‘미술의 종말’ 시대의 미술사

김진아(Jina Kim) 서양미술사학회 2015 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.43 No.-

근대적 형식 또는 개념으로서의 ‘미술’ 또는 ‘미적인 것’의 종말이 미술사에 의미하는 바와 문제는 무엇인가. 미술사 학제의 핵심을 이루는 ‘역사’의 의미는 어떻게 조명되어 오고 있는가. 본고는 특히 아서 단토와 한스 벨팅이 제기했던 미술(사) 종말론의 문제를 점검하며, ‘근대’와 ‘역사’의 시기로부터 ‘탈근대’ 또는 ‘탈역사’라 일컬어지고 있는 ‘동시대’에 이르기까지 ‘미술’과 ‘역사’라는 범주가 어떻게 변화하며 미술사학에 어떠한 영향을 미쳐오고 있는지 논의한다. 근대와 함께 탄생한 미술사는 미술에 대한 낭만적, 심미적 감상을 벗어나 보다 과학적인 연구방법론을 제시하며 미술의 ‘역사적’ 발달을 추적하고 해석하는 학제로서 기반을 다져왔다. 특히 리글, 뵐플린 등에 의해 확립된 양식사와 파노프스키의 도상해석학은 미술사의 양대 산맥을 형성해왔다. 그런데 단토와 벨팅은 형식 대 도상, 내적인 것 대외적인 것 등 얼핏 대조적인 접근으로 간주되는 이 두 방법론 모두 합목적론적인 단일한 미술사 형성에 기여하고 있다고 비판한다. 그들은 워홀의 <브릴로 박스>나 미디어아트를 논거로 제시하며, 동시대 미술이 더 이상 전통적인 아름다움이나 특정한 시각적 특질에 기대서는 개념으로는 이해될 수 없는 형식으로 진행해오고 있음을 지적하는 한편, 모방 담론이나 양식(형식) 등에 주목하는 거대 서사로서의 미술사 서술을 폐기한다. 단토와 벨팅의 논고가 다소 극적인 수사를 구사하고 있지만, 서구 근대 부르주아에 의해 이루어진 ‘미술’ 개념에 입각한 보편적 ‘역사(History)’의 구성, 즉 합목적론적이고 선적인 전개의 연속으로 구성된 미술사를 해체한다는 점에서는 의미 있는 시도이다. 특히 반미학, 비미학, 역사비판 등에 대해 주목해온 동시대 미술을 다루는 미술사에서 역사주의에 입각한 서술 방식은 더더욱 유효하지 않기 때문이다. 따라서 잔존해있는 역사주의적 시각과 이로 야기되는 문제를 진단하며 더욱 의미 있는 미술사 서술을 위한 방식을 모색할 필요가 있다. 우선 ‘역사’를 구성해왔던 진보론적인 시간 개념의 해체에 주목한다면, 여러 층위의 시간, 예를 들어 작품이 만들어진 과거의 시간과 우리가 바라보는 현재의 시간 등 작품이 형성하는 복합적인 시간성 속에서 미술을 사유할 수 있을 것이다. 또한 보편적이고 진보론적인 역사가 이룩해온 서구 중심의 미술사 형성에 대항하는 인식적 지평을 확장시켜야 할 것이다. 그러나 이것이 단지 비서구 미술에 대한 기존의 역사적 연구의 확장을 의미해서는 안 될 것이다. 세계 곳곳에서 같은 시간이되 다른 시간, 즉 다른 역사(또는 기억)와 문화적 충돌의 층위가 다양한 공간에서, 어떻게 근현대미술에 대해 서술할 수 있을지 그리고 ‘서양미술사’의 프레임을 넘어선 ‘글로벌미술사’와의 관계를 각각 어떻게 설정할 수 있는지에 대한 고민에서부터 출발해야할 것으로 보인다. What is the meaning of the end of “art” or “the aesthetic” as a modernist concept or phenomenon? What is the meaning of “history” in Art History? This paper discusses how the categories of art and history have been transformed from the modern era to the contemporary or post-historical one, particularly examining the issues of “the end of art and art history” that Arthur Danto and Hans Belting raised. Around the turn of the 19th century, Art History began as an independent discipline to examine art works and trace the development of art by devising more scientific methodologies and maintaining a distance from mere romantic and biographical appreciations performed in earlier ages. In particular, Riegl and Wolfflin’s formalist methodologies focusing on styles and Panofsky’s “iconology” emerged as two major approaches toward Art History. Danto and Belting regarded these two approaches-form versus content and the internal versus the external-as two sides of the same coin. Both approaches actually consist in the same narrative of the universal and unified history of art. Although Danto’s and Belting’s claims sound somewhat dramatic, theirs are meaningful reflections regarding the Western bourgeois construction of art and taste and the formulation of a universal and theological history of art. The art historical narratives grounded in historicism are, indeed, no more valid in dealing with contemporary art, which asserts the anti-aesthetic or non-aesthetic as well as the deconstruction of history. Therefore, by diagnosing the remaining historicism in art historical analyses, we are able to pursue new and more meaningful ways of writing about art. If we abandon the concept of time as progressive and the basis for the notion of history, we can configure works according to complex temporality, not only in the past but also in the present. We will also need to expand the perceptual horizon in view of the universal history of art that was developed mostly from Western perspectives. However, not only would an extension of the historical study of non-Western art be required but also recognition of the various temporalities or heterochoronic conditions that are not in step with the West’s modernity or postmodernity in art. In other words, it implies the quest to go beyond the frame of the Western or Non-western in art.

