본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

일본에서의 추상미술과 전통 담론: ‘한국적’ 추상미술 논의를 위한 시론

Abstract Art and Tradition in Japan: For Thinking about 'Korean' Abstract Art

박소현
미술사학연구회 (The Korean Society Of Art History)|2010.12|미술사학보 (Korean Bulletin of Art History)|제35호|pp. 5-42|DOI 10.15819/rah.2010..35.5

0

조회

0

다운로드

6

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

세계주의전통TraditionInternationalism'Korean' Abstract ArtNew JapanismOkamoto TaroPurity of Abstract ArtExhibition of Korean Contemporary Painting(1968)‘한국적’ 추상미술신일본주의오카모토 타로추상미술의 순수성한국현대회화전(1968)
주제분류미술

초록

If abstract art had pursued to be an international and universal language, Could the 'Korean' abstract art be brought into existence? With this question I made an attempt to understand the deep structure of 'Korean' abstract art. 'Korean' abstract art indicating a collective originality has been defined by the return to or reinvention of her own tradition. When this relation to tradition was established within international network, the discourse of 'Korean' abstract art should be scrutinized with relation of the tradition discourse in modern Japan. In 1930s many Japanese artists and critics related abstract art to newly constructed Japanese tradition, i. e. Japanism especially through the unique interpretation of Cezanne. They reconstructed European modern art history since Cezanne including abstract art and by doing it naturalized their own tradition. Another group of them attempted to interpret Cezanne as the father of purity of modern art, denied Japanese tradition with such logic, and maintained the recovery of purity of modern art. But this kind of logic didn't give up the international hegemony of Japanese abstract art inconsistent with abstract art as international and universal language. When Japanism absolutized Japanese own tradition, ultimate modernists insisted overcoming tradition for complete modern abstract art. opposed to both of them Okamoto Taro attempted the third way that denied abstracted=nationalized tradition, and tried to depict new tradition marginalized in Japanese history. His abstract art was always in strained relations with another avant-garde of surrealism. However, the exhibition of Korean Contemporary Art held in 1968 lied in the context that Japanists and Ultimate modernists met within the national institutions excluding Okamoto Taro. So we can think this kind of situation contributed to define 'Koreanness' of that exhibition in Japan.

Abstract

If abstract art had pursued to be an international and universal language, Could the 'Korean' abstract art be brought into existence? With this question I made an attempt to understand the deep structure of 'Korean' abstract art. 'Korean' abstract art indicating a collective originality has been defined by the return to or reinvention of her own tradition. When this relation to tradition was established within international network, the discourse of 'Korean' abstract art should be scrutinized with relation of the tradition discourse in modern Japan. In 1930s many Japanese artists and critics related abstract art to newly constructed Japanese tradition, i. e. Japanism especially through the unique interpretation of Cezanne. They reconstructed European modern art history since Cezanne including abstract art and by doing it naturalized their own tradition. Another group of them attempted to interpret Cezanne as the father of purity of modern art, denied Japanese tradition with such logic, and maintained the recovery of purity of modern art. But this kind of logic didn't give up the international hegemony of Japanese abstract art inconsistent with abstract art as international and universal language. When Japanism absolutized Japanese own tradition, ultimate modernists insisted overcoming tradition for complete modern abstract art. opposed to both of them Okamoto Taro attempted the third way that denied abstracted=nationalized tradition, and tried to depict new tradition marginalized in Japanese history. His abstract art was always in strained relations with another avant-garde of surrealism. However, the exhibition of Korean Contemporary Art held in 1968 lied in the context that Japanists and Ultimate modernists met within the national institutions excluding Okamoto Taro. So we can think this kind of situation contributed to define 'Koreanness' of that exhibition in Japan.

