청소와 질서 - 광주의 1970년대 질서담론으로서 문화도시론을 중심으로

Abstract

This study aims to reveal that the discourses and practices generated inside Gwangju in the late 1970s were linked to the domination and governance mechanisms of the the New Military Power in the 1980s by the local media and ruling powers. First, it is important to note that as a historical 'intention', Gwangju was systematically marginalized and refracted within the national and regional context at a particular time. In fact, the “Cultural City Campaign” series actively promoted by the local newspaper Jeonnam Ilbo in the late 1970s, the promotion of traditional culture in Jeollanam-do in the form of public service announcements, and the local historical testimony series such as “The Story of the volunteer army” and “The Biography of Uijae(의재)” are presented in a way that connects with the “Yehyeang”(Regions of the Arts) discourse that emerged immediately after ‘5·18’, emphasizing the subjectivization of “order” instead of the subjectivity of “protest”. The discourse of Yehyeang that emerged immediately after the uprising converged into Monthly Yehyeang in 1984, and by converging various local discourses such as the existing cultural city discourse, the traditional culture discourse, and the Jeonnam Holodae discourse, it had the direction of abstracting various local issues into an aesthetic layer and returning Gwangju to ‘order’. This, of course, does not negate the potential for resistant and oppositional acts that are not reducible to this ‘order’. While these discourses emerged locally in the late 1970s and 80s, they need to be understood as a way of governing the multiple. In fact, in local newspapers and magazines of the time, we can see that cultural urbanism and futurism were utilized at the moral and aesthetic levels, respectively, to purify and purify the grievances of the multitude caused by various urban problems, from housing shortages to power shortages to water and sewage problems. The so-called “Mt. Mudeungsan Tarzan Park Heung-suk incident” that occurred in April 1977 and the “Peking Uprising” reported on April 25-May 6, 1980, which was widely reported just before ‘5·18’, were triggered through various moral rhetorics to prevent the sense of deprivation of the multiples from emerging in society and to block the sentiment of the multiples to overcome deprivation by denouncing the parties to the incident as “ignorant,” “barbaric,” and unethical “mobs”. In other words, by controlling the behavior and controlling the minds of the multiples so that the multiples cannot make their voices heard, they transform their feelings of discontent and deprivation into internal discrimination and conflict. The powerful discourse of ‘order’ seen in the late 1970s and 80s, especially after May 18, utilizes culture and art as a way to dominate and subjugate the multiple through morality and aesthetics. However, while ‘order’ is presented as an item that achieves homogeneity and universality, the possibility of oppositional and resistant subjectivities that are not reducible to ‘order’ can be seen to emerge from within this discourse, such as the spontaneous ‘cleaning’ of the multiples during the May 18 uprising and the artistic practices that constructed a ‘different prognosis’ from the local power elites in Gwangju after May 18. If the dominant foresight discourse aims to re-establish rule through ‘order’, the carriers of foresight discourse as contemporary artistic practices do not lose sight of the potential for liberation. For example, the artistic practice of <Gwangju Jeonnam Artists’ Community>. However, it should be noted that the dominant discourse of Yehyeang reduces this potential for emancipation to art and economy on an international and national scale, resulting in the subordination and subjugation of Gwangju art.