신미술사 vs. 시각문화연구

강미정(Kang Mi-Jung) 서양미술사학회 2011 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.35 No.-

This paper aims to provide an explanation of what the New Art History and Visual Culture Studies are by illuminating the theoretical positions of each area’s representatives - T.J. Clark’s social history of art and Keith Moxey’s post-structuralist art history. Even though Moxey pursued a social history of art like Clark, but since his theory of art history was so different from the Clark’s, he changed his course to ‘art history as cultural politics.’ The main difference between the two art historians’ theories lies in their conceptions of art and history. According to Moxey, Clark’s social history of art is not innovative enough because he takes the existence of a traditional canon for granted. Moxey thinks Clark’s position could subscribes to a reflection theory of culture if he doesn’t have an appreciation of the role of language in the construction of history. Unlike Clark, Moxey prefers to treat non-canonical works and focuses on the representation itself rather than the reality to which it refers. I think it is because Moxey and his colleagues has accepted post-structuralist view of history and language that they could explore Visual Culture Studies beyond the traditional boundary of art history. In short, although Clark and Moxey are all New Art Historians, when Moxey abandoned his position as a social historian of art and common-sensical concept of history, he could expand the range of the discipline and make it change to Visual Culture Studies.

Navigating No Man’s Land: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Korean Contemporary Art within Western Art History

Woo, Jung-Ah(우정아) 서양미술사학회 2025 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.63 No.-

This article interrogates the epistemological and disciplinary challenges of studying Korean contemporary art within the framework of Western art history. Positioned between the legacies of traditional Korean art and Euro-American modernism, Korean art historiography has often been cast as derivative or methodologically deficient. Challenging such narratives, the paper argues that Korean contemporary art must be understood as a field shaped by both local contingencies and transnational exchanges. Through a case study of the Space and Time (ST) Group in the 1970s, it demonstrates how Korean artists reformulated conceptual practices in response to authoritarian politics, philosophical inquiry, and material specificity. Their interventions moved beyond imitation by rejecting binaries such as East/West and original/copy, proposing instead a “language of things” that foregrounded embodied knowledge. While initially marginalized by Minjung art discourse and institutional structures, these practices reveal a critical site of theoretical invention and cultural negotiation. The paper concludes by advocating for a reframing of global art history that resists rigid geographic and temporal classifications, situating Korea not as a periphery of Western modernism but as a generative locus for rethinking conceptualism and the historiography of contemporary art.

