• The Journal of Art Theory & Practice
• /
• no.16
• /
• pp.7-40
• /
• 2013

Historian Eric J. Hobsbawm once said "the task that historians have is to analyze the meanings of the past within the context of society and to track the changes and implementation." It would not be too far of a stretch to apply Hobsbawm's quote to art historian since art history, although quite specific, is still history. In addition, Hobsbaum also asserted that, "a mold called the past continuously forms the present or at least thought to be." It is my recognition that the major westernization of the last century took place under the Japanese colonization which served as the channel to usher in western art; however, the current 20thcentury Korean art history fails to recognize that the mold of the past, namely western art in this case, has formed the modern art of the present. Based on this recognition, attention was given to what lacked in the analysis of the current 20th-century Korean art history in terms of "Informel" which was identified as the turning point towards "modern art" in the Korean art history as well as the following "experimental art." My belief is that the art history of Korea has to be reassessed from, a socio-cultural perspective as well as adopting multi-level and diachronic understanding. However, the existing Korean art, especially the one between the end of 1950s to the 1970s was based on the perspective of "severance"; thus, raising the needs for the starting point of a new perspective. It is my conviction that meta perspective on writing is most essential in order to lay a solid basis for the Korean art scene to have a productive discussion. I feel the utmost necessity to reinterpret the typified history analysis and criticism which stemmed from the trauma under the Japanese colonization. The most urgent task is to avoid academic closeness and to share the research. Painting is an individual expression of the artist, but the act of expression is not free from the cultural and societal influence to which the artist belongs.

• The Journal of Art Theory & Practice
• /
• no.2
• /
• pp.75-120
• /
• 2004

Studies on western art in Korea has been caught in a dilemma that they could deal with only those things which had been arranged according to their 'historical generalization' in their contexts because of the bounds of time and space. It is not trivial that such conditions affect art studies in Korea. Access to the original texts and to their contexts of production is so restricted that the studies on them are prone to he superficial. And it is not independent on the politics of Korean art scene. Such factors are on the background of Korean art's excessive 'assimilation or accordance' with western art. The domestic studies on western art history and art theory have failed to notice the differences in context and Korean art has simply mediated or reproduced the restricted information by those studies. Also the studies on western art in Korea have been made use of as a justifying method of one's own academic domains. In such situations we should lead the studies on western art history and western art theory to a more reflective direction and confirm that the studies should not have any privileges of the realities. And we should try to reform a scholarship which participates in our life and existence. The field of domestic studies on western art history and western art theory should free itself from the invention of objectivity or the neutrality of mechanical reading and turn its eyes to the realities of life where events happens. Constantly suggesting which way Korean art and world art should go has to be the field's new coordinates.