• Journal of Science of Art and Design
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.189-226
• /
• 1999

The purpose of this paper is to examine the common characteristics of late 20th century interior design style and the post-modern thinking system. A period has its own predominant spirit which determine the tendency of art, and the ubiquitous power in the spirit decides the period's pattern of art. Therefore the interior design style belongs to general art sphere that has its own individual character derived from the dominant power of the controlling system. Paying special attention to this understanding, the auther has processed this paper by combining the post-modem thinking with special characteristics of each of the 20th century interior design style. Until now, researches have been focused on the individual style of post-modern design; however, a general research comprising the whole characteristics of expression has not been made. Accordingly, the rationale of emphasizing the general point of view is establshed. Also, this study suggests a model applicable to studies concerning other art area. This type of methodology is receving more attention as an approach investigating new art ideology for researching post-modern thinking and late 20th century art styles. The conclusions are as follows: First, the distinctive expressions of postmodernism appear to be characteristic of illusion, metaphor, pluralism, decoration, and symmetry, Those of late modernism appear to be the characteristic of complicated simplicity and symplified complexity, passiveness of symbolism and harmony, indeterminacy of form and space, and unintentional decorativeness. And the characteristics of deconstructionism are spatial difference and temporal defferal, and un-reductive and non formal abstractiveness of the space, unfinishness, chance, and secretiveness of individual style. Second, the disinctive expression seems to share common characteristics with postmodern thinking. The best examples are pluralism, non-formalism, populism, and historicism, originating from the deconstruction of 'meta-narrative'. Third, based on the second conclusion, general distinctive expression could be simplified as chacteristics of plurality, hybridity, and indeterminacy. These expressive chacteristics appear to be automatically connected with general postmodern thinking. Last, in consideration of the above conclusion, the extreme generality could be distinctively clarified as 'textural co-exsistence'. Accordingly, the author might confirm that 'textural co-existence' originated from the text that comes from postmodern thinking. In conclusion, design expression of late 20th century interior design accepts the ?universal theme of ubiquitous postmodern thinking. And universal expressions and supreme generality can be common analysis tools for understanding and studying complicated late 20th century interior design.

• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.7-46
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this essay explores a critical review of the Korean critical communication studies focused on the problematic of cultural studies and political economy in 2000s. The findings are as follows; The 'consumer turn' or 'audience turn' in new revisionism modelling John Fiske's cultural studies has been interpreted not to complement but to substitute the necessary criticism of the post-authoritarian media establishment of Korea at that time, arising identity crisis of Korean cultural studies as one of the critical camp. On other side, however, some political economy studies close to the unilinear theses of orthodox marxism has been appraised to neglect the complex process and structure of media and cultural production as well. While the press war between the market-dominant dailies and some progressive dailies has given rise to a whole debate as expected in consolidating period of Korean emerging democracy, the conjucturalism as modelled by Hall's 'authoritarian populism' failed to initiate a new theo tical practice in Korea. Finally, this review essay propose the some new research issues that would converge cultural studies and political economy, modernism and postmodernism; citizenship vs 'cultural citizenship'(valuing the private identity and gender) or Habermasian public sphere vs 'cultural public sphere', the culture of production, (modern)citizen/(postmodern)consumer(recently debated in English media policy), 'differentiation' in capitalist production and 'difference' in consumer sovereignty, 21c future vision of public service broadcasting as one of the 20c institutions.

• Iberoamérica
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.83-114
• /
• 2019

Now Venezuela is the most attentional country in Latin America not only in our country but also all world. Unfortunately, the current crisis is a danger that threatening the venezuelan people's right to live, so most of the news is negative. Some analysts in Korea insist that everything is the result of invasion by US imperialism, others say it is a state of default due to excessive populism. The others also described as a power game of the powers of the world by the new Cold War. But most essential thing is that Sovereign of Venezuela, Venezuelan people are marginalized in this process. Venezuela's crisis seems to have been both a combination of internal and external factors, but internal factors been a main cause. The internal factors are the dictatorship and corruption of crony capitalism of nepotism which are considered historical ailments in Latin America. Chávez criticized the oligarchy, but paradoxically, the Chávezian or current ruling forces became another oligarchy. Unfortunately, Western powers such as the United States and the EU and Venezuela's current ruling powers are at an extreme confrontation, so can be seen using cliff-edge tactics. The best solution is the free and peaceful reelection of the president. After the patriarchal winter, which spring will come the Venezuelan people must decide.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.52 no.4
• /
• pp.206-225
• /
• 2019

This paper examines the trade and development aspects of glass mirrors through the literature records of the Joseon Dynasty, and studies the characteristics of existing glass mirror crafts by referring to the terms and types shown in the literature. The glass mirror in the records had called western mirrors(西洋鏡, 洋鏡), glass mirrors(玻璃鏡, 玻瓈鏡), stone mirrors(石鏡), etc. Glass mirrors were imported mainly through trade with Russia and the Qing Dynasty since the 17th century and were banned from importation in the late Joseon Dynasty. These mirrors were something new that caused a great stirring in Joseon society in the 18th century, and in the 19th century, it grew larger as a commodity needed for everyday life, especially with trade with Japan. At that time, glass mirrors were used for various purposes, such as installing large glass at a store, which were not the standard mirror usage of confirming one's appearance. These mirrors surprised Koreans in Joseon who experienced them at Yanjing Liulichang(燕京 琉璃廠) in the 18th and 19th centuries. As a result, the demand for glass mirrors rapidly increased and quickly surpassed that of bronze mirrors. Consequentially, new crafts using glass mirrors instead of bronze mirrors in Joseon began to be produced and used after the 18th century. In particular, integrated flat boards of glass mirrors were developed as crafts used indoors. It was convenient to use the hair comb box, a long-time presence in Joseon society, with the bronze mirror. This kind of mirror remained apparent in various genre paintings, including the Taepyeong Seongsido(太平城市圖, 'A Thriving City in a Peaceful Era') collected the National Museum of Korea which reflect its populism of the times. Also, the Mirror Stand(鏡臺) used in the Qing Period was produced in Joseon, but there was a difference in the way of making the drawers and box shapes between two nations. On the other hand, the Face Mirror(面鏡) was made to look at the face. Various crafts made with the aesthetic sense of Joseon, such as the ox horn inlaying craft technique, were produced with auspicious designs. In the 19th century, glass mirrors were imported from European countries, such as France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, however after the end of the 19th century Japanese crafts were popular. Glass mirrors, which were popular in the Meiji and Taisho eras of Japan, were imported and also the Mirror Screen(鏡屛) using large glass mirrors were used. In particular, the mirror screen had developed wood furniture since the previous time, which were used for banquets and large spaces, such as the drawing room, and were imported from China and Japan. In addition, the western architectural effect of attaching a mirror to the wall was also attempted to adjust the brightness of the space and introduce another image and scenery in the mirror. This was done at Deoksugung Palace's Seokjojeon.