A Matter of Autonomy in Art Criticism on Modernism

모더니즘 미술비평에 있어서 '자율성' (Autonomy)의 문제

This study looks into historical genealogy of autonomy in art criticism on modernism and presents the view of the judgment and correction about that. A matter of autonomy in art appeared in the attempt to totally reconsider and upset the theory of 'Mimesis' or 'Representation' which was the basis of traditional aesthetic theory. In the traditional theory of representation, they assumed primary image exists first and then tried to obtain visual similarity to it through art works. However, in the theory of autonomy in modernism, they maintained the reduction to pure form' or medium', regarding what art works represents and how similar to primary image are not the true essence of art. In the early 20th century, C. Bell laid the foundation stone of the theory of Formalism', providing that a matter of autonomy is significant form', which is the combination of lines and colors Aesthetic autonomy theory came to a climax by C. Greenberg, who systemized art criticism on modernism in the middle 20th century. According to his theory, the pursuit of the essence of form resulted in the specificity of medium' and flatness. They thought that the autonomy of art would be achieved by eliminating outward social factors from art works. This theory ended by Minimalism preventing the instructive function of art work and only emphasizing its material property. Since the middle 20th century, the autonomy theory was confronted with the limit and intense attack because it resulted in this fixed canon and materialism, so they began laying emphasis on those extrinsic factors around art works such as human life, society, history, and so on. This study focuses on arguing and complementing the limit of autonomy such as the adhesive and fixed canon, and then defining the more dynamic area of it. For this, first, I introduced the view of T. J. Clark and T. Crow who criticized the aesthetic autonomy theory. They denied the transcendental structure of form, and found form only in the association with substantial life and society. And they insisted the dynamism of form by emphasizing form as a result of negation insisted by avant-garde. Second, I researched the view of A. C, Danto and M. Fried, who complemented the traditional autonomy theory. They made autonomy emerge from the fixation of form like flatness through connecting essentialism with historical view. In conclusion, I insist that autonomic position of art make it possible to connect or mediate between material form and human or social elements. Therefore, autonomy should not be reduced to the axis of form or that of society but make interaction between two heterogeneous axes.