For a long time, art museum has been considered to e a sacred place, in which aesthetically chosen artworks are exhibited. However, this thesis raise question on this existent perception by examining the characteristics of public museums and the role of exhibitions within the social structure. Through this, the thesis intends to disclose that public museum forms cultural authority through ‘symbolic power’ established by ‘misrecognition’ and it is a venue where this is justified through the form of ‘exhibition’ as visual, public act of practice. Here, ‘misrecognition’ and ‘symbolic power’ are major concepts of cultural theory of Pierre Bourdieu who discerned the reproduction of power through culture, and the cultural political attribute of public museum and the role of exhibition as an act of practice had worked as a basis of this analysis. The museum see through such window, exists as the space of intersection formed by a multi-level network of politics, economics and social structure, reinterprets works of art into social and cultural context through the various exhibition forms, and also a location where such significance and value was shared and communicated in the relations among the society. As cultural system institution, the museum instead recognition into contemporary art produced in the field of culture; therefore it manufactured the ruling power, capital and institution into social symbols through the art form. And displaying this through exhibition, it is naturally providing ‘taste’ through enjoyment and re-structuralizing this back to the society. At this very moment, curators are performers who strengthened the ‘symbolic power’ of the museum by giving priority selection of classification method on particular image. Here, they also play a critical role of applying autonomy within the art field, institutionally mediating this to accommodate it into the society. The public museum especially created certain kind of a representational code system based on public resources provided within the social structure. This signifies an acquisition of higher ‘symbolic power’ than other museums, but at the same time, it is endowed with a social duty to equally distribute this to the ‘public’. Among the respective museums, the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art of Korea (hereinafter MMCA) has been built as national administrative driven institution, and thus provides the practical cases by arranging exhibitions within the context of cultural policy of each regime, In particular, through the foundation of coaction as a nation, it is presenting the highest cultural formulation as a cultural system institution in the public domain. Under the policy of “providing equal opportunity to approach culture” through the national museum, each government had persistently reminded citizens of their political intention through the form of ‘exhibition’. The very frist case is the exhibition, The Family of Man (1957.4.3. - 4.28) held at Gyeongbokgung Art Museum (former institution of MMCA) in 1957. This exhibition was a traveling exhibition curated by the Museum of Modern Art (hereinafter MoMA) in New York and the audience was deeply impressed by the composition of photographs on universal humanism at the time. However, MoMA and the United States Information Agency’s intention to proliferate the Cold War agenda of the United Stated of America were hidden beneath the surface. In addition, the power of culture witnessed through this exhibit had served as momentum for realism to take position as predominant aesthetics in the field of Korean photography when it was strictly divided into art photography and realism photography. This showcases the process of how the symbolic power of United States of America’s politics, economic capital and the public museum, MoMA is imprinted within the visual cognitive system of the citizens through collusion with the Korean national museum. Second example is the Whitney Biennial Exhibition in Seoul (1993.7.31. - 9.8) and the globalization strategy of contemporary Korean art. This international exhibition was co-organized by MMCA, Korea in collaboration with the Whitney Museum in New York as part of the globalization policy of the civilian government in 1993. It was a prevalent idea to introduce Korean art to the global art scene by inviting large-scale international exhibition and thus promoting the cultural policy of the civilian government. At the time, Whitney Museum also opened its 67th biennial titled, Borderline (1993.3.4. - 6.20), accepting the ‘cultural diversity’ of the Clinton administration and ‘otherness’ of the art world. The theme was also expanded into various race·cluture·sexuality·region and held experimental exhibit with performance, media, film, installation and etc. After the end of the New York exhibition, this was held in MMCA, Korea with 61 artists and 107 works. It brought great impact as an exhibition dealing with such issues unspoken in Korea like the politics and race along with experimental media. This exhibit was arranged in real-time cooperation with the Whitney Museum of Art and it also emphasized the importance of the absent curatorship in Korea. This exhibition was harshly criticized in both countries. In the United States, the aesthetic aspect was accentuated whereas in Korea, more criticism was pointed towards curator fee and censorship in relation to the status and role of the national institution. This is for the reason that the exhibition held at MMCA, Korea culturally represented the nation. Nevertheless, this project did succeed in promoting the cultural policy of the civilian government, but as numerous exhibition proposals of Korean art had been denied by the U.S nad Korean artists came to exhibit their works aside the Whitney Biennial, it failed the logic of globalization. Concurrently, this exhibition had a great influence in the Korean art scene. The MMCA, Korea mainly extended into the exhibition space, accepting more experimental and diverse themes. Moreover, installation and media works by young artists appeared actively, and it became a trend to place the word, ‘border’ in the exhibition titles. Ultimately, Gwangju Biennale inaugurated with the title, ‘Beyond the Borders’, and professional manpower that organized the Whitney Biennial exhibition became the center of this. As a result, the Whitney Biennial in Seoul was the ‘symbolic power’ of the Whitney Museum and Korea’s national museum to expand the ‘taste’ issue of one society, namely an extension of the concept of ‘style’ in contemporary Korean art. The third example is the case where MMCA, Korea officially positioned ‘Minjoong Art’, which was an anti-institutuional art, as contemporary art form with the exhibition, 15 Years of Minjoong Art : 1980 – 1994. After expanding the theme to sociopolitical fields through the Whiney Biennial in Seoul, MMCA, Korea presented an exhibition to re-establish the history of Minjoong Art. For this, the museum formed collaborative system with the representative organization of Minjoong Art, 'Minjok Art Association', Later in the process, an issue occurred on the selection of the works, but eventually a large-scale exhibition opened with 318 artists and 600 works. This exhibition was sensational in that a national institution approved Minjoong Art, which was once suppressed by governmental authority. And in correspondence to the purpose of placing importance on communication with the people, great number of audience visited the museum and appreciated the show. Additionally, major works of the representative artists were housed by the museum collection. On the other hand, there were negative evaluation criticizing it as "Janganpyeong" of Minjoong Art, directed towards curatorship in respect to the composition and selection of works. Also through this exhibition, Minjoong Art became the cultural contents capable to be dealt within general museums and galleries, shattering the taboo of the past. Yet, as a result, this exhibit 'approved' Minjoong Art as one of the major movements of are history through the 'symbolic power' of a national museum, but also announced the conclusion of its role as an art movement as a self-confessed "funeral of Minjoong Art". This signified the change in artistic practice following the transformation of the society. Consequentially, the public museums form cultural authority through the 'symbolic power' established on 'misrecognition' within the social structure, thus allocating and re-structuralizing this through the form of practicing 'exhibition'. In particular, the authority provides works of art for the audience, the 'public' who visits the public museums. And through the natural formation of 'taste', they reproduce this. However, on the opposite side, due to its influential features on the society and the public, the public museums are required to have responsibilities on publicness and influence. In other words, it is necessary for the museums to perform the role of properly presenting contemporary art, which pursues relative autonomy, through various forms of exhibitions. Among these, the role of a national museum that redistribute public resources for the duty of public service of a nation through the form of exhibition the MMCA, which exerts powerful influence based on the administration of a nation, is considered to be exceptionally important. The respective points are the direction of cultural-political characteristics that the public museums should pursue, as well as the correct role of the exhibition as a gesture of practice. ，韩语论文网站，韩语论文范文 |
