http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
정석오,김소영(토론자) 한국엔터테인먼트산업학회 2008 한국엔터테인먼트산업학회 학술대회 논문집 Vol.2 No.2
이 논문에서는 무용 포토 그래퍼로서 알고 있어야 할 무용에 대한 지식과 더불어 안무가 역시 알고 있어야 할 사진에 대한 역사와 지식에 대해 서술하였다. 그럼으로서 서로의 분야에 대한 지식을 통해 보다 더 나은 작품완성도를 높이기 위함이다. 사진과 무용은 서로 성격이 상당히 다른 형태의 예술이기에, 서로에 대한 이해와 상당부분의 지식이 없으면, 서로간의 융화를 통한 좋은 작품이 나올 수 없다. 이 논문을 서술하기 전에는, 그 동안 많은 공연과 현장에서의 경험을 토대로 그다지 어렵지 않게 서술 할 수 있을 거라고 생각했다. 하지만, 여러 자료 수집과 안무가들과 그 밖의 무용수들과 인터뷰를 하면서 무용에 대한 용어나 형태, 안무를 만들어내는 과정에서 지켜야 할 어떤 일정한 규칙들을 모르고 있음을 깨달았다. 안무가들 역시 자신들이 만들어낸 동작들이, 어떻게 하면 그 동작과 안무를 통해 전달하고자 하는 의도가 ‘사진’이라는 매개체를 통해 수많은 사람들에게 잘 전달될 수 있는가?에 대해서는 포토그래퍼에게 전적으로 의지 할 수밖에 없다고 한다. 인터뷰를 통한 안무가들의 말을 빌리자면 “ 이런 순간에서 자신들이 말하고자 하는 의도는 이러한 것인데, 과연 이런 의도를 사진을 통해 어떻게 하면 더 강하고 확실하게 전달할 수 있을까? 사진에 대해서는 문외한이라 말로서 포토그래퍼와 상의하는 것이 최선의 방법이라고 생각하고 있다”라는 말에서, 만약 안무가들도 사진에 대한 어느 정도의 지식이 있다면 안무를 창작하면서 사진을 염두에 두어 두면서, 동작들을 만들어 낼 수 있을 것이다. 그렇게 하면 좀 더 강하고 확실하게 사진을 통해 자신의 함의를 전달 할 수 있게 될 것이다. 한문의 사자성어 중에, ‘지피지기면 백전백승’이란 말이 있듯이 서로에 대해 잘 알고 있다면, 안무가의 의도가 잘 담긴 더 좋은 사진이 나 올 수 있을 것이다.
박진형(Jin-Hyung Park),김소영(토론자) 현대미술사학회 2003 현대미술사연구 Vol.15 No.-
Introduction This essay doesn't have an aim for textual analysis or criticism of a particular, or more than two, contemporary Korean cinema in terms of homosexual representation. Rather, it aims to rethink queer criticism in cinematic discourse as a way of political, theoretical practice, and to speculate reflectively the matter of how queer theory can be 'placed' in Korea. Like other theories from the west, queer theory arrived at the discursive battlefield in Korea, and very soon, it has been rapidly spread and articulated in various discourses: feminism, which has been desperately seeking for alliance with other theories of the oppressed, and any political discourse of the minority. Queer theory and criticism are the most marginalized and the most potent one among the critical discourses, at least regarding their status in the Korean academic field. Meanwhile, queer theory is now facing new problems when its potential as the marginal is acknowledged without any questions. Not being fully discussed yet, differences in race, class, or socio-economical and geo-political states remain unexamined, while staying under the big umbrella of the queer. However, what really matter is that queer theory's potential as a marginal politics is at the danger of being located and re-registered at the center of academic markets in Korea. More importantly, this risk is resulted from queer theory's own practice to be recaptured at the center of academic discourses, as well as the dynamics of mainstream (heterosexual) intellectuals and academic discourses, which try to capture queer theory and recuperate it as the marginal-in-the-center. When queer subjects assume their own subjectivity and construct it just as mainstream intellectuals do, as Gayatri Spivak asserts in her essay 'Can subaltern can speak?', they will be remained as the Other and eventually adhered to the construction of colonial (and heterosexual) subject that interweaves the developments in knowledge and civilization with epistemic violence. Starting with acknowledging my position as a queer scholar in East Asia, I propose the readers to realize the importance of the risk of queer theory and its practice in Korean academic discourses. Some can think that the issue comes too early to be raised as the problematic, because matters of queer theory or queer subjectivity could not have chance to be fully discussed yet in Korean society in general, in Korean academic fields in particular. However, the problematic of theory - any theory - we can pose is always related to ceaseless questions about what particular practices the theory leads and how the theory becomes re-located by the practices it leads. Relating this question with matters of queer theory and criticism, I dare to assert it can never be overemphasized that one can, however, given the play of power and resistance, resist the continuing practices of (heterosexual) subject formation and attempt to discover ways of being that might thwart and transgress such practices. The Other should represents a location from which it might be possible to work strategically towards a freeing of subject from subjectivity, rather than tries to be freed from its marginalized place. In short, I would like to stress the importance of Foucauldian notion of ethics in considering queer theory and its practice. Given this, I would like to speculate the dynamics of heterosexual dominant discourse that always tries to recuperate queer subjectivity and queer theory as the marginal in its circuit At the very moment when marginality becomes normalized and universalized by western heterosexual discourse, it is soon interpolated as the-Other-for-the-subject. In this dynamics of dominant discourse, any theory of the marginal - cultural, economical, and sexual - loses its potential as transgression or counter-force and becomes serving the rigid structure of center-margin/subject-other binary system. Rethinking of this recuperating process