참고문헌 (64)

  1. 가시와기 도모오, "관계항과 여백의 미술, 이우환 전을 기획하며", 미술세계 (2005)
  2. 강태희, "한국적 미니멀리즘과 이우환", 미술사연구, (11), pp.153~172 (1997)
  3. 강태희, "이우환의 신체", 현대미술사연구, 10, pp.97~114 (2000)
  4. 강태희, "이우환과 70년대 단색 회화", 현대미술사연구, 14, pp.135~160 (2002)
  5. 김미경, "이우환의 입장과 회화들-그 해석의 문제", 현대미술사연구, 5, pp.69~87 (1995)
  6. 김미경, "모노하·이우환·한국현대미술-예술의 地政學", 한국현대미술자료 略史(1960-1979) (2003), ICAS
  7. 김정희, "보이는 것과 보이지 않는 것과 그 사이의 접점을 통한 이우환의 조각 작품 읽기", 현대미술사연구, 15, pp.179~212 (2003)
  8. 김정희, "한지(韓紙): 종이의 한국 미학화", 현대미술사연구, 19(19), pp.1~23 (2006), 현대미술사학회
  9. 박계리, "1970년대 한국 모노크롬의 기원과 정통성", 미술사논단, (15), pp.295~322 (2002)
  10. 박소현, "또 하나의 냉전: 미군 점령기(1945-1951) 일본에서의 ‘민주주의’적인 프랑스 미술의 궤적", 현대미술사연구, (19), pp.1~1 (2006), 현대미술사학회
  11. 박소현, "화단개혁, 근대초극, 추상미술 - 전쟁기(1930-1945) 일본에서의 ‘전위’로서의 비평가 운동", 미술사학보, (31), pp.229~264 (2008), 미술사학연구회
  12. 박소현, "생활미학으로서의 추상미술: 우에무라 다카치요의 미술비평과 문화정치학", 유영국저널, 6, pp.104~127 (2009)
  13. 足立元, "1950년대 전위예술에서의 전통논쟁: 이사무 노구치의 영향을 중심으로", 美術史論壇, (20), pp.477~508 (2005), 한국미술연구소
  14. 윤진이, "한국 모노크롬 회화의 맥락 읽기", 현대미술학 논문집, 1(13), pp.83~125 (2009), 현대미술학회
  15. 이경성, "한국현대회화전 도록", 도쿄국립근대미술관, ~ (1968)
  16. 조광석, "한국적 미니멀에서 나타난 한국성", 현대미술학 논문집, (8), pp.159~176 (2004)
  17. 호미 바바, "문화의 위치" (2002), 소명출판
  18. アルフレッド･H･バール, "近代絵画とは何かⅠ", 美術手帖 (1952)
  19. 石川千佳子, "長谷川三郎の東洋画論と瑛九の点描画をめぐる試論", 宮崎大学教育学部紀要, (85) (1998)
  20. 石子順造, "絵画の現代化を問え─韓国現代絵画展をみて", 三彩 (1968)
  21. 伊藤廉, "民族意識", アトリエ, 11(12) (1934)
  22. 伊藤廉, "洋画壇に動く「日本」的傾向の検討　日本的なるもの", アトリエ, 12(3) (1935)
  23. 今泉篤男, "二科会の感想", 現代美術 (1934)
  24. 今泉篤男, "独立展の感想", アトリエ, 12(4) (1935)
  25. 今泉篤男, "梅原龍三郎と安井曹太郎（承前）─その様式の現代に於ける位置に就て", アトリエ, 15(10) (1938)
  26. 今泉篤男, "新制作派展を観る", アトリエ, 15(1) (1938)
  27. 今泉篤男, "レアリズム十年", アトリエ, 17(1) (1940)
  28. 植村鷹千代, "教養と美術─日本的民族能力の特質について", アトリエ, 15(6) (1938)
  29. 植村鷹千代, "抽象絵画への再考察", アトリエ, 17(1) (1940)
  30. 植村鷹千代, "特集／日本洋画の欠陥　前衛絵画の国際性とクリマの問題", アトリエ, (307) (1952)
  31. 植村鷹千代, "フランスとアメリカの作品─合理主義と行動性", 美術手帖 (1952)
  32. 植村鷹千代, "フォー?ィズムと日本絵画", アトリエ (1947)
  33. 植村鷹千代, "梅原芸術の限界", みづえ, (513) (1948)
  34. 植村鷹千代, "新しい絵の理解", 美術手帖 (1948)
  35. 植村鷹千代, "抽象･超現実：写実から抽象へ", 美術手帖 (1954)
  36. 海藤日出男, "座談会　ピカソを乗り越えるもの─フランス画壇の新しい動き", 美術手帖 (1955)
  37. 岡本太郎, "日本の伝統" (1956), みすず書房
  38. 岡本太郎, "世界芸術の確立─日米佛現代絵画三つの流れ", アトリエ (1951)
  39. 岡本太郎, "芸術観─ア？ァンギャルド宣言", 改造 (1949)
  40. 岡本太郎, "沖縄文化論─忘れられた日本" (1996), 中央公論新社
  41. 川口軌外, "洋画壇に動く「日本」的傾向の検討　絵画と国民性", アトリエ, 12(3) (1935)
  42. 北卿鷹生, "美術とナショナリズム", 美術文化新聞, (4) (1941)
  43. 児島善三郎, "日本画に於ける洋風的傾向の問題　新日本主義に就て", アトリエ, 12(5) (1935)
  44. "サン･パウロ近代美術館国際美術･建築展に参加して　坂倉準三氏報告", KBS会報, (5) (1952)
  45. 椹木野依, "黒い太陽と赤いカニ─岡本太郎の日本" (2003), 中央公論新社
  46. "座談会 韓国現代絵画", 現代の眼, (165) (1968)
  47. 鈴木庫三, "世界再建と国防国家" (1940), 朝日新聞社
  48. 鈴木庫三, "国防国家と文化（二）", 美術文化新聞, (2) (1941)
  49. 竹林賢, "岡本太郎論", 美術手帖 (1951)
  50. 谷川徹三, "絵画の新しい方向について", 現代美術 (1934)
  51. 外山卯三郎, "純粋絵画論" (1932), 第三書院
  52. 外山卯三郎, "造形美術概論" (1930), 建設社
  53. 中山巍, "洋画壇に動く「日本」的傾向の検討　日本的傾向寸感", アトリエ, 12(3) (1935)
  54. 成田重郎, "セザンヌ研究緒論（２）", アトリエ, 8(7) (1931)
  55. 難波田竜起, "長谷川三郎に関する断章", 自由美術, (16) (1957)
  56. 長谷川三郎, "アブストラクト･アート", みづえ (1936)
  57. 長谷川三郎, "新しき日本芸術", 現代美術 (1935)
  58. 長谷川三郎, "アメリカ芸術家の宿命, in 論＝長谷川三郎" (1977), 三彩社
  59. 福沢一郎, "造型性に就て", 美之国, 13(2) (1937)
  60. 福沢一郎, "前衛絵画論", アトリエ, 14(6) (1937)
  61. 村山知義, "構成派研究" (1926), 中央出版社
  62. 柳亮, "国際コンクールの収穫─日本国際美術展評", みづえ, (563) (1952)
  63. 吉川逸治, "近代絵画", みづえ, (563) (1952)
  64. "自由美術協会公式ウェブサイト"[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

