Dr. Soomuk Chin Hong-sup: On His Scholarship and Academic Achievement in Korean Art History

The purpose of this study is to critically examine the history of research on feminism in Korean contemporary art history. Setting Korean contemporary art viewed in a feminist perspective, feminist art, and women’s art after the mid-1980s as the main objects of this study, this paper analyzes significant academic research. To begin with, this analysis points out how the study of feminism in Korean art history was introduced and considered as a sect or methodology, settling down to an academic feminist art history. Adding on, this study also examines how researchers, who conducted studies in the perspective of feminism, groped for different opinions and diverse research methodologies, the process of art terminologies regarding feminism changing their concepts and meanings over time in contestation, and the transformation of the main subject and issue of study. Viewing the thirty-year history of research overall, it can be identified that researchers who performed feminism in the area of art history have consistently put efforts to expand the boundaries of art history and to change its solid system of value by conflicting or compromising with it as a patriarchal discourse, while standing against the single categorization into feminist art history itself. This paper intends to propose that an increase in researchers, higher quality fulfillments, and a search for an elaborate and practical strategies as an alternative art history are the future tasks of feminist studies in Korean contemporary art history.

Yu-seop (1905-1944) occupies a unique position in Korean art history. During the period when Korea was a Japanese colony (19 10-194 5), he was the sole Korean art historian of his homeland. He entered the Department of Philosophy at Keijo (K: Kyeongseong) Imperial University (precursor of Seoul National University) to study aesthetics and art history in 1925. In 1933, aged twenty-eight, he was made director of the Gaeseong Prefectural Museum, an extraordinary appointment at a time when Japanese controlled all Korean institutions. In his new position he began writing not only on Buddhist art and Goryeo green-glazed ceramics, but also on aesthetics, Western, and modern art. Unfortunately, he was unable to finish what was to have been his most ambitious work, a complete history of Korean art. After a brief scholarly career that lasted just over one decade, Ko died in 1944, having completed a draft text only through the period of the Four Han Commanderies (108 BCE-313 ce). Ko Yu-seop studied Korean pagodas throughout his life. His first paper on the topic, entitled tappa ui gaeseol (A Survey of Korean Pagodas), appeared in 1932. From 1936 until 1940 he continued publishing papers on Korean pagodas in Jindan hakbo, the academic journal of the Jindan Academic Society.1 These papers were revised and reissued under the title Joseon tappa ui yeongu II (Research on Korean Pagodas II) in 1943. 2 Portions of this book duplicate his earlier papers and are so titled, but the text is organized more systematically, causing it to be regarded as one of the outstanding achievements in the field. Ko's other books are listed in note 3 .3 Throughout his life Ko Yu-seop wrote over a hundred essays and articles in Korean or Japanese. It is important to remember, however, that except for his work on the Korean pagoda, these writings were mainly essays published in newspapers or literary journals rather than scholarly research papers. His major essays are listed in note 4.4 These brief essays proved extremely influential in later Korean art circles, frequently becoming the subject of vigorous debate. In the 1960s Ko Yu-seop's contributions began to draw serious interest among aestheticians and art historians, who overwhelmingly recognized Ko Yu-seop as a pioneer of Korean art history.5 His methodology of art history and writings on the Korean sense of beauty stimulated early research, especially in aesthetics. Beginning in the mid-1970s, however, his characterization of Korean art drew challenges and criticism. This paper will focus on Ko Yu-seop's role in the formation of modern Korean art history. It will begin with an examination of his educational background, followed by an assessment of his achievements and limitations as an art historian. Lastly, his enduring influence on Korean art history will be discussed.

A review of four books and more than four hundred academic papers published during 2019 and 2020 on Korean artworks produced before 1945, reveals the following prospects and expectations. The increasing interest in the social, religious, and political meaning and function of art, rather than in art itself, gives rise to the expectation that interdisciplinary research in art history and other academic circles will deepen and the academic status of art history be enhanced. It is also anticipated that growing research on painting and ceramic history in the first half of the twentieth century, including various modern media, will narrow in scope to become more precise. Continued reflection on the perspectives of Korean art history written by previous generations related to the selection of masterpieces, the influence of collections, and the perception of tradition is also predicted. Discussions on Korean art held overseas and Korean art history recorded in North Korea, along with an increasing interest in cultural heritage indicate the potential for multilateral research and activities. The development of scientific investigations and the establishment of a related database will likely provide comprehensive assistance in understanding the nationality, timing, and level of the artwork. Finally, research that transcends genres should be more actively attempted.

