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
Part Ⅰ
If you attempt to define identity of homosexual, and to examine its various ways of representation of desire, so-called "homosexuality", what are the consequences do you expect in result? Numerous recent writers have published lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender(LGBT) - related theses as a service of traditional scholarship in art history.
Are they all following the fashion of the day? Michel Foucault's Stultifera Navis is anchoring in the pier of NY? (In fact "the fools" have dominated a certain cultural realm of the city.) What? Also a ship of idiots is soon arriving at Inchon to invade Seoul? Is that so?
Virtually the entire tradition of homosexuality studies in art history has been centered around conservative premises: 1) the subject should be oriented to the LGBT movements, 2) homosexuality has been summoned to refresh heterosexuality as a mirror of the otherness.
One thing I'd like to point out is that even today - we are living in the first decade of 21 st century - few heterosexual scholars manage to handle issues of homosexuality openly in his/her academic practices, as if heterosexuals are not supposed to talk about homosexuality. Whether this circumspection might lie in old taboo of homophobia or new radical homosexualism, I don't think political correctness does matter in the realm of philosophy. Personally, as an openly homosexual in the socio-political position of post-queer, I am fed up with I-will-be-your-mirror strategy of a Nan Goldin type.
Thus I am posing the following question: what are the governing principles of studies of homosexuality in art history, and how are they employed? (Katherine Hayles, one of the prominent proponents of post-human theory, mentioned that gay subject played a significant role in her journey of theoretical studies. Her self-explanations might account for the chief raison detre of the issue.) What kind of epistemological scenery do you see in this symposium of KAHOMA? Why are we discussing homosexuality in art?
Part Ⅱ
When I participated in the very first formation of Korean LGBT movement as an activist in 1995, I was confronted with problem of understanding homosexuality in Korean language. Accordingly, to rationalize homosexuality and to jargonize it in Korean language became a challenging task. Like other LGBT activists, at this initial stage, I invented our own term based upon sub-alternative speech manner of the Western LGBT society, thereby I could avoid wasting energy on rime-consuming project of translation. (i.e., "e-bahn", the most wellknown on-line related term of sexual minorities' identity belongs to this category. In 1995 I redefine "e-bahn", a gay-male-only-slang, and disseminate the term in order to substitute such foreign words as gay, lesbian, queer. As a result, I am certain that spiel-raum for sexual minorities in Korea has been provided.)
But comprehending every meaning and nuance of LGBT terms in Korean language is still no easy job. We can try to borrow numerous old ideas from some film critics who dared to deal with LGBT issues in the middle of 1990s. Therefore, this symposium can be considered a belated but inevitable challenge for us to resume seemingly endless translation project. (I do not insist that discourse of vernacular LGBT and its activities are entirely imported.) And I do believe this unwillingly constituted project will eventually affect on the future of LGBT related art practices in Korea for a long rime, even if no one expects it at the moment. And yet, one question remains; why did Korean artists and critics in general ignored LGBT upspring in the realm of Western art in 1990s, while film directors and critics were facing the whole new reality? Unfortunately the early phase of celebration is now over. We missed all of it.
In my thesis, I devote to a rough retrospect on Korean society after the advent of vernacular LGBT movements in 1995; I recall my memories on LGBT-related works of Korean artists (mostly gay-male) including some works of openly gay artists. But I do not offer an extended analysis. What follows is a brief history of Western LGBT studies as a new branch of liberal art (from Jonathan Katz to Alan Sinfield) that lead to the advances of studies of homo-sexuality in Western - mostly American art history (from Cecile Beurdeley to Richard Meyer or David Higgs). Finally, I explicate my own socio-political poison as a post-queer Asian man, and propose a new theory of visual art. In this process I use allegory of gay melancholia to expose the uncanny relation between gay subjects and modern metropolis. (For the whole theoretical perspective see The Design/Text #2.)
I hope my work is useful for understanding and evaluating other presenters' theses in the 4th Symposium of KAHOMA. Audience/readers might be able to use my text as an introduction to appreciate each presenter's theoretical position. The map/gird is yet pretty simple. With a bit of knowledge, you can easily participate in on-gong edgy (also maybe gay) games out there. Thank you very much.
If you attempt to define identity of homosexual, and to examine its various ways of representation of desire, so-called "homosexuality", what are the consequences do you expect in result? Numerous recent writers have published lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender(LGBT) - related theses as a service of traditional scholarship in art history.
Are they all following the fashion of the day? Michel Foucault's Stultifera Navis is anchoring in the pier of NY? (In fact "the fools" have dominated a certain cultural realm of the city.) What? Also a ship of idiots is soon arriving at Inchon to invade Seoul? Is that so?
Virtually the entire tradition of homosexuality studies in art history has been centered around conservative premises: 1) the subject should be oriented to the LGBT movements, 2) homosexuality has been summoned to refresh heterosexuality as a mirror of the otherness.
One thing I'd like to point out is that even today - we are living in the first decade of 21 st century - few heterosexual scholars manage to handle issues of homosexuality openly in his/her academic practices, as if heterosexuals are not supposed to talk about homosexuality. Whether this circumspection might lie in old taboo of homophobia or new radical homosexualism, I don't think political correctness does matter in the realm of philosophy. Personally, as an openly homosexual in the socio-political position of post-queer, I am fed up with I-will-be-your-mirror strategy of a Nan Goldin type.