한국화, 추상 담론의 가능성 탐색김백균미술사학연구회 · 미술사학보2010 · 제35호한국 근현대 미술에서의 민족주의와 코스모폴리타니즘: 글로벌 미술의 단초 찾기양은희인문과학연구소 · 인문과학연구논총2015 · 제36권 제1호한국 추상회화의 수용과 정착서성록한국기초조형학회 · 기초조형학연구2020 · 제21권 제1호20세기 동아시아 문인화 개념부터 국화(國畵)의 이상까지 - 일본과 중국을 중심으로김백균, 허세룡외국학연구소 · 외국학연구2023 · 제64호‘한국적 모더니즘’의 창안: 1970년대 단색조 회화권영진미술사학연구회 · 미술사학보2010 · 제35호화단개혁, 근대초극, 추상미술 - 전쟁기(1930-1945) 일본에서의 ‘전위’로서의 비평가 운동박소현미술사학연구회 · 미술사학보2008 · 제31호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)

1960년대의 한국 추상미술과 국민국가 형성이인범pp. 43-74‘한국적 모더니즘’의 창안: 1970년대 단색조 회화권영진pp. 75-114한국화, 추상 담론의 가능성 탐색김백균pp. 115-1381970~80년대 한국 추상미술과 물성(materiality)김이순pp. 139-170한국 근대의 기하학적 추상 디자인과 추상미술 담론: 1920-30년대의 잡지 표지 디자인을 중심으로서유리pp. 171-212
원문 보기