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 5%동일한 주제분류 기준으로최근 2년간 이용수 순으로 정렬했을 때
해당 논문이 위치하는 상위 비율을 의미합니다.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The art criticism of Michael Fried was bom out of the conviction that art history has come to a crisis. What is at stake in this critical situation is whether the painting or sculpture in question are experienced as art or mere objecthood. If art reduces to objecthood, then art history, at least the modernist art history comes to an end. Fried wanted to watch over the modernist art history.
The importance of Michael Fried as a aritic lies in the situation in which he participated as a par-excellent, the last modernist art critic. In other words, modernist art criticism climaxed by Fried but also dissolved by himself while he was fighting with Literalism for the right way of art history.
The aesthetic of Michael Fried was that of tableau or screen. It is interesting that he made reference to the movies as the one art which escapes theater entirely by its very nature. According to him, the screen is not experienced as a kind of object existing in a specific physical relation to us. But because it escapes the war with theater or theatricality automatically by its own nature, even the most experimental cinema cannot be a modernist art. What he meant by the ‘modernist’ sensibility was to find it imperative that art defeats or suspends its own objecthood, and to experience the art-object that exist as an physical entity visually as shape. Modernist art only yields to the beholder’s coup d’ oeil.
The ‘coup d’ oeil’ of modernism denies the ‘mise en scene’. Fried wanted art to defeat the condition of theater, to defeat dramaturgy. However art after “art and objecthood” developed with an interest in the vety ‘mise en scene’, with the interest in the psychological and physical beholder and his or her situation in the world.
Yet, the purpose of this essay is not to reveal whether Michael Fried was right or wrong. Fried says: “... in fact it is inconceivable that he will not be wrong a fair amount of the time. But being wrong is preferable to being irrelevant.” This article is about the “fair amount of the time” in which Fried’s criticism paradoxically played a role.
In a sense, ‘a fair amount of the time’ always betrays a coup d’ oeil. But Michael Fried’s moment in its historical sense deserves to be taken seriously. He run the same risks as the artist whose work he criticized. Today, the word ‘aesthetic judgment’ as a critical terminology sounds rather classical and worn-out. If we are able to give up any kind of aesthetic judgment in appreciating contemporary art it would be the transformation of critical semantics that modernist criticism ultimately bring about. Unintentionally though.
The importance of Michael Fried as a aritic lies in the situation in which he participated as a par-excellent, the last modernist art critic. In other words, modernist art criticism climaxed by Fried but also dissolved by himself while he was fighting with Literalism for the right way of art history.
The aesthetic of Michael Fried was that of tableau or screen. It is interesting that he made reference to the movies as the one art which escapes theater entirely by its very nature. According to him, the screen is not experienced as a kind of object existing in a specific physical relation to us. But because it escapes the war with theater or theatricality automatically by its own nature, even the most experimental cinema cannot be a modernist art. What he meant by the ‘modernist’ sensibility was to find it imperative that art defeats or suspends its own objecthood, and to experience the art-object that exist as an physical entity visually as shape. Modernist art only yields to the beholder’s coup d’ oeil.
The ‘coup d’ oeil’ of modernism denies the ‘mise en scene’. Fried wanted art to defeat the condition of theater, to defeat dramaturgy. However art after “art and objecthood” developed with an interest in the vety ‘mise en scene’, with the interest in the psychological and physical beholder and his or her situation in the world.
Yet, the purpose of this essay is not to reveal whether Michael Fried was right or wrong. Fried says: “... in fact it is inconceivable that he will not be wrong a fair amount of the time. But being wrong is preferable to being irrelevant.” This article is about the “fair amount of the time” in which Fried’s criticism paradoxically played a role.
In a sense, ‘a fair amount of the time’ always betrays a coup d’ oeil. But Michael Fried’s moment in its historical sense deserves to be taken seriously. He run the same risks as the artist whose work he criticized. Today, the word ‘aesthetic judgment’ as a critical terminology sounds rather classical and worn-out. If we are able to give up any kind of aesthetic judgment in appreciating contemporary art it would be the transformation of critical semantics that modernist criticism ultimately bring about. Unintentionally though.
목차
Ⅰ. 평론가의 임무
Ⅱ. 모더니즘 회화의 위기
Ⅲ. 그림(tableau) vs. 연극(theatre)
Ⅳ. 예술과 물체
Ⅴ. 맥락 Ⅰ
Ⅵ. 맥락 Ⅱ
Ⅶ. coup d‘ oeil
Bibliography
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Theatricality in Photography and Emancipation of the Spectator : Michael Fried’s Untold Insights on Photography
서양미술사학회논문집
2013 .08
-
미니멀리즘, 1967
서양미술사학회논문집
1991 .12
-
현대 미술비평의 난점과 그 대안
현대미술사연구
2001 .05
-
모두를 위한 엘리트주의 : 공동체적 가치의 담론 장場으로서 미술비평
현대미술학 논문집
2009 .12
-
‘움직이는 조각’과 공연예술
서양미술사학회논문집
1990 .12
-
비평의 재구성 : 한국 미술비평의 과제 설정을 위한 제안
한국예술연구
2010 .06
-
미술비평의 효용성에 대해 다시 묻는다 : 아서 단토의 ‘미술종말론’에 대한 비평적 독서
현대미술학 논문집
2006 .12
-
현대미술과 시장 : 예술의 자율성과 자본의 힘 사이에서
현대미술학 논문집
2009 .12
-
근대 유럽의 공공전시와 미술비평의 등장 : 18세기 프랑스와 영국의 사례
미술사학
2015 .08
-
1950년대 이경성의 미술비평관
한국근현대미술사학
2011 .12
-
미술비평가 나혜석
미술사논단
2012 .12
-
지역 미술과 권력
미술이론과 현장
2005 .01
-
현대미술 감상 및 표현수업 지도방안 연구 - 실험적 관점에 의한 7가지 방법론을 중심으로 -
조형교육
2009 .01
-
미술의 공공성을 둘러싼 경합의 위상학 : 일본에서의 미술가·비평가 탄생에 대한 재해석
한국근현대미술사학
2009 .12
-
1950년대의 한국미술(1), 제1공화국 미술의 태동과 진통
미술사논단
2015 .06
-
전 지구화 시대의 중국 현대미술과 비평 : 우흥의 ‘실험적인 예술’ vs. 가오밍루의 트랜스 내셔널 ‘아방가르드’
현대미술사연구
2011 .06
-
미학의 시대에서 비평의 시대로 : 아서 단토에 있어서 거대 내러티브의 종말과 그 이후의 미술
현대미술학 논문집
2006 .12
-
미술과 공예 : 그 경계와 위상
미술사학
2007 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-609-017289336