물질문화연구와 동양미술

Abstract

In understanding art works, sometimes their function is more important than their aesthetic value. In such a case, we may focus on the material aspects of art works and pay attention to a new trend of material culture studies. The present study purposed to examine the current state of material culture studies and their applicability to Asian art history. In ‘material culture,’ ‘material’ means more artificially produced or transformed things than natural objects or substance. Material culture studies believe that we can enhance our understanding of culture through examining things which embody cultural meanings. Furthermore, researchers analyze the point that things define relations among people and mediate among various social groups. Thus, material culture studies explore interrelations between humans and materials by paying attention to the cultural attributes of things. The term ‘material culture’ began to be used from the mid 19th century in Europe when studying artifacts as means of understanding the past and present society in archaeology and anthropology. However, social anthropology in the early 20th century was focused on social structure rather than objects and, as a result, scholars lost their interest in material culture. Later material culture studies revived in the 1980s based on interdisciplinary approaches. Because material culture studies are not relied on established theories, methodologies or specific disciplines, it is not easy to sum up them. While in the United Kingdom the field of material culture studies is often included in anthropology and archaeology, in the United States they flourish in ethnography and American art history. Particularly with increasing importance of objects in late capitalism where the consumption of goods occupies an important part of daily life, many scholars of material culture analyze mass production and consumerism critically. Among them, Daniel Miller, who draws our attention with his productive academic inquiries, criticizes the modern Western notion of art and insists that the unequal dualism of mind and material should be overcome. As material culture became an important research subject, it has been also studied in Asian art history. Craig Clunas is one of the art historians who paid attention to this subject. His analysis was concentrated on material culture particularly in the Ming Dynasty. He applied the fact that consumption society rose in 1500~1800, which is equivalent to early modern in Europe, to China and specifically to Suzhou. He proved that the Chinese case can enrich material culture studies further. Recently Jonathan Hay is studying Chinese paintings by deepening material culture studies in a theoretical dimension. He divides the functions of Chinese paintings into instrumental function, semiotic function, and embodying function. Hay does not limit the functions of paintings to aesthetics but understand them as complexes in various social contexts. He analyzes the material aspects and formats of paintings and suggests new socio-cultural meanings of landscape paintings. In Korean art history, interests in material culture studies seldom appear. While studying portraits in the Joseon Dynasty, I took note of their ritual functions and attempted to reinterpret them from the viewpoint of visual culture and material culture. In addition, as portraits were examined in connection to funerals and ancestor worship, tombs as an artistic objects were also investigated together. However, what were valued most in Confucian ancestor rites were neither portraits nor tombs. Rather, they held a name tablet, which was merely a piece of wood, most valuable. Originally, name tablets regarded as sacred in this way were not objects of people’s aesthetic interest. We cannot understand the rich and multi-layered meaning and function of portraits, tombs and name tablets through the methodologies of traditional art history alone. As the three objects embody the social relation between the living and the dead through different material forms and media, they need to be considered in connection to one another. As Asian art history has long been formulated from the viewpoint of Western art history, it has not been studied in its own cultural context, and many objects have been excluded from the category of art. Accordingly, material culture studies are expected to adjust the distorted Asian art history and contribute to the reconstructing of the world art history.