Thus I am posing the following question: what are the governing principles of studies of homosexuality in art history, and how are they employed? (Katherine Hayles, one of the prominent proponents of post-human theory, mentioned that gay subject played a significant role in her journey of theoretical studies. Her self-explanations might account for the chief raison detre of the issue.) What kind of epistemological scenery do you see in this symposium of KAHOMA? Why are we discussing homosexuality in art?
Part Ⅱ
When I participated in the very first formation of Korean LGBT movement as an activist in 1995, I was confronted with problem of understanding homosexuality in Korean language. Accordingly, to rationalize homosexuality and to jargonize it in Korean language became a challenging task. Like other LGBT activists, at this initial stage, I invented our own term based upon sub-alternative speech manner of the Western LGBT society, thereby I could avoid wasting energy on rime-consuming project of translation. (i.e., "e-bahn", the most wellknown on-line related term of sexual minorities' identity belongs to this category. In 1995 I redefine "e-bahn", a gay-male-only-slang, and disseminate the term in order to substitute such foreign words as gay, lesbian, queer. As a result, I am certain that spiel-raum for sexual minorities in Korea has been provided.)
But comprehending every meaning and nuance of LGBT terms in Korean language is still no easy job. We can try to borrow numerous old ideas from some film critics who dared to deal with LGBT issues in the middle of 1990s. Therefore, this symposium can be considered a belated but inevitable challenge for us to resume seemingly endless translation project. (I do not insist that discourse of vernacular LGBT and its activities are entirely imported.) And I do believe this unwillingly constituted project will eventually affect on the future of LGBT related art practices in Korea for a long rime, even if no one expects it at the moment. And yet, one question remains; why did Korean artists and critics in general ignored LGBT upspring in the realm of Western art in 1990s, while film directors and critics were facing the whole new reality? Unfortunately the early phase of celebration is now over. We missed all of it.
In my thesis, I devote to a rough retrospect on Korean society after the advent of vernacular LGBT movements in 1995; I recall my memories on LGBT-related works of Korean artists (mostly gay-male) including some works of openly gay artists. But I do not offer an extended analysis. What follows is a brief history of Western LGBT studies as a new branch of liberal art (from Jonathan Katz to Alan Sinfield) that lead to the advances of studies of homo-sexuality in Western - mostly American art history (from Cecile Beurdeley to Richard Meyer or David Higgs). Finally, I explicate my own socio-political poison as a post-queer Asian man, and propose a new theory of visual art. In this process I use allegory of gay melancholia to expose the uncanny relation between gay subjects and modern metropolis. (For the whole theoretical perspective see The Design/Text #2.)
I hope my work is useful for understanding and evaluating other presenters' theses in the 4th Symposium of KAHOMA. Audience/readers might be able to use my text as an introduction to appreciate each presenter's theoretical position. The map/gird is yet pretty simple. With a bit of knowledge, you can easily participate in on-gong edgy (also maybe gay) games out there. Thank you very much.
목차
1. 들어가며
2. 동성애자라는 근대적 개념의 고안과 게이ㆍ레즈비언 연구의 등장
3. 미술사(혹은 시각문화연구)에서의 동성애(자) 연구의 대략
4. 본 연구자의 위치 혹은 입장: 서울에서의 게이 멜랑콜리아와 근대적 시각장의 종언
5. 나가며
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
게이와 레즈비언을 다룬 영화가 의과대학생의 동성애와 동성 결혼에 대한 태도에 미치는 효과
영화연구
2013 .06
-
남성동성애자의 성 역할에 따른 의복태도 및 선호
한국의류학회지
2003 .01
-
A STUDY ON PERSONAL ADORNMENT ACCORDING TO SEX ROLE IDENTITY AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF MEN
한국의류학회 학술발표논문집
2001 .01
-
재현ㆍ정치ㆍ윤리 : 현대 한국영화의 동/성애적 재현과 그 비평에 대한 반성적 소고
현대미술사연구
2003 .12
-
한국현대미술자료(1960-70년대) 略史 : 메타 크리틱(meta-critic)의 의미
미술사학
2002 .08
-
포스트콜로니얼리즘!? : 지금 이곳에서 서양미술사 하기와 관련하여
서양미술사학회논문집
1999 .06
-
Coaches` Efficacy Beliefs towards Working with Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Athletes
International Journal of Coaching Science
2009 .07
-
1960년대 이후 한국 현대미술에 관한 사회학적 논의 : 브르디외(Pierre Bourdieu)의 ‘자본’ 개념을 활용한 사회구조적 분석
미술사연구
2009 .12
-
한국현대미술사와 한국의 미술사학 교육
미술사학
2005 .08
-
미국의 한국 근현대미술 연구사
한국근현대미술사학
2012 .12
-
미술가와 역사-미술사 교육의 한계와 전망
미술이론과 현장
2004 .01
-
미술사의 추억
서양미술사학회논문집
2004 .12
-
20세기 한국미술사 연구를 위한 소고: 1960-70년대 미술을 중심으로
미술이론과 현장
2013 .01
-
스베트라나 앨퍼스에 대한 비평적 조망
현대미술사연구
2011 .12
-
현대미술사 교재의 다양화를 위한 대안적 모색
미술사학
2005 .08
-
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-0101-2009-560-018685414