Chowoo Hwang Su-young(1918~2011) and Soomuk Chin Hong-sup(1918~2010) both learned from Woohyun Ko Yu-seop, a pioneer and an early luminary of Korean art history. They were scholars who laid the groundwork for art history of today. Ko Yu-seop was from Incheon, but worked as the director of the Museum at Gaeseong, where Hwang and Chin were friends from childhood. The researches they made from Gaeseong helped to establish Korean art history as an academic field, and for this, they are often referred to as “Gaeseong Samgeol (Three Heroes of Gaeseong).” Their friendship that started at Gaeseong could be described as fortuitous. Hwang first understood the value of art history when on field research with Ko, and decided firmly to pursue the subject as he prepared and read the eulogy for Ko after his sudden death. As for Chin, he was much impressed by monuments around Gaeseong when on surveys with Ko and by what he learned about Korean history and art from him at the Gaeseong Museum. It was only natural that Chin took interest in art history and deeply felt the need for art historical research after finishing college. Hwang and Chin were pioneers of Korean art history who followed in the footsteps Ko, their teacher. They were mainly concerned with stone sculptures, forming the basis of art history today, and securing its position as an important part of Korean art history. Both Hwang and Chin’s main areas of interest were stone stupas and Buddhist sculptures from Three Kingdoms Dynasty, Unified Silla, and Goryeo, the same as Ko. Their method was fundamentally empirical but they did not disregard artistic style and written documents that were necessary for understanding and studying Stone sculptures. The two scholars’ achievements made it possible to determine the dates of stone sculptures and to understand the stylistic development and changes that set up a systematic method for stylistic analysis. Their achievements are significant as the basis and the fundamentals of Korean art history.

Historiography of Korean modern art history is very short with only a handful of researchers. The researches have been done on the documentation of art works and individual artists, and the problem of authenticity and attribution have always been important. However, there has been shift of direction from the late 1990s when young art historians cautiously started to apply cultural theories to their researches. This was not merely an appropriation of Western theories, but a resistance to how very confining art history had become with its linear narratives of formalism, famous artists and their masterpieces; how research based on empiricism had evolved into a struggle for who gets the hand on the sources first. Their turn to post-modernistic cultural theories was supported by the fact that modern art itself rapidly arose from a transitional sphere where tradition and modernity coexisted in confusion. Also former methods of art history were not suitable for Korean modern period when there were not many works survived from the period; instead, there was a rich resource of photographs, prints, illustrations, etc, which revealed the experience and everyday life of modernity and provided a possibility of studying visual culture. Rather than renouncing formalism, these young researchers sought to open up a more diverse discourse as well as embrace new perspectives on art. Compared to traditional art history, modern art history has a shorter history with relatively fewer scholars. Since there is no solid body of scholarship as of yet, it has also proved easier to freely engage new methodologies. Another trend is that modern art history is no longer restricted to only Korean art and has expanded to include other areas of East Asia, stimulated by increase of interest in contemporary Asian art a well as the return of students who studied not only in the United States and Europe, but also Japan and China. If one recognizes that art is not merely a reflection of beauty, but more importantly, a reflection of culture, a product imbued with the consciousness of its period, then, it is true that the new methodologies have expanded the perspective and terrain of art history. Through such diverse perspectives, I think we can get a better sense of the identity of Korean modern art. Thus, Korean art history must pursue two paths at the same time: formal analysis of works of art with the excavation of primary sources ”and” the incorporation of multiple perspectives for the task of interpretation. In this paper, I will briefly address the state of research in Korean modern art history, as well as the search for new methodologies in contemporary scholarship.

