메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류
인문학
인문학 일반 역사학 철학 종교학 어문학 기타 인문학
사회과학
사회과학 일반 경영학 관광학 교육학 군사학 문헌정보학 법학 사회학 신문방송학 심리과학 정치외교학 지리학 행정학 경제학 무역학 인류학 기타 사회과학
자연과학
자연과학 일반 물리학 생물학 생활과학 수학·통계학 천문학 지구과학 화학 기타 자연과학
공학
공학 일반 건축공학 기계공학 산업공학 재료·에너지공학 전기전자공학 조선해양공학 화학공학 컴퓨터학 기타공학
의약학
의학 일반 간호학 수의학 약학 한의학 기초의학 임상의학 기타 의약학
농수해양학
농수해양학 일반 농학 수산학 식품과학 임학 축산학 해상운송학 기타 농수해양학
예술체육학
예술 일반 디자인 미술 미용 사진 음악학 의상 체육 공연매체예술 기타 예술체육학
복합학
학제간연구 과학기술학 뇌인지과학 기술정책 기타 복합학

ENG

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
Kevin G. Carr (University of Michigan)
저널정보
동악미술사학회 동악미술사학 동악미술사학 제21호
발행연도
2017.6
수록면
197 - 219 (23page)
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17300/dah.2017.21.9

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
This paper considers the past, present, and future of East Asian art studies in the United States. Given limitations of space, it focuses on the 1980s and 1990s as representative of a previous generation of scholarship. Prominent scholars of Asian art in that period had relatively recently emerged from second class citizenship in the discipline of art history, only to face the challenges of what came to be known as “new art history.” The theoretical upheavals pitted “connoisseurs” against “theorists” in a starkly divided field, and specialists in East Asian art were continually drawn into the fray. Furthermore, many scholars of East Asia art writing in English at the time were only beginning to emerge from under the shadows of their counterparts in Japan, whose positivistic scholarship had previously dominated methods, terms, and subjects of the subfield. The period also saw the beginning of the serious study of modern and contemporary East Asian art. While many of the teachers of Asian art at this time had been trained by Europeanists, most of the Asian modernists had been trained by premodernists. These forces, and many towering egos, created a very dynamic but fragmented community that was, in general, largely ignored by other art historians. The early 21st century has seen seismic shifts in the field of art history, especially in East Asian art. Art history in general has become much less narrowly focused on Euro-American material, interdisciplinarity and the “social history of art” has become commonplace, and the theoretical imperative and polarization felt by earlier scholars has notably softened. Added to this, many of the towering figures of the previous generation of East Asianists have either retired or passed away, making way for a vibrant new generation of younger scholars who feel more at home engaging with their colleagues in the field, both Asianists and specialists focused on other regions. In addition, the geopolitical factors that shaped East Asian art history of the past, such as China’s Cultural Revolution or Japan’s “Bubble Economy,” have been supplanted by a new reality, in which scholarship and the market play a complex role in reflecting and shaping the cultural politics of the region. Among these cultural competitors, Korea has emerged as a powerful presence in the history of East Asian art, even though it clings to a precarious hold in the North American academy. If the present generation of scholars is any indication, the future holds great promise for East Asian art history in the United States. However, I see two main ways that the current academic establishment as well as the rising generation can begin to lead the rest of art history. First, we should reconsider what “interdisciplinarity” means today. Shaping a “new new art history” requires making amends with our “estranged sister” disciplines, such as (visual) anthropology, archaeology, calligraphy history, and even studio practice. These various scholarly groups tend not to paper to each other very much, but I think East Asianists, given their topics and temperaments and increasing prominence in art history departments, are particularly well suited to doing so. Secondly, I believe that the time has come for art history to present a model for the world that pointedly moves away from its roots in the formation of modern nation-state identities towards scholarship that recognizes the complex networks of cultural production and dissemination that were the historical reality throughout the region. As has clearly happened in the field of modern and contemporary art, premodern art historians would benefit greatly from not limiting themselves to narrow, nation-based frames for their research. East Asia is rife with examples of fluid spaces of cultural exchange, the nuanced study of which could present a new vision of what art history and the humanities in general could be. This understanding of the achievements of East Asian art in the past and the vision for its future is predicated on collaboration. For most of us, this ideal is only achievable by relying on cooperation between specialists who are fully grounded in their historical material yet practiced at communicating with scholars in other sub-fields and academic disciplines. That includes East Asianists papering to their colleagues based in other countries, to specialists in other art historical traditions, and to scholars far beyond the confines of the field as it is narrowly conceived.
#East Asian art history #China #Korea #Japan #historiography #state-of-the-field #new art history #connoisseurship #graduate programs #interdisciplinarity #nationalism #transnational art history #collaboration

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청
참고문헌이 DBpia에서 서비스 중이라면, [참고문헌 신청]을 통해 등록해보세요

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0