DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Funk Ceramics in the 20th Century through 'Irony'

'아이러니'를 통한 20세기 펑크 도예 연구

  • Received : 2021.02.02
  • Accepted : 2021.04.20
  • Published : 2021.04.28

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to attempt a convergent study by analyzing modern funk ceramic artworks through 'Irony', which was mainly used in rhetoric and literature. The irony has come to modern times and has embraced the type of irony by Jung Keut-Byul, a literary critic who has discovered that the classifications and definitions are different from each other, and who has solved these problems and has newly classified the irony (the irony of oxymoron, the irony as a counterstatement, the irony of dramatic turn, the irony as a poetic truth) as a framework for analyzing the works of 20th century punk potters. As a result, the formative language found in funk ceramic art had many similarities with the irony of duality of surface and reality, and its humorous and comic character was more prominent than the heavy, melodramatic tone shown in literature. It was also found that the media characteristics and craft properties of ceramic art, such as clay and glaze, have become the drivers for ceramic sculptors to draw attention in funk art.

본 연구의 목적은 수사학과 문학에서 주로 이용되었던 '아이러니'를 통해 20세기 펑크 도예 작품을 분석함으로써 융합적인 연구를 시도하는 것이다. 아이러니가 현대에 와서 학자들마다 그 분류와 정의가 서로 다르고, 위트, 유머, 역설, 풍자와의 착종현상이 심화되어가는 현상을 발견하고, 이러한 문제를 해결해서 새롭게 아이러니를 분류한 문학평론가 정끝별의 아이러니의 유형(모순형용의 아이러니, 반대진술로의 아이러니, 극적 전환의 아이러니, 시적 진술로의 아이러니)을 20세기 펑크 도예가들의 작품을 분석하기 위한 준거의 틀로 수용했다. 결과적으로 펑크 도예에서 발견되는 조형언어는 표면과 실재의 이중성이라는 아이러니의 특징과 유사한 부분이 많았고, 문학에서 보여주는 무겁고 멜랑코리한 어조보다 유머스럽고 희극적 성격이 더욱 두드러졌다. 또한 흙과 유약이라는 도예 미술의 미디어적 특성과 공예적속성이 도예 조각가들이 펑크 미술에서 주목받을 수 있는 동인이 되었음을 알 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. J. Derrida. (1976). Of Grammatology, Johns Hopkins University Press, 283
  2. J. M. Jeong.(2006). Untersuchungen zur postmodernen Kontinuitat und Gegenwartigkeit der modernen asthetischen Diskussion um die 'Allegorie', The Association of Aesthetics and Science of Art, 26, 267
  3. C. H. Park.(2009). Rhetorics. Seoul : MoonJi Publishing. 152.
  4. K. B. Jeong. (2018). The Modes of the Postmodernistic Irony in Korea Modern Poetry, The Korean Poetics Studies Association, 55, 301-302.
  5. Naver Korean Dictionary. (2020). https://ko.dict.naver.com/
  6. D. H. Kim. (2016). Ironie als Methode des Widerstandes gegen die Unterdruckung der Rotalitat: Von Sokrates zu Richard Rorty. The Korean Society of Aesthetics, 82(1), 46-53.
  7. K. B. Jeong. (2018). A Study of Poetics for the Education of Irony in Modern Poetry, Korean Literary Theory and Criticism, 79(22, 2), 28-50.
  8. D. H. Kim. (2006). Roman Rhetoric School and Cicero's humanitas in De Oratore, Master's Dissertation. Seoul National University, Seoul, 45.
  9. H. Y. Park. (2002). Eine Studie uber die romantische Ironie von Friedrich Schlegel, Ph.d Dissertation. Hanyang University, Seoul, 6-119.
  10. M. S. Lim. (2019). Kierkegaard's Irony and Kim Soo-Young's "An Essay on Anti-Poetry", The Learned Society of Modern Korean Literature, 59, 337-339.
  11. I. A. Richards. (1955). Principles of Literary Criticism, London : Routledge and Kegan Paul, 249.
  12. C. B. Wheeler. (1966). The Design of Poetry, W.W. Norton & Company, 99.
  13. D. C. Muecke. (1980, translated by S. D. Moon). Irony, Seoul National University Press, 44.
  14. E. Behler.(1990). Irony and Discourse of Modernity. University of Washing Press, 93-99.
  15. S. Foley & R. Marshall. (1982). Ceramic Sculpture: Six Artists, New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 35.
  16. G. Adamson. (2007). Thinking through Ceramics. Bloomsbury, 13-145.
  17. J. S. Schwartz. (1983). Contemporary American Ceramic Sculpture: Satire in Selected Works of Robert Arneson, David Gilhooly, and Howard Kottler, Ph.d Dissertation. New York University, New York, 65-65
  18. Smithsonian American Art Museum. (2020). https://americanart.si.edu/artist/david-gilhooly-1805