In the meantime, if studies of art history have mainly focused on external factors such as style, form, and background of works, studies of recent art history persistently digest intrinsic problems, intrinsic intentions and political implications. The study of Korean art history in 2015 and 2016 can be summarized by the words ‘twisting’ and ‘looking for diversity.’ ‘Twisting’ is a re ‐ examination of what has been taken for granted from a different point of view. ‘Looking for diversity’ means that the outline of the research field has expanded, and communication and negotiation with other fields has been made. This view is not different from the trends of other humanities, and it may be the direction that art history should pursue in the future. However, if it is based on the humanistic methodology, it is necessary to have a balanced viewpoint in that the art works which are targeted at ‘works’ may fail if the works are omitted. In addition, the research method for each field is so different that the problem of what kind of research methodology is desirable at present is encountered. There are areas that deviate from the essence of art history by analyzing and classifying styles and forms by microscopic methodology and interpreting them by way of over ‐ interpretive methodology. Indeed, it is the time that the worries between art as work and art history as humanities are more serious than ever.

This study proposes new directions for Korean art history education by focusing on digital literacy and its integration into education. In response to the digital transformation era, the study explores specific applications of digital technologies in Korean art history education, such as the construction of small-scale databases, the digitalization of unstructured data into structured formats, and the visualization of data using semantic network graphs. By analyzing international research and educational case studies, including CHArt, PHAROS projects, and Duke University’s Digital Art History master’s program, as well as domestic examples in Korean art history education, the study evaluates practical applicability. Furthermore, a 15-week Project-Based Learning (PBL) curriculum titled “Building a Semantic Database for Digital Korean Art History” is proposed. This curriculum is designed to enable students to process and analyze data independently while producing creative outcomes. The study emphasizes that integrating digital literacy into education can enhance academic reliability in Korean art history research, foster collaboration and application skills, and contribute to training researchers equipped for the digital age.

Art History and Humanistic Values -The Reception and Application of Twentieth-Century Western Art Historical Theories in Korean Art History-

This paper introduces how the colonial intervention in Korea by Japan – another Asian nation – has changed and formed the discussion about art and art history in Korea, and shows the impact of this colonial scholarship on recent studies in Korean art history. If we look at art histories written during the Colonial Period (1910–1945) we can trace several different attitudes. The Japanese funding and organization of many important archeological excavations on the territory of Korea was used to advance the legitimacy and of control over the peninsula, which was quite different from the efforts of Koreans to invent their own histories. The Japanese interest in Korean folk culture is also an important aspect of writing about Korean art and its impact and influence is still present in contemporary Korea.

We take this opportunity to reflect on the first year of publishing LALVC , plan for the future, and thank all of the contributors, peer reviewers, editorial board members, subscribers, and other supporters. The enthusiasm for LALVC 's content, as revealed by submissions, subscriptions, mentions on

“Kunstiajalugu on ju siinses ülikoolis uus distsipliin.” Tartu ülikooli kunstiajaloo kabineti rajamine

Among the most engaging genres of scholarly literature, art history and architecture history publications appeal to the eye as well as the intellect. In the late 20th century the literature of art history has been documented by two standard reference bibliographies published by the American Library Association: Mary Chamberlin's Guide to Art Reference Books (ALA 1959), and Guide to the Literature of Art History by Etta Arntzen and Robert Rainwater (ALA Editions, 1980). Now, a new supplementary volume, Guide to the Literature of Art History 2 (ALA Editions, 2004) has arrived to record and annotate the best art and architecture books and journals published worldwide in the last two decades of the 20th century. The main intent of Guide to the Literature of Art History (GLAH) 2 is to supplement its predecessor by recording important publications produced primarily in western languages. Adopting the chapter and numbering system of the first volume, GLAH 2 will help art scholars keep abreast of more recent publications in art and architectural history. An expert team of 24 contributors has come together with editors Max Marmor and Alex Ross to produce this significant work, featuring new titles, volumes, editions, and reprints, while providing ample cross referencing to GLAH 1. In addition, two brand new chapters have been added, Patronage & Collecting, and Cultural Heritage, which covers the literature of art preservation and art law. Librarians and scholars will welcome the new collection development information, including: The best electronic art and architectural history sources. Cumulative 40-year bibliography of art history literature, with GLAH 1. Critical selection of nearly all literature in art history, primarily in Western European languages, since 1977. Resources for art historians outside their areas of specialization. Helping to reestablish bibliographical control of significant art and architectural literature for the last two decades of the 20th century, Guide to the Literature of Art History 2 is the authoritative, must-have resource for all art history students, institutions, and agencies.

