once identified, individual grantees were provided with personalized assistance such as determining which American institutions could best serve their needs, finding housing for their families, and so on. Thus, its program can be seen as sophisticating the programs operated by Charles B. Fahs during the 1950s. Among the Korean grantees were Kim Tschang Yeul, Youn Myeong Ro, Kim Whanki, Kim Tchah Sup, Kim Byung Ki, Park Chong Bae, Ahn Hwi Joon, Kim Che Won, Kwon Yigu, Sohn Pow Key, Kim Won Yong. In 1974, the JDR 3rd Fund sent questionnaire to individual Asian grantees to review its twelve-year operation of the Asian Cultural Program. The questionnaire was designed to elicit their views of how their development and careers had been affected by the Fund’s assistance. Only 11 out of 55 Korean grantees are presumed to have responded to the questionnaire. Their responses show that the Fund’s assistance was greatly instrumental in establishing Korean cultural institutions and academic disciplines such as archaeology and art eduation. During the 1970s, the JDR 3rd Fund sought for change by placing greater emphasis on mutual exchanges instead of one-way assistance. The Korean Culture and Arts Foundation and the Daewoo Foundation were major partners in pursuing those bilateral exchanges. In this context, the appearance of public and private cultural foundations in Korea can be seen as the most significant achievement of the Rockefeller Foundations’ cultural projects in Korea. It has yet to be studied, however, how the Rockefeller Foundation affected the formation and activities of Korean cultural foundations.

아시아재단과 1950년대 한국미술계

정무정(Chung Moojeong) 한국예술종합학교 한국예술연구소 2019 한국예술연구 Vol.- No.26

추상표현주의와 정치 : 수정주의 관점 다시 읽기

정무정(Chung Moojeong) 서양미술사학회 2001 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.15 No.-

During the last three decades, there have been controversies about the relationship between art and politics, in particular, the use of Abstract Expressionism as a weapon of the Cold War. According to some revisionist historians of postwar American art, the success of Abstract Expressionism was closely related to the American government’s desire to promote an image of America as a land of freedom and individualism. Recently scholars have successfully refuted the claims of these revisionist historians by presenting specific cases where Abstract Expressionist painting was not predominant. This study is an attempt to examine the validity of revisionist views through the investigation of two exhibitions of the 1950s. The International Sculpture Competition, “The Unknown Political Prisoner” was proposed to the ICA by Anthony Kloman, a former U.S. cultural attache in Stockholm. As the largest international sculpture competition, it drew a huge response of 3,500 entries. The organizers emphasized that the theme should be regarded as of universal significance. In a period of Cold War tension, however, the theme was widely regarded as directed at the communist bloc. By examining confidential correspondence exchanged between the chief organizers of the competition, in fact, Robert Burstow revealed that the competition theme was a rhetorical device to naturalize the idea of Communism as the threat to liberal democracy. The underlying political intentions became more certain in the decision to give a runner-up prize to Kim, Chong-yang, a Korean figurative sculptor. Although the organizers of the competition claimed judicial impartiality towards artistic style in the prospectus, the jury unmistakably showed a bias toward modernist art. Almost all the winning works were in an abstract style. Naturally judicial prejudice provoked protests from artists and critics. Thus, it is possible that the decision to give a Korean sculptor a prize might have been partly based on a political consideration rather than aesthetic one. The exhibition “Eight American Artists” was held in April 9-21, 1957 at the National Museum in Seoul. It was sponsored by the USIA and organized by the Seattle Art Museum. Two editions were prepared for Europe and Asia, and the Asian edition consisted of 30 paintings and 10 sculptures. Although Korea was never mentioned in the itinerary for the Asian edition in the preparatory stage, she became the first country to host the exhibition. The sudden inclusion of Korea seems to have caused a serious problem in terms of publicity. It explains why the exhibition catalogue came out in the form of the July 1957 issue of the magazine Sinmisul. It also explains why the exhibition did not get the attention of the Korean press on the opening day. In the face of tepid reaction to the exhibition, USIS officials, who had not enough time to provide publicity material in Korean, seem to have hastily made out reference material for Korean critics based on John Baur’s Revolution and Tradition in Modern American Art. Three reviews’ simultaneous appearance and reference to Baur’s book seem to have something to do with the USIS’s publicity activities. After all, the exhibition gave the Korean art community not only the opportunity to see some examples of contemporary American art but also the framework through which to understand them. In his recently published book Abstract Expressionism as Cultural Critique, David Craven showed us a quite different picture of Abstract Expressionism from that of revisionist historians by examining the FBI files on some Abstract Expressionists and their avowed intentions. My examination of the two exhibitions also reveals that agencies of the American government did not particularly exploit Abstract Expressionism for political gain. During the 1950s and 1960s, many Americans affiliated with the arts believed that the increased