미술사학사의 한 페이지. 막스 임달과 회화매체

김호근 서양미술사학회 2026 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.65 No.-

독일의 미술사학자 막스 임달은 20세기 서양미술사학의 모범들 가운데 하나이다. 그의 미술사 서술은 일반적으로 이코닉과 바라보기라는 두 특수한 개념을 통해 알려져 있다. 임달의 논의에 따르면 이코닉은 그림에 고유한 미적 특징들에 초점을 맞추는 미술사 서술 방법으로, 그림을 바라봄으로써 고유의 조형적 특징들을 파악하려 한다. 그런데 감상자는 왜 그림을 바라보고 고유의 미적 특징들을 인식해야 할까. 즉 그림매체가 무엇이기에 이코닉과 바라보기라는 개념이 필요한 것일까. 임달은 전통 회화미술에서 가장 높은 지위를 누렸던 역사화를 기호 체계로 이해했다. 역사화는 문헌과 대상이란 두 기의와 조형적 특징이란 기표를 갖는 기호이다. 임달은 역사화의 기표성을 구도라고 정의한다. 19세기에 들어와 회화미술은 세잔의 풍경화에서 인지할 수 있듯이 더 이상 문헌을 지시하지 않는다. 또한 자연의 대상을 가리키는 지시성 역시 약화되었다. 여기서 임달은 미셸 푸코의 인식론을 세잔의 풍경화에 적용하여 약화된 대상 지시성을 논의했다. 1960년대의 회화미술은 예를 들어 뉴먼의 그림이 보여주듯 기호로서 오직 기표만 갖는다. 뉴먼의 그림에서는 전통적 구도를 찾아볼 수 없다. 그러나 전통적 구도가 제거된 캔버스는 거대한 색채라는 고유의 조형적 특징을 통해 감상자에게 숭고라는 새로운 경험을 선사한다. 이처럼 기호 체계, 인식론, 현대미술을 통해 얻은 경험이 임달의 이코닉과 바라보기 개념의 바탕을 이룬다. 임달에게 회화란 각 시대의 감상자에게 고유의 조형적 특징을 통해 다른 매체에서는 실현 불가능한, 전에 없던 새로운 경험과 인식을 제공해주는 매체이다. The German art historian Max Imdahl is one of the leading figures in 20th-century art history. His approach is known for two specific concepts: ‘Ikonik’ and ‘das sehende Sehen’. According to Imdahl, the Ikonik is a method of art historical narration that focuses on the aesthetic characteristics unique to a painting. But why must the viewer recognize its unique aesthetic characteristics? What is it about the medium of painting that necessitates the two concepts? Imdahl understood history painting as a sign. History painting is a sign comprising two signifieds – text and object – and a signifier – formative characteristics. For Imdahl, the signifying nature of history painting is composition. By the 19th century, painting no longer referred to a text. Its referentiality to natural objects has also weakened. Here, Imdahl applied Foucault’s epistemology to Cézanne’s landscape. Painting in the 1960s possesses only the signifier as a sign. In Newman’s painting, the canvas offers the viewer a new experience through its unique formal characteristic of vast color. For Imdahl, painting is a medium that provides viewers of each era with unprecedented new experiences and perceptions – impossible to achieve through other media - through its unique formal characteristics.

서양미술사학회 창립과 그 전후의 이야기

김영나(Kim, Youngna) 서양미술사학회 2025 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.62 No.-

국내 그리스 미술사학의 현재: 고고학과 미술사학 사이에서

조은정(Cho, Eunjung) 서양미술사학회 2025 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.62 No.-

This paper examines the current status of Greek art history in Korea. The activities of academic associations and researchers in the fields of art history, Western history and classical studies are summarized by period, field, and subject. Founded in 1989, Association of Western Art History played a leading role with its subcommittee activities in the early days. It shows that the number of academic papers related to Greek art history has increased rapidly since the 2000s, but it is still concentrated on a small number of researchers and their interests and research background greatly influence the overall flow. In addition, convergence and expansion have emerged as important issues in Greek art history research. Unlike Western academia, where ‘classical art history’ has grown from the foundations of ‘classical studies’ and later ‘archaeology’, domestic(Korean) academia of Greek art history has to focus on meta-analysis of historical and cultural contexts. The development of modern classical archaeology and classical art history in Western academia over the past two centuries has significant implications for us, as it shows the limitations of the classical framework of Greek art history and new directions.

