한국 미술그룹 운동사와 서울대학교 미술대학 - 구조성에 주목하며 -

Abstract

The way of art discussion has been wholly changed by the advent of digital circuits and ARPANET in 1969, subsequently leading to rapid global diffusion of information through the World Wide Web into the 1980s. Many artists, who take a shortcut to the core of such discussion, jump into the arena of global issues, even insisting the inevitability of it to meet the needs of their contemporary time. ey seem neither to spend a sufficient amount of time on forming art groups that are adequately localized in their functions and social relevance, nor to consider the significance of grouping and its conceptualization. Consequently, the rate of forming art groups or streams as such triggering the images of Supports/Surfaces, Arte Povera and Mono-ha among others has been decreasing in the era of the Internet. In the light of this, in elaborating on the essential characteristics of the Korean art group movements originating from Seoul National University in 1954.79, the controversial issue would be derived from certain aesthetic or philosophical attitudes crucial to the groups or to the purposeful activities mainly aimed at getting their status to seize the system of hegemony in the art world. They showed no sign of group movements in S.N.U, after the capital was reverted in 1953 except some political movement around the artist Jang Bal, professor at S.N.U; until three groups emerged in the midst of the 5·16 coup detat in 1960. Mookrim club led by Suh Seok (then a young lecturer at Seoul National University) was formed in March, the 60s Artists Association and the group Wall members demonstratively exhibited their works on the walls of Duk-Soo Palace where a stubborn conventional Kuk-Jun (National Art Exhibition) was held in October. Through my investigations, the lowest common denominator of the three groups was the insistence on resistance against a stuffy established art world. Meanwhile, the development of works of Mookrim club from abstract paintings to figurative oriental ink paintings were based on an unusual variety, making it difficult to verify their mode of resistance against the established art that those art tendencies already had been included in. Consequently, political resistance and uncertainty or even ambiguity of aesthetic attitudes (resulting from their declarative statements and recorded documents) can be taken as adequate elements of conclusion. Meanwhile the 60s Artists Association (consisting of the graduates of S.N.U and Hong-Ik University) and the group Wall (the members of which were students at S.N.U) had been regarded as Informel art painting groups by the majority of art historians and critics. However, I discovered that a few works such as Park Hongdos or Yu Whang s, three dimensional experimentation within the group Wall, and considered influential the tendency of doing away with two dimensional works in Korea in my 2003 essay Study on the exhibition Wall: e question on the unfolding of Korean Informel painting. The emphasis here was the connection that the adventurous installation works would be extended to some works of Kim Daeus deconstructive frames in the group Actuelle (1962.64). In effect, it rebutted previous opinions that constituted the pedigree from the group Wall to the group Actuelle only within the category of Informel art painting. Meaningful art group/art streams always mark their own manifest turning point in history as with aesthetic and philosophical discussion radiating insights on the spirit of the age. Looking back at the period during which art politics and hegemony initiatives prevailed over seminal discussion of aesthetics; concerning the weak philosophical attitudes covered with pseudo-westernized aesthetics, re-reading the aesthetic context between Mookrim club and the precedents such as the likes of Lee Ungno, Kwun Younwoo, An Sangchul is a critical point to reveal the authentic identity of such artistic movements. e discussion on other 1960s groups the 60s Artists Association, the group Wall, and Actuelle should be further undertaken, lest it be simplified by a certain insufficient framework. e art group movements around S.N.U have revealed a unique context of structures, and the resources on deciphering its structuality would be much more plentiful in the company of contents of wholehearted research, compared to merely attaching the word resistance.

20세기 중반에 디지털 회로가 대두하고 1969년 아르파넷(ARPANET)이 개발된 이후 1980년대 인터넷의 글로벌 확산은 예술에 대해 논의하는 방식과 구조를 완전히 변화시 켰다. 그것은 일찍이 1984년 백남준이 ‹굿 모닝 미스터 오웰(Good Morning Mr. Owell)› 에서 예견했던 대로, 문명의 글로벌화가 초래한 문화적 동시간성에 대한 인식 변화와 가상현실을 포함한 장소 개념의 확장 때문이었다. 이미 19세기에 시작된 비엔날레와 트리엔날레, 도큐멘타 등 글로벌 예술 네트워 크들이 불과 반세기만에 무수한 이합집산의 소용돌이를 확장시키고 있고, 온라인/오프 라인에서 동시에 벌어지는 예술 담론들의 전개/변화 속도는 국가/지역적 미술그룹이 오프라인에서 형성되는 속도를 추월해 버린 지 오래다. 또한 아날로그 시대의 퓨처리스 트들(Futurists)들이 느꼈던 기계적 속도감과는 비교도 되지 않는 예술논의의 파급 속도 를 체험하는 디지털 시대의 작가들은 미술그룹을 형성할 시간을 확보할 틈도, 그럴 가 능성을 생각할 필요도 거의 느끼지 않는다. 수많은 개별 예술들이 글로벌 차원에서 모 였다가 해체되는 순환구조에 적응하는 것이 자신의 예술을 논의하기 위해 훨씬 더 효과 적인 동시에 시대적으로 불가피한 것으로까지 여겨지기 때문이다. 거기서 작가들/미 술사가/비평가 개개인은 소집단(미술그룹)을 형성하더라도 글로벌 차원에서 공동의 이 슈를 공유하는 쪽을 택하며, 세계의 미술 상황을 순식간에 파악하고 즉각적으로 반응하 면서 개인=다수의 변화무쌍한 담론 속으로 들어가는 길을 선택한다. 따라서 쉬포르/쉬 르파스(Supports/Surfaces), 아르테 포베라(Arte Povera), 큐슈하(九州派), 모노하(も のは)처럼 미학적 사고와 담론을 내포하며 국가/지역적 출발점을 가졌던 소그룹들은 인터넷의 글로벌 확산 시기 이후 그 발생률이 급격히 줄어들었다..