지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
During some years around 1980, a series of exhibitions of European art were shown in England, Netherlands, France and West Germany. These exhibitions tried to rewrite or to revaluate the European art of the 20th century including the newest one. However the American art critics like Benjamin D. H. Buchloh and Douglas Crimp who wrote for the renowned marxist art magazine October attacked vehemently those exhibitions as strateges to bring the new German art to the international artstage and artmarket. The “new” German art was for them above all the figurative painting that they called as Neoexpressionism.
The marxist critics saw the painting as a medium which has represented the bourgeois ideology after its birth. They declared the figurative painting as regressive, even fascist. Thus they favoured Photography and the Conceptual Art which were considerd as main art streams in the last two decades before the 80s while the traditional media painting was relatively retreated in the big international exibition events. Thus they defined the rise of painting in the 80s as “return of painting”. Moreover they brought to related the rise of the expressionist painting in Germany with the rise of the economic reconstruction of that country after the Ⅱ World War.
But the authentic reason of their hostility to the rise of the new German painting lay in the angst about the ‘return’ of the European art tradition and its ‘hegemony’ in art world. It was also the fear about the German Historicism and the ‘power’ of the ‘spirit’, namely ‘Geist’.
That angst of the American critics was not without reason. The rise of “new” German art and the ‘return’ of the painting were developed and resulted from various projects of specific exhibition-makers in Europe.
The first exhibition of this symptom was the solo exhibition of Georg Baselitz organized in 1979 by a Dutchman, Rudi Fuchs, who three years later became a general director for the 7th Kassel documenta. The British capital London played very important role to bring the new German art to the international art stage. The most effectful event of the shows was the “A New Spirit in Painting” which was organized by Nicolas Serota, Norman Rosenthal and a in Berlin living Greek curator Christos Joachimides at the Royal Academy of Arts, London in 1981. The last two curators organized together in 1982 the legendary exhibition “Zeitgeist” at the Martin-Gropius-Bau in Berlin. The process of the rise of the new German art was supported by various international art exhibitions in Europe such as the 39th Venice Biennale in 1980, the 7th Kassel documenta in 1982, the series big exhibitions at the Centre de Pompidou in Paris etc.
Art works as well as exhibitions are never only that are seen. An art work is never aseptic. The space or site of exhibition, and the order of display are never neutral. They all represent a certain ideology of their producers or institutions just like art criticism. The art works, exhibitions and art criticisms in the symptom of the ‘return’ of the painting in Germany around 1980 demonstrate such institutional concept of museum which was born after the Enlightenment.
In this paper I showed how, why and by whom the new German painting was brought to the international art stage, and why and how it was criticized.
The marxist critics saw the painting as a medium which has represented the bourgeois ideology after its birth. They declared the figurative painting as regressive, even fascist. Thus they favoured Photography and the Conceptual Art which were considerd as main art streams in the last two decades before the 80s while the traditional media painting was relatively retreated in the big international exibition events. Thus they defined the rise of painting in the 80s as “return of painting”. Moreover they brought to related the rise of the expressionist painting in Germany with the rise of the economic reconstruction of that country after the Ⅱ World War.
But the authentic reason of their hostility to the rise of the new German painting lay in the angst about the ‘return’ of the European art tradition and its ‘hegemony’ in art world. It was also the fear about the German Historicism and the ‘power’ of the ‘spirit’, namely ‘Geist’.
That angst of the American critics was not without reason. The rise of “new” German art and the ‘return’ of the painting were developed and resulted from various projects of specific exhibition-makers in Europe.
The first exhibition of this symptom was the solo exhibition of Georg Baselitz organized in 1979 by a Dutchman, Rudi Fuchs, who three years later became a general director for the 7th Kassel documenta. The British capital London played very important role to bring the new German art to the international art stage. The most effectful event of the shows was the “A New Spirit in Painting” which was organized by Nicolas Serota, Norman Rosenthal and a in Berlin living Greek curator Christos Joachimides at the Royal Academy of Arts, London in 1981. The last two curators organized together in 1982 the legendary exhibition “Zeitgeist” at the Martin-Gropius-Bau in Berlin. The process of the rise of the new German art was supported by various international art exhibitions in Europe such as the 39th Venice Biennale in 1980, the 7th Kassel documenta in 1982, the series big exhibitions at the Centre de Pompidou in Paris etc.
Art works as well as exhibitions are never only that are seen. An art work is never aseptic. The space or site of exhibition, and the order of display are never neutral. They all represent a certain ideology of their producers or institutions just like art criticism. The art works, exhibitions and art criticisms in the symptom of the ‘return’ of the painting in Germany around 1980 demonstrate such institutional concept of museum which was born after the Enlightenment.
In this paper I showed how, why and by whom the new German painting was brought to the international art stage, and why and how it was criticized.
목차
Ⅰ. 독일의 형상적 회화와 그것에 대한 비판: “역사주의” vs 아방가르디즘
Ⅱ. 회화에 집중된 유럽 전시들 양상과 의도
Ⅲ. 독일 회화에 대한 비판과 옹호의 입장
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
1980년대 신표현주의와 ‘시대정신(Zeitgeist)’ : 《시대정신전 Zeitgeist Ausstellung》의 미술사적 의미와 한계
서양미술사학회논문집
2003 .06
-
의도된 民族性, 官展 臺灣鄕土色 硏究
미술사논단
2001 .12
-
미술비평가 나혜석
미술사논단
2012 .12
-
1950년대의 한국미술(1), 제1공화국 미술의 태동과 진통
미술사논단
2015 .06
-
《서화협회전》 운영에 대한 연구
한국근현대미술사학
2015 .07
-
「인간가족 The Family of Man」전의 이면 : 아메리카니즘의 정치적 선전
현대미술사연구
2008 .12
-
미국의 한국 근현대미술 연구사
한국근현대미술사학
2012 .12
-
한국현대미술자료(1960-70년대) 略史 : 메타 크리틱(meta-critic)의 의미
미술사학
2002 .08
-
모두를 위한 엘리트주의 : 공동체적 가치의 담론 장場으로서 미술비평
현대미술학 논문집
2009 .12
-
‘움직이는 조각’과 공연예술
서양미술사학회논문집
1990 .12
-
한국 근대 여성의 서화교육과 작가활동 연구
미술사학
2006 .08
-
두 거대 담론의 향방(向方), 예술의 폐기와 전시의 융기
현대미술학 논문집
2007 .12
-
현대 미술비평의 난점과 그 대안
현대미술사연구
2001 .05
-
1960년대 이후 한국 현대미술에 관한 사회학적 논의 : 브르디외(Pierre Bourdieu)의 ‘자본’ 개념을 활용한 사회구조적 분석
미술사연구
2009 .12
-
한국근현대미술사에서 제도에 관한 연구의 검토
한국근현대미술사학
2012 .12
-
Glocalization 시대의 현대미술
현대미술학 논문집
2006 .12
-
전통과 현대의 다리를 놓다 : 석남 이경성의 미술사 인식
한국근현대미술사학
2011 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-605-018445756