누가 서양미술사를 두려워하랴?: 교육, 연구, 그리고 한국에서의 서양미술사의 영향

편집부(편집자) 서양미술사학회 2025 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.63 No.-

1990년도 서양미술사학회 임원 외

편집부 (편집자) 서양미술사학회 1990 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.2 No.-

나치시대의 미술사와 박물관

송혜영 서양미술사학회 2008 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.29 No.-

본 논문은 나치시대의 미술사와 박물관이 어떤 성향으로 전개되고 어떤 정책을 추진해나갔는지를 다음의 세 가지 관점에서 조명한다. 즉, ‘민족’과 ‘인종’이 가장 중요한 핵심어로 등장하는 나치시대 미술사의 학문적 성향, 나치시대의 박물관이 주요 정책으로 내세운 민중교육운동의 대표적 예인《독일미술대전》과《퇴폐미술전》, 유럽의 모든 걸작을 소유하고자 했던 나치의 문화재약탈과 히틀러의 최종목표였던 ‘린츠박물관’을 고찰한다. The purpose of this study is to research which tendencies art history and museums in the Nazi period were unfolded in and which policies they promoted. Nazi ideology results in racism to advocate Aryan superiority through suggesting anti-Semitism and anti-Bolshevism. Like reflecting this fact, art history in the Nazi period represented as the key words of 'nation' and 'race' was developed in the tendency to harmonize with Nazi ideology from a viewpoints of nationalism out of the objectivity of pure study, and, mainly, concentrated on German art from the Middle Ages to the Baroque period. Therefore, A great number of scholars in art history had to leave Germany, and, as a result, the center of art history to have originated from the German area was extended to Courtauld Institute in London and American famous universities as the English area. The art in the early 20th century to position currently itself as the classic of modern art was regarded as decadent art by the Nazis, and relevant works in all museums and galleries were confiscated. Especially, the works of Die Bruecke were severely suppressed through 'decadent art' exhibition, but, on the contrary, German expressionism happened to well known to the international world of artists on this opportunity in the late 1930's. In addition, the New York painting circles positively accepted the modern art the Nazis suppressed, so to get the chance to lead postwar modernism. Even though the nazis established museums and art galleries with the justification of popular educational movements on purpose to enlighten the mass of people, they actually intended to propagate Nazi ideology as 'Great exhibition of German art' and 'decadent art' exhibition. Nazi Germany, that started a war, tried to possess the whole great works of the occupying nation, and, especially, Hitler promoted to establish Linz museum on a international scale. But, despite of Hitler's ambitious plan, leaning to German art, the large limits of Linz museum are found in the collection lists to have denied the experimental art of contemporary. After Nazi defeat, the universities and the museums in Germany had to make all efforts to recover self-regulation, and all the museums and art galleries in Europe, to return to the condition prior to a war. The Nazi period in which the ideology ruled everything left an instruction that only freedom is an absolute condition of all scholarship and arts in the end.

Teaching and Researching Early Modern Western Art History in Korea

Sohn, Sooyun(손수연) 서양미술사학회 2025 서양미술사학회논문집 Vol.63 No.-

This article reviews the current state of Early Modern Western art history education and research in Korea. Despite growing academic interest, the institutional foundation remains weak. Few universities have dedicated art history departments, and faculty often cover multiple areas. There are limited domestic PhDs, rare tenure-track opportunities, and no art history education at the primary or secondary levels, which hinders teaching. Still, academic output is gradually increasing, with improved master’s and doctoral theses and journal publications. Research approaches have broadened beyond formal analysis to include socio-historical methods, visual culture, sensory history, and transnational studies. However, areas like gender studies, post-Eurocentric perspectives, and curatorial practice remain underdeveloped. Since 2020, more Korean scholars are participating in international academic exchanges and journals, shifting the field toward global engagement. For further advancement, the field needs greater methodological diversity, stronger institutional backing, better support for international publishing by graduate students, more museum collaborations, and public exhibition initiatives. A policy environment that values the humanities is also crucial. With these changes, Early Modern art history in Korea can achieve more significant results both domestically and in the international academic community.