Art MattersHoward University's Department of Art from 1921 to 1971 Rebecca VanDiver (bio) Since its 1867 establishment, Howard University has been an epicenter of Black intellectualism frequently hailed as the "capstone of Negro education." Historian Zachery R. Williams notes that "from 1926 to 1970 [Howard] represented the center of Black intellectual life, and its scholars were heirs to the legacy of W. E. B. DuBois' 'talented tenth'" (Williams 1). The Howard Department of Art is a central yet understudied component of this intellectual nexus. Founded in 1921 by James V. Herring (1887–1969), the Department of Art at Howard University was the first stand-alone studio art department at a historically Black college or university (HBCU). During the 1930s, the department became the center for both the production and study of African American art, combining studio practice with the study of art history (Driskell, African American Visual Aesthetics 5). During the era of segregation, from which not even the nation's capital was immune, Howard University offered Black Washingtonians access to a host of intellectual and cultural offerings that were otherwise unavailable to them. Howard's Department of Art played a key role in promoting the fine arts to the Howard student body and to the larger Washington, DC, community. In what follows, I survey the department's history during its first fifty years, from its foundation in 1921 through 1971, the year after the untimely death of then-chair James Porter (1905–1970) and the subsequent arrival on campus of artist/art historian Jeff R. Donaldson (1932–2004). Donaldson's entrance marked a substantial and politically charged "period of redefinition" for the department (Morrison, Art in Washington 12). I consider the various human, spatial, and ideological components that coalesced during this fifty-year period, which enabled the idea of African American art history to germinate within the Department of Art. Through this historiography, I seek not only to excavate the central role of Howard's Department of Art in the formations of Black art histories (here African and African American) but also to ponder how one writes about an academic department (here a fine arts department) as a holistic entity responsible for both knowledge and cultural production. In 1945, a new class titled "Art 133: Negro Art" appeared in the Howard University course catalogue. James A. Porter was listed as the instructor of record for this class, which was billed as "a study of the creative forces of the Negro in the Americas" (Howard University Bulletin, 1945–1947). With its initial offering, Porter's course institutionalized the study of African American art history and foregrounded the Howard University Department of Art as a critical center in the nascent field. "Art 133" was a natural outgrowth of Porter's research. Two years prior, he had published the ten-chapter Modern Negro Art, which, with its coverage of African American visual production from slavery up until the contemporary moment, was the first comprehensive survey of the subject. In the preface to Modern Negro Art, Porter tells readers that "the activity of locating and collecting the facts" for the book had actually begun [End Page 1199] Click for larger view View full resolution Cover of James A. Porter's 1943 Modern Negro Art [End Page 1200] ten years earlier, when he was both teaching painting at Howard University and pursuing a master's degree in art history at New York University. Porter would become one of the pioneering historians of African American art. Like his colleagues in the Department of Art, Loïs Mailou Jones and James L. Wells, Porter had diverse, concurrent research and pedagogical commitments. He was a studio art teacher, a budding art historian, and a practicing artist in his own right. In fact, as he began research for Modern Negro Art, Porter was also making art history: in 1933, he won the Harmon Foundation's Schomburg Portrait Prize for his 1932 painting Woman Holding a Jug (see pg. 1114 in this issue). Such varied and simultaneous intellectual and artistic trajectories force us to consider the Howard University Department of Art as staffed with more than just art instructors, but also picture-makers and theorists who influenced...

For a long time now, many have considered art history to be in a state of crisis. In the last decade, numerous publications have attempted to reimagine the discipline, addressing its future or even...

The study of art history is an exciting and rewarding one, but one in which the student frequently encounters complex and difficult to understand concepts. Traditional methodologies for educators presenting these ideas to students have included slides, lectures, textbooks and videos of static works of art. In our technologically driven and media-saturated society, though, high school and early college students in introductory art history courses respond more positively to today's multimedia pedagogical tools.Computer animation offers a new and interdisciplinary paradigm with which to approach the art historical curriculum. With advanced three-dimensional animation technology, the Animating Art History team is creating original and dynamic tools for classroom use. Animating Art History presents complicated concepts in art history within the framework of a fully realized animation segment. Through plot, humor and visual exaggeration, animation captures the imagination of the student and facilitates learning.