Browse

E. Panofsky의 미술사학에 대한 재고찰: K. Moxey의 문화정치학적 입장을 중심으로
Reconsideration on Art History of E. Panofsky : On the Basis of K. Moxeys Cultural Politics

Cited 0 time in Web of Science Cited 0 time in Scopus
Authors
강미정
Issue Date
2003
Publisher
서울대학교 인문대학 인문학연구원
Citation
인문논총, Vol.50, pp. 211-240
Keywords
도상학도상해석학실증주의역사해석신미술사문화정치학역사철학기호학후기구조주의
Abstract
Panofsky is one of the influential figures in the field of art history. But the nature
of his thinking was rarely explored until 1980s when poststructualism has been
introduced into art historical discipline. His methodology and theory in art history
have attracted considerable attention as he was regarded to provide a
methodological system that could be said semiotic. Keith Moxey is one of the new
art historians who have adopted the poststructual theories of Derrida, Lacan, and
etc., and considered art history as one of the practice of cultural politics. He has
examined the writings of Panofsky in order to reveal that the positivist belief of the
traditional historians is no more than a myth that can not be substantiated, and to
show how Panofsky invested his own personal and cultural values into his
interpretation of art works. This thesis was intended to reconsider art history of
Panofsky in the light of Moxeys art historical strategy that can be called cultural
politics.
Panofsky had contrived the methodology called iconology that can be used to
interpret the works of art from all of the nations and ages. He thought it could
provide the universal principle for treating every artwork properly, and by using it
art historians could get to reach the truth about the work. However, according to
Moxey, Panofsky was not so neutral in choosing and treating his subjects of
analysis that he betrayed his own ideological bias in his writings. Moxey has
observed that Panofsky preferred the subjects connected with Renaissance
Humanism and made a personal commitment to reason and rationality. Why did
Panofsky do that? Moxey has found his answer in Panofskys private history.
German Jewish cultural identity was constituted in the beginning of 19th Century
when Enlightenment ideals were valued. As a member of German Jews, Panofsky
valued rationality and the educational process by which his cultural identity might
be acquired. When he left Nazi Germany to the United States before World War II,
he should have felt the threat of destruction of humanistic values at the hand of
irrational forces.
As for Moxey, historical interpretation is not the task of treating truth about past.
Traditional historians share positivist position that if they are faithful to empirical
evidence they can reach the truth of the subjects. Nowadays, however, many
historians dont believe that objectivity of historical writing is attainable. They dont
think they can elaborate narratives that correspond perfectly with the circumstances
they purport to describe. Like White and LaCapra, Moxey regards as a metaphysical
fiction the epistemological foundation which traditional historians have been
maintaining in historical interpretations. He believes historians do not deal with
what might be called the raw facts of history. Instead, he argues, historians
understanding of the past is always mediated by the texts. According to his
opinion, historical interpretation is recreative dialogues between the historian and
the text in question. That is to say, a historian interprets the text on his own
historical horizon and inevitably reflects the values derived from his own historical
circumstances while he struggles to understand the strangeness and othernessof
the historical horizon of the text.
ISSN
1598-3021
Language
Korean
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/10371/29453
Files in This Item:
Appears in Collections:
College of Humanities (인문대학)Institute of Humanities (인문학연구원)Journal of humanities (인문논총)Journal of Humanities vol.50 (2003) (인문논총)
  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse