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.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The estrangement of the traditional discipline of art history from contemporary art is one of the fundamental problems of modern art history. During past decades many artists, estheticians, and critics as well as art historians have raised questions in argument whether conception of the linear history or a universal and coherent history of art is valid any more or not, insisting that now is the time of post-historical period of art. It is the reason to reappraise J. J. Winckelmann and his method of historical analysis in this study that he took an active hand to art in his own period by applying the value system and criteria obtained from the past history of art to contemporary one, which contrasts with the disciplinary restraint of modern art historians.
A historicizing perspective on art provided by Winckelmann became the key standard in the field of art history during last two centuries, and somehow, it results in the parting of the scholarly practice of art history and the contemporary experience of art. The schema Winckelmann established provided later viewers with a basis for assessing classical Greek art as a model for modern artist to follow and for neglecting contemporary art in favor of the art of the past. Still Winckelmann's analysis stands in present day speculation about art and its history, as his account of the history of ancient art is presented as a conceptual structure to grasp developmental pattern and historical fact into an entity.
The increasing doubt and question of the validity of historical analysis are caused by the particular feature of modern art which refuse art history as a progress toward the new. Also there is the dilemmas of historicism in the 20th century to abandon the idea of a unified human history and objective historical cognition. As a consequence, art history today confronts the deconstruction of both the concept of 'art' and of 'history'. However, if art history gives up the object of study to establish a general disintegration of coherent methods and instead, concentrates on the particular and the passing, it would not be able to claim the position of an independent field of humanistic discipline. This is the reason why the intensity of Winckelmann's endeavor to establish a concept of "ideal" and developmental system through the historical analysis of ancient art would be the lasting legacy to modern art history.
A historicizing perspective on art provided by Winckelmann became the key standard in the field of art history during last two centuries, and somehow, it results in the parting of the scholarly practice of art history and the contemporary experience of art. The schema Winckelmann established provided later viewers with a basis for assessing classical Greek art as a model for modern artist to follow and for neglecting contemporary art in favor of the art of the past. Still Winckelmann's analysis stands in present day speculation about art and its history, as his account of the history of ancient art is presented as a conceptual structure to grasp developmental pattern and historical fact into an entity.
The increasing doubt and question of the validity of historical analysis are caused by the particular feature of modern art which refuse art history as a progress toward the new. Also there is the dilemmas of historicism in the 20th century to abandon the idea of a unified human history and objective historical cognition. As a consequence, art history today confronts the deconstruction of both the concept of 'art' and of 'history'. However, if art history gives up the object of study to establish a general disintegration of coherent methods and instead, concentrates on the particular and the passing, it would not be able to claim the position of an independent field of humanistic discipline. This is the reason why the intensity of Winckelmann's endeavor to establish a concept of "ideal" and developmental system through the historical analysis of ancient art would be the lasting legacy to modern art history.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 빙켈만과 역사주의
Ⅲ. 동시대 미술사(Contemporary Art History)?
Ⅳ. 결론: 역사적 분석의 해체 이후의 미술사학
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
한국현대미술사와 한국의 미술사학 교육
미술사학
2005 .08
-
미술가와 역사-미술사 교육의 한계와 전망
미술이론과 현장
2004 .01
-
플리니우스의 폴리클레이토스와 미론 : 그리스 조각 양식에 대한 로마인들의 관점
서양미술사학회논문집
2012 .02
-
전통과 현대의 다리를 놓다 : 석남 이경성의 미술사 인식
한국근현대미술사학
2011 .12
-
인문학으로서의 미술사학 : 반성과 모색
미술사학연구(구 고고미술)
2010 .12
-
‘미술의 종말’ 시대의 미술사 : ‘역사적인 것’과 ‘미적인 것’을 넘어서
서양미술사학회논문집
2015 .08
-
미술연구의 학문적 특성과 범주
미술문화연구
2013 .12
-
일본 근대미술사학계의 동향
서양미술사학회논문집
1991 .12
-
일본미술사의 반성적 지평들 : 전쟁의 기억 이후, 미술사비평 또는 메타미술사의 가능성
미술사논단
2012 .12
-
1950년대의 한국미술(1), 제1공화국 미술의 태동과 진통
미술사논단
2015 .06
-
미국의 한국 근현대미술 연구사
한국근현대미술사학
2012 .12
-
스베트라나 앨퍼스에 대한 비평적 조망
현대미술사연구
2011 .12
-
현대미술에 영향을 미친 해체주의의 조형적 특성
한국디자인문화학회지
2014 .03
-
서양미술사의 인종적 기원 : 그리스인의 피와 그리스인의 몸으로
서양미술사학회논문집
2008 .02
-
한국 근현대 서양화 및 시각문화 연구사
한국근현대미술사학
2012 .12
-
미술과 공예 : 그 경계와 위상
미술사학
2007 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-560-018673927