It has been frequently pointed out that the established art history with the stylistic and iconographic interpretations and monographic analysis is fallen behind the currency of modern art. Among those who claimed the crisis in the discipline of art history, there is a suggestion that the art historical study should be fostered by other factors in the fields of the humanities. The so called New Art History or ‘Visual Culture Studies’ insists that art history has to be restructured to integrate the broader study of culture and society, and by now, such an opinion is not a novelty at all. One of the most significant yet overlooked elements that induced the new currency of art history is properties of contemporary art that conflict the traditional claim of art historians. Although the idea that art is not purely aesthetic but that it has many other functions has been brought up by the art historians, it was the artists that provoked such a perception. When Arthur C. Danto and Hans Belting proclaimed the End of Art and Art History in the 1980s, the concept of art has been changed radically through the avant-garde tendency of Modernism and a new pluralism of Postmodernism. One dominant concern that strikes art historians is to find a new approach to art, since the traditional method and goal of analysis for past art and past art history seem unavailable. The perplexity arising from the situation is intensified in the field of teaching art, especially for those who teach art history in art school. Basically art history is a pursuit of learning of art in history, and its purpose is to reconcile the present with the past and the future as well. Since Modernism, as it is confusing sometimes because it implies the present state, somehow art became considered ‘tradition-less’. It does not mean that a work of art stands aloof from the past attainments, but modern art imposed itself on a task seeking after the new for its own sake, turning its back on the tradition. And now in the era of Postmodernism, art historians face the requirement to revaluate the whole history of art including modernism. The necessity of art history in art education is indisputable, but methods and contents in the academic courses should be reexamined now. Because artists’ concept of history and past art has been altered, and art history as a humanistic discipline can only maintain its identity through incorporation with art itself. Academics teaching art history, or, strictly speaking, past works of art and history, to the student in art school, confront with the need to rethink the object of art history and its meaning to the artists.
키워드
미술가미술의 역사미술사동시대가르치기이스토리아ArtistHistory of ArtArt HistoryContemporaryteachingistoria
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.