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
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
During the last three decades, there have been controversies about the relationship between art and politics, in particular, the use of Abstract Expressionism as a weapon of the Cold War. According to some revisionist historians of postwar American art, the success of Abstract Expressionism was closely related to the American government’s desire to promote an image of America as a land of freedom and individualism. Recently scholars have successfully refuted the claims of these revisionist historians by presenting specific cases where Abstract Expressionist painting was not predominant. This study is an attempt to examine the validity of revisionist views through the investigation of two exhibitions of the 1950s.
The International Sculpture Competition, “The Unknown Political Prisoner” was proposed to the ICA by Anthony Kloman, a former U.S. cultural attache in Stockholm. As the largest international sculpture competition, it drew a huge response of 3,500 entries. The organizers emphasized that the theme should be regarded as of universal significance. In a period of Cold War tension, however, the theme was widely regarded as directed at the communist bloc. By examining confidential correspondence exchanged between the chief organizers of the competition, in fact, Robert Burstow revealed that the competition theme was a rhetorical device to naturalize the idea of Communism as the threat to liberal democracy.
The underlying political intentions became more certain in the decision to give a runner-up prize to Kim, Chong-yang, a Korean figurative sculptor. Although the organizers of the competition claimed judicial impartiality towards artistic style in the prospectus, the jury unmistakably showed a bias toward modernist art. Almost all the winning works were in an abstract style. Naturally judicial prejudice provoked protests from artists and critics. Thus, it is possible that the decision to give a Korean sculptor a prize might have been partly based on a political consideration rather than aesthetic one.
The exhibition “Eight American Artists” was held in April 9-21, 1957 at the National Museum in Seoul. It was sponsored by the USIA and organized by the Seattle Art Museum. Two editions were prepared for Europe and Asia, and the Asian edition consisted of 30
paintings and 10 sculptures. Although Korea was never mentioned in the itinerary for the Asian edition in the preparatory stage, she became the first country to host the exhibition. The sudden inclusion of Korea seems to have caused a serious problem in terms of publicity. It explains why the exhibition catalogue came out in the form of the July 1957 issue of the magazine Sinmisul. It also explains why the exhibition did not get the attention of the Korean press on the opening day.
In the face of tepid reaction to the exhibition, USIS officials, who had not enough time to provide publicity material in Korean, seem to have hastily made out reference material for Korean critics based on John Baur’s Revolution and Tradition in Modern American Art. Three reviews’ simultaneous appearance and reference to Baur’s book seem to have something to do with the USIS’s publicity activities. After all, the exhibition gave the Korean art community not only the opportunity to see some examples of contemporary American art but also the framework through which to understand them.
In his recently published book Abstract Expressionism as Cultural Critique, David Craven showed us a quite different picture of Abstract Expressionism from that of revisionist historians by examining the FBI files on some Abstract Expressionists and their avowed intentions. My examination of the two exhibitions also reveals that agencies of the American government did not particularly exploit Abstract Expressionism for political gain. During the 1950s and 1960s, many Americans affiliated with the arts believed that the increased exposure of American art abroad benefited the United States. Though their motives were rarely political, it is also true that they supported the export of American art in the belief that international art exchanges could politically benefit the United States. However revisionist historians failed to see that a variety of media and styles could be employed in American Cold War propaganda. By focusing on the relationship between government agencies and the MoMA, they also failed to consider that other museums and cultural institutions were actively engaged in cultural exchanges.
The International Sculpture Competition, “The Unknown Political Prisoner” was proposed to the ICA by Anthony Kloman, a former U.S. cultural attache in Stockholm. As the largest international sculpture competition, it drew a huge response of 3,500 entries. The organizers emphasized that the theme should be regarded as of universal significance. In a period of Cold War tension, however, the theme was widely regarded as directed at the communist bloc. By examining confidential correspondence exchanged between the chief organizers of the competition, in fact, Robert Burstow revealed that the competition theme was a rhetorical device to naturalize the idea of Communism as the threat to liberal democracy.
The underlying political intentions became more certain in the decision to give a runner-up prize to Kim, Chong-yang, a Korean figurative sculptor. Although the organizers of the competition claimed judicial impartiality towards artistic style in the prospectus, the jury unmistakably showed a bias toward modernist art. Almost all the winning works were in an abstract style. Naturally judicial prejudice provoked protests from artists and critics. Thus, it is possible that the decision to give a Korean sculptor a prize might have been partly based on a political consideration rather than aesthetic one.
