인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
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
DBpia Top 10%동일한 주제분류 기준으로최근 2년간 이용수 순으로 정렬했을 때
해당 논문이 위치하는 상위 비율을 의미합니다.
초록· 키워드
This study deals with the images of death that are prevalent in postmodern art, it is not an iconographic study on death images though. The purpose of the study is to investigate and question the aesthetic meanings hidden behind the impossible task of representing death.
Death has been one of the most important subject matter throughout the history of western Art. From the stick like figure of ‘the shaft of dead man’ in the cave art of Lascaux to the ‘memento mori’ images of the Middle Age, from the ‘vanitas’ images of 17th century Dutch paintings to the sweet candies presented by Felix Gonzales-Torres, all these images ask the meaning of death, and by doing that question the meaning of life. What I concern is the facts that art has been a beacon that marks the resistance to death, although it is doomed to be failed, so that it has been encircled in the repetitive performance of representing an original absence.
It was Andy Warhol who re-presented the theme of death in the post modern art scene. Whether his attitude toward death is neutral and indifferent or cynical and critical was the main issue in interpreting his ‘death and disaster’ series. Yet, when it comes to the case of Damien Hirst, we witness the ‘return of the real’, the actual dead bodies that are sacrificed for an art exhibition. The audience are expected to actually observes the decaying process of corpse in the gallery space. What does it mean? What is the aesthetics behind this “return”?
It seems to me that the ‘death’ Hirst conceives stays only in the level of its materialistic dimension. It does not step a inch forward from the shocking spectacle of the corpse that is returned to an inanimate object. That is how he conceives art and what he earns from his speculation on the relationship between his art and death, yet this model of objective, bodily death can not suggest any meaning of death except “nothing”.
Death can presents us the possibilities of something more than the shocking phobia of its marks of decaying process. A representation of death always accompanies responsibility within culture. As Felix Gonzales-Torres made his point on this subject, we should ask a question with responsibility; what is the relation of our art to the death of others? In this question, death is not a mere limit but a way that can affect us by the way that others have died before us, and by the way that we ourselves shall die. This is the political aesthetics of death that our art of today should reconsider.
Death has been one of the most important subject matter throughout the history of western Art. From the stick like figure of ‘the shaft of dead man’ in the cave art of Lascaux to the ‘memento mori’ images of the Middle Age, from the ‘vanitas’ images of 17th century Dutch paintings to the sweet candies presented by Felix Gonzales-Torres, all these images ask the meaning of death, and by doing that question the meaning of life. What I concern is the facts that art has been a beacon that marks the resistance to death, although it is doomed to be failed, so that it has been encircled in the repetitive performance of representing an original absence.
It was Andy Warhol who re-presented the theme of death in the post modern art scene. Whether his attitude toward death is neutral and indifferent or cynical and critical was the main issue in interpreting his ‘death and disaster’ series. Yet, when it comes to the case of Damien Hirst, we witness the ‘return of the real’, the actual dead bodies that are sacrificed for an art exhibition. The audience are expected to actually observes the decaying process of corpse in the gallery space. What does it mean? What is the aesthetics behind this “return”?
It seems to me that the ‘death’ Hirst conceives stays only in the level of its materialistic dimension. It does not step a inch forward from the shocking spectacle of the corpse that is returned to an inanimate object. That is how he conceives art and what he earns from his speculation on the relationship between his art and death, yet this model of objective, bodily death can not suggest any meaning of death except “nothing”.
Death can presents us the possibilities of something more than the shocking phobia of its marks of decaying process. A representation of death always accompanies responsibility within culture. As Felix Gonzales-Torres made his point on this subject, we should ask a question with responsibility; what is the relation of our art to the death of others? In this question, death is not a mere limit but a way that can affect us by the way that others have died before us, and by the way that we ourselves shall die. This is the political aesthetics of death that our art of today should reconsider.
#미술과 죽음(Art and death)
#바니타스(Vanitas)
#메멘토 모리(Memento mori)
#데미안 허스트(Damien Hirst)
#앤디 워홀(Andy Warhol)
#라스코 동굴 벽화(Lascaux Cave)
#죽은 남자의 통로
상세정보 수정요청해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
목차
- Ⅰ. 죽은 남자의 통로
- Ⅱ. 메멘토 모리에서 바니타스까지
- Ⅲ. 포스트모더니즘과 죽음
- Ⅳ. 애도 혹은 성찰
- 참고문헌
- Abstract
참고문헌
참고문헌 신청최근 본 자료
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-609-001267438
