Earticle

현재 위치 Home

Art and Collectivity
미술과 집단성

첫 페이지 보기
  • 발행기관
    한국미술이론학회 바로가기
  • 간행물
    미술이론과 현장 바로가기
  • 통권
    제4호 (2006.12)바로가기
  • 페이지
    pp.190-202
  • 저자
    Kwok Kian Chow
  • 언어
    영어(ENG)
  • URL
    https://www.earticle.net/Article/A34411

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

4,500원

원문정보

초록

영어
“When it comes to art, nationalism is a goodticket to ride with,”says the title of areport in the Indian Express (Mumbai, 29 Oct 2000). The newspaper report goes on to saythat since Indian art was kept “ethnic”by colonialism, national liberation meant openingup to the world on India’s own terms. Advocacy, at the tail end of the 20th century, wouldcontrast dramatically with the call by Rabindranath Tagore, the founder of the academy atSantiniketan in 1901, to guard against the fetish of nationalism.“The colourless vaguenessof cosmopolitanism,”Tagore pronounced, “nor thefierce self-idolatry of nation-worship, isthe goal of human history”(Nationalism, 1917). This contrast is significant on two counts.
First is the positive aspect of “nation”as a frame in art production or circulation, atthe current point of globalization when massive expansion of cultural consumers may berealized through prevailing communication networks and technology. The organization ofthe information market, most vividly demonstrated through the recent FIFA World Cupwhen one out of every five living human beings on earth watched the finals, is predicatedon nations as categories. An extension of the Indian Express argument would be thattagging of artworks along the category of nation would help ensure greatest reception, andwould in turn open up the reified category of “art,”so as to consider new impetus fromaesthetic traditions from all parts of the world many of which heretofore regarded as“ethnic,”so as to liberate art from any hegemony of “international standards.”
Secondly, the critique of nationalism points to a transnational civic sphere, be itTagore’s notion of people-not-nation, or the much more recent “transnationalconstellation”of Jurgen Habermas (2001), a vision for the European Union where civilsphere beyond confines of nation opens up new possibilities, and may serve as a modelfor a liberated sphere on global scale. There are other levels of collectivity which art mayaddress, for instance the Indonesian example of local communities headed by Ketua RukunTetangga, the neighbourhood headmen, in which community matters of culture and thearts are organically woven into the communal fabric.
Art and collectivity at the national-transnational level yield a contrasting situation of,on the idealized end, the dual inputs of local culture and tradition through “nation”as necessary frame, and the concurrent development of a transnational, culturally andaesthetically vibrant civic sphere that will ensure a cosmopolitanism that is not a“colourless vagueness.”In art historical studies, this is seen, for instance, in the recentdiscussion on “cosmopolitan modernisms.”
Conversely, we may see a dual tyranny of a nationalism that is a closure (sometimesstated as “ethno-nationalism”which is disputable), and an internationalism that is evolvedthrough restrictive understanding of historical development within privileged expressions.In art historical terms, where there is a lack of investigation into the reality of multiplemodernisms, the possibility of a democratic cosmopolitanism in art is severely curtailed.The advocacy of a liberal cosmopolitanism without a democratic foundation returns art todominance of historical privileged category. A local community with lack of transnationalinputs may sometimes place emphasis on neo-traditionalism which is also a double edgedsword, as rekindling with traditions is both liberating andrestrictive, which in turninterplays with the push and pull of the collective matrix.

목차

Art and Collectivity at the Beginning and the End of 20thCentury
 Art and Collectivity during the Mid-20th Century: theModernism Nationalism Matrix
 Genealogy of Modern Southeast Asian Art -the NationalistImpulse
 1990s and After - Art and Collectivity, or Art ofCollectivity?
 참고문헌
 Abstract

저자

  • Kwok Kian Chow [ Singapore Art Museum ]

참고문헌

자료제공 : 네이버학술정보

간행물 정보

발행기관

  • 발행기관명
    한국미술이론학회 [The Korean Association of Art Theories]
  • 설립연도
    2003
  • 분야
    예술체육>미술
  • 소개
    한국미술이론학회는 미술이론의 고유한 역할과 방향을 모색하고자 창립되었다. 미술창작과 해석에 필요한 제반이론을 생산하고 다양한 미술현장의 활동을 검증하고 비판하며 연구하는 학회로서 미술의 이론과 실제사이의 분리현상을 극복하는데 기여하고자 한다. 현재 미술관련 학회들의 성격이 대부분 이론영역에 치중해있고, 학과나 전공에 특화되어 있는데 반하여, 본 학회는 미술의 현장과 창작과정을 적극 반영하고 미학, 미술사 등 기존의 미술이론 영역 뿐 아니라 실기와 미술교육, 경영, 행정, 전시 등 다양한 분야를 총괄하는 학제 간 연구를 활성화시키고자 한다. 앞으로 다양한 미술이론 영역에 대한 심도 있는 연구는 물론 한국미술계의 발전과 변화에 조력할 수 있는 실천적이고 생산적인 미술이론의 형성에 본 학회는 최선을 다할 것이다.

간행물

  • 간행물명
    미술이론과 현장 [The Journal of Art Theory & Practice]
  • 간기
    반년간
  • pISSN
    1738-1789
  • eISSN
    2508-3538
  • 수록기간
    2003~2025
  • 등재여부
    KCI 등재
  • 십진분류
    KDC 601 DDC 701

이 권호 내 다른 논문 / 미술이론과 현장 제4호

    피인용수 : 0(자료제공 : 네이버학술정보)

    함께 이용한 논문 이 논문을 다운로드한 분들이 이용한 다른 논문입니다.

      페이지 저장