Since the 20th century, it was often announced that a painting was dead, but it is still alive. Even in the epoch of recently increasing virtuality, painting is still appealing, consistently pursed by many with a thirst. Thus, it is said that the mission of a picture is to maintain its reality without being trapped in virtuality. In the history of Western painting spanning over several hundreds of years the myriad of techniques and styles have emerged, going though a huge variety of changes: namely, its not possible any longer to find the new ways of expression in painting. Hence, painters today feel that it becomes more gradually difficult for them to execute something. In the midst of swiftly changing, diversely evolving trends of contemporary art, the painters incessantly pose a question why they go on working on painting, and seek to find its answer. Why the painters still try to say something about painting? Is that because they consider it the quintessence of fine arts or think that it is in no way possible or meaningful to comment on fine arts without relying on painting? If then, is there any avenue of escape for the painting? The question of the ‘crisis of painting’ is still raised, when reviewing the rapidly changing conditions of inventing artworks. That is also why the recent works failed to offer a conceptually unified, universally shared perspective of painting. Moreover, painting is left to shrink comparatively with the pervasive existence of videos and installations briskly employing digital images and technologies in their creations. Whats more problematic is the fact that there is a growing sense of crisis not only in the sphere of painting but also in the entire realm of art. As the organizers and curators of big-scale exhibitions and art projects tend to exploit their space spectacularly, focusing primarily on their abilities to control the space, there is a pervasive notion amongst them that painting is a medium that is not properly to suit such purposes and requests. Today, the death of painting is, in fact, the death of modernist painting, which assumed a central role in the history of art for a considerable amount of time, rather than the death of painting itself. Employing a new paradigm of invention, a picture is now entering a new domain which is perhaps unknown to us. Moving beyond the stereotypical concepts of painting, physical property and flatness, pictures today reveal the introduction of time and space and the penetration of new media such as installation, photography, video and the Internet. Despite such trends, the dexterity and tactile capability of painters is still to be considered significant in the future. The renewal of painting is made in an entirely unexpected manner and place.

Robert Rauschenberg’s artistic career has often been regarded as having reached its culmination when the artist won the first prize at the 1964 Venice Biennale. With this victory, Rauschenberg triumphantly entered the pantheon of all-American artists and firmly secured his position in the history of American art. On the other hand, despite the artist’s ongoing new experiments in his art, the seemingly precocious ripeness in his career has led the critical discourses on Rauschenberg’s art to the artist’s early works, most of which were done in the mid-1950s and the 1960s. The crux of Rauschenberg criticism lies not only in focusing on the artist’s 50’s and 60’s works, but also in its large dismissal of the significance of the imagery that the artist employed in his works. As art historians Roger Cranshaw and Adrian Lewis point out, the critical discourse of Rauschenberg either focuses on the formalist concerns on the picture plane, or relies on the “culturalist” interpretation of Rauschenberg’s imagery which emphasizes the artist’s “Americanness.” Recently, a group of art historians centered around October has applied Charles Sanders Peirce’s semiotics as art historical methodology and illuminated the indexical aspects of Rauschenberg’s work. The semantic inquiry into Rauschenberg’s imagery has also been launched by some art historians who seek the clues in the artist’s personal context. The first half of this essay will examine the previous criticism on Rauschenberg’s art and the other half will discuss the artist’s 1955 work Rebus, which I think intersects various critical concerns of Rauschenberg’s work, and yet defies the closure of discourses in one direction. The categories of signs in the semiotics of Charles Sanders Peirce and the discourse of Jean-Francois Lyotard will be used in discussing the meanings of Rebus, not to search for the semantic readings of the work, but to make an analogy in terms of the paradoxical structures of both the work and the theory. The definitions of rebus is as follows: Rebus 1. a representation of words or syllables by pictures of object or by symbols whose names resemble the intended words or syllables in sound; also : a riddle made up wholly or in part of such pictures or symbols. 2. a badge that suggests the name of the person to whom it belongs. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged. Since its creation in 1955, Robert Rauschenberg’s Rebus has been one of the most intriguing works in the artist’s oeuvre. This monumental ‘combine’ painting(6 feet x 10 feet 10.5 inches) consists of three panels covered with fabric, paper, newspaper, and printed reproductions. On top of these, oil paints, pencil and crayon drawings connect each section into a whole. The layout of the images is overall horizontal. Starting from a torn election poster, which is partially read as “THAT REPRE,” on the far left side of the painting, Rebus leads us to proceed from the left to the right, the typical direction of reading in a Western context. Along with its seemingly proper title, Rebus, the painting has triggered many art historians to seek some semantic readings of it. These art historians painstakingly reconstruct the iconography based on the artist’s interviews, (auto)biography, and artistic context of his works. The interpretation of Rebus varies from a ‘image-by-image’ collation with a word to a more general commentary on Rauschenberg’s work overall, such as a work that “bridges between art and life.” Despite the title’s allusion to the legitimate purpose of the painting as a decoding of the imagery into sound, Rebus, I argue, actually hinders a reading of it. By reading through Peirce to Rauschenberg, I will delve into the subtle anxiety between words and images in their works. And on this basis, I suggest Rauschenberg’s strategy in playing Rebus is to hide the meaning of the imagery rather than to disclose it.

It has been frequently pointed out that the established art history with the stylistic and iconographic interpretations and monographic analysis is fallen behind the currency of modern art. Among those who claimed the crisis in the discipline of art history, there is a suggestion that the art historical study should be fostered by other factors in the fields of the humanities. The so called New Art History or ‘Visual Culture Studies’ insists that art history has to be restructured to integrate the broader study of culture and society, and by now, such an opinion is not a novelty at all. One of the most significant yet overlooked elements that induced the new currency of art history is properties of contemporary art that conflict the traditional claim of art historians. Although the idea that art is not purely aesthetic but that it has many other functions has been brought up by the art historians, it was the artists that provoked such a perception. When Arthur C. Danto and Hans Belting proclaimed the End of Art and Art History in the 1980s, the concept of art has been changed radically through the avant-garde tendency of Modernism and a new pluralism of Postmodernism. One dominant concern that strikes art historians is to find a new approach to art, since the traditional method and goal of analysis for past art and past art history seem unavailable. The perplexity arising from the situation is intensified in the field of teaching art, especially for those who teach art history in art school. Basically art history is a pursuit of learning of art in history, and its purpose is to reconcile the present with the past and the future as well. Since Modernism, as it is confusing sometimes because it implies the present state, somehow art became considered ‘tradition-less’. It does not mean that a work of art stands aloof from the past attainments, but modern art imposed itself on a task seeking after the new for its own sake, turning its back on the tradition. And now in the era of Postmodernism, art historians face the