개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
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.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Has the era of auteurism in cinema studies finished? Since Barthes and Foucault proclaimed ‘the death of author’, the classic authorship as well as the structuralist authorship seemed to have been swept away at least on the stage of film theory. However, still, studies on authors and their filmic universes have been proliferous, only if they need not provide opinions on their theoretical foundation. In order to solve this discordance, I tried to examine a new possibility of cine-auteurism by way of the Lacanian aesthetics. Though Lacan’s psychoanalysis has been notorious for its abstruse, its unique theory of subjectivity and art, a radicalized version of Freudian perspective, seem to be reliable especially when the postmodern philosophers refuse to count on the subjectivity as the locus of resistance and creativity.
In this essay, Late Lacan, whose pendulum swung toward the conflict between the totalizing Symbolic and the slipping Real, is mainly referred to. According to him, art, artist and artistry are all knotted with the dimension of the Real, that is, the lack or failure of the Symbolic, insofar as they use the letters and the images. As psychoanalysis aims at the subjective liberalization from the necessary order of the Other, to which he is subjected, the artist (auteur), whose subjectivity is defined not as the empirical individuality but as the one of singular universality, is supposed to be the nominator inventing a hole around which the Symbolic is constructed. Therefore, applying the Lacanian perspective of literature and fine art to cinema, the auteurist question of ‘who can produce the new meanings?’ is changed into that of ‘who can make it happen to produce the new meanings?’. In addition, cine-auteurism, combinint the individuality and politics, is ultimately expected to resymbolize the world.
In this essay, Late Lacan, whose pendulum swung toward the conflict between the totalizing Symbolic and the slipping Real, is mainly referred to. According to him, art, artist and artistry are all knotted with the dimension of the Real, that is, the lack or failure of the Symbolic, insofar as they use the letters and the images. As psychoanalysis aims at the subjective liberalization from the necessary order of the Other, to which he is subjected, the artist (auteur), whose subjectivity is defined not as the empirical individuality but as the one of singular universality, is supposed to be the nominator inventing a hole around which the Symbolic is constructed. Therefore, applying the Lacanian perspective of literature and fine art to cinema, the auteurist question of ‘who can produce the new meanings?’ is changed into that of ‘who can make it happen to produce the new meanings?’. In addition, cine-auteurism, combinint the individuality and politics, is ultimately expected to resymbolize the world.
목차
I. 작가(주의)의 죽음? 그럼에도 불구하고…
II. 영화 작가주의의 간추린 역사
III. 라캉주의 예술론, 혹은 새로운 영화 작가주의의 이론적 전제
IV. 작가주의 영화, 혹은 개인성과 정치성의 결합
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
동시대 한국영화에서 작가주의의 상업적 수용 양상
성진수
영화연구
2015
.03
애니메이션 작가주의와 영화 작가주의에 대한 비교
김지홍
Journal of Integrated Design Research
2012
.06
라캉을 통한 대중영화의 이해 : 「삐딱하게 보기」와「영화와 소설 속의 욕망이론」을 중심으로
김시무
공연과리뷰
1996
.06
욕망의 형식으로서의 영화 : 라캉과 두개의 텍스트
신철하
어문론집
2012
.12
한국 영화에서 작가(주의) 담론의 역할에 대한 연구 : 코리언 뉴웨이브와 최근 한국 영화를 중심으로
문재철
영화연구
2004
.12
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2014-600-000363685