미국의 동아시아 미술사 : 국가를 초월한 미술사

Abstract

This paper considers the past, present, and future of East Asian art studies in the United States. Given limitations of space, it focuses on the 1980s and 1990s as representative of a previous generation of scholarship. Prominent scholars of Asian art in that period had relatively recently emerged from second class citizenship in the discipline of art history, only to face the challenges of what came to be known as “new art history.” The theoretical upheavals pitted “connoisseurs” against “theorists” in a starkly divided field, and specialists in East Asian art were continually drawn into the fray. Furthermore, many scholars of East Asia art writing in English at the time were only beginning to emerge from under the shadows of their counterparts in Japan, whose positivistic scholarship had previously dominated methods, terms, and subjects of the subfield. The period also saw the beginning of the serious study of modern and contemporary East Asian art. While many of the teachers of Asian art at this time had been trained by Europeanists, most of the Asian modernists had been trained by premodernists. These forces, and many towering egos, created a very dynamic but fragmented community that was, in general, largely ignored by other art historians. The early 21st century has seen seismic shifts in the field of art history, especially in East Asian art. Art history in general has become much less narrowly focused on Euro-American material, interdisciplinarity and the “social history of art” has become commonplace, and the theoretical imperative and polarization felt by earlier scholars has notably softened. Added to this, many of the towering figures of the previous generation of East Asianists have either retired or passed away, making way for a vibrant new generation of younger scholars who feel more at home engaging with their colleagues in the field, both Asianists and specialists focused on other regions. In addition, the geopolitical factors that shaped East Asian art history of the past, such as China’s Cultural Revolution or Japan’s “Bubble Economy,” have been supplanted by a new reality, in which scholarship and the market play a complex role in reflecting and shaping the cultural politics of the region. Among these cultural competitors, Korea has emerged as a powerful presence in the history of East Asian art, even though it clings to a precarious hold in the North American academy. If the present generation of scholars is any indication, the future holds great promise for East Asian art history in the United States. However, I see two main ways that the current academic establishment as well as the rising generation can begin to lead the rest of art history. First, we should reconsider what “interdisciplinarity” means today. Shaping a “new new art history” requires making amends with our “estranged sister” disciplines, such as (visual) anthropology, archaeology, calligraphy history, and even studio practice. These various scholarly groups tend not to paper to each other very much, but I think East Asianists, given their topics and temperaments and increasing prominence in art history departments, are particularly well suited to doing so. Secondly, I believe that the time has come for art history to present a model for the world that pointedly moves away from its roots in the formation of modern nation-state identities towards scholarship that recognizes the complex networks of cultural production and dissemination that were the historical reality throughout the region. As has clearly happened in the field of modern and contemporary art, premodern art historians would benefit greatly from not limiting themselves to narrow, nation-based frames for their research. East Asia is rife with examples of fluid spaces of cultural exchange, the nuanced study of which could present a new vision of what art history and the humanities in general could be. This understanding of the achievements of East Asian art in the past and the vision for its future is predicated on collaboration. For most of us, this ideal is only achievable by relying on cooperation between specialists who are fully grounded in their historical material yet practiced at communicating with scholars in other sub-fields and academic disciplines. That includes East Asianists papering to their colleagues based in other countries, to specialists in other art historical traditions, and to scholars far beyond the confines of the field as it is narrowly conceived.