The exhibition “Eight American Artists” was held in April 9-21, 1957 at the National Museum in Seoul. It was sponsored by the USIA and organized by the Seattle Art Museum. Two editions were prepared for Europe and Asia, and the Asian edition consisted of 30
paintings and 10 sculptures. Although Korea was never mentioned in the itinerary for the Asian edition in the preparatory stage, she became the first country to host the exhibition. The sudden inclusion of Korea seems to have caused a serious problem in terms of publicity. It explains why the exhibition catalogue came out in the form of the July 1957 issue of the magazine Sinmisul. It also explains why the exhibition did not get the attention of the Korean press on the opening day.
In the face of tepid reaction to the exhibition, USIS officials, who had not enough time to provide publicity material in Korean, seem to have hastily made out reference material for Korean critics based on John Baur’s Revolution and Tradition in Modern American Art. Three reviews’ simultaneous appearance and reference to Baur’s book seem to have something to do with the USIS’s publicity activities. After all, the exhibition gave the Korean art community not only the opportunity to see some examples of contemporary American art but also the framework through which to understand them.
In his recently published book Abstract Expressionism as Cultural Critique, David Craven showed us a quite different picture of Abstract Expressionism from that of revisionist historians by examining the FBI files on some Abstract Expressionists and their avowed intentions. My examination of the two exhibitions also reveals that agencies of the American government did not particularly exploit Abstract Expressionism for political gain. During the 1950s and 1960s, many Americans affiliated with the arts believed that the increased exposure of American art abroad benefited the United States. Though their motives were rarely political, it is also true that they supported the export of American art in the belief that international art exchanges could politically benefit the United States. However revisionist historians failed to see that a variety of media and styles could be employed in American Cold War propaganda. By focusing on the relationship between government agencies and the MoMA, they also failed to consider that other museums and cultural institutions were actively engaged in cultural exchanges.
목차
1. 서언
2. 수정주의 논쟁
3. 사례분석
4. 결언
참고문헌
Abstract
「추상표현주의와 정치: 수정주의 관점 다시 읽기」에 대한 질의(김현화)
김현화 선생님의 질의에 대한 답변(정무정)
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
The New American Painting : Abstract Expressionism Abroad
서양미술사학회논문집
2003 .06
-
1980년대 신표현주의와 ‘시대정신(Zeitgeist)’ : 《시대정신전 Zeitgeist Ausstellung》의 미술사적 의미와 한계
서양미술사학회논문집
2003 .06
-
「인간가족 The Family of Man」전의 이면 : 아메리카니즘의 정치적 선전
현대미술사연구
2008 .12
-
한국 앵포르멜 담론 형성의 재조명을 통한 시대적 정당성 고찰
한국근현대미술사학
2008 .12
-
1980년 전후 유럽 내의 독일 미술 전시들, 무엇을 어떻게 무대에 올렸는가?
현대미술학 논문집
2007 .12
-
21세기 패션에 수용된 추상표현주의 기법에 관한 연구
한국의류학회지
2009 .01
-
한국 추상회화 형성기의 미술비평에 대한 비판적 성찰
미술사논단
2013 .12
-
탈국가주의 시대의 학문분야로서 ‘미국미술사’의 현 위치
미술사논단
2012 .12
-
《대한민국미술전람회》의 추상 아카데미즘
한국근현대미술사학
2018 .07
-
추상, 그 미학적 담론의 초기 현상 -1930년대 한국의 경우
미술이론과 현장
2005 .01
-
Glocalization 시대의 현대미술
현대미술학 논문집
2006 .12
-
한국 추상조각의 형성과 전개
한국근현대미술사학
2019 .07
-
미국의 한국 근현대미술 연구사
한국근현대미술사학
2012 .12
-
Abstract Art in 1980s Shanghai : Li Shan’s Paintings
현대미술사연구
2013 .06
-
중단회 회화사 : 戰後 일본의 추상회화
미술사논단
2013 .12
-
변화하는 문화환경과 미술관의 공공성 문제 : 기획전시를 중심으로
현대미술사연구
2007 .12
-
전시와 권력: 1960~1970년대 한국 현대미술에 작용한 권력
미술이론과 현장
2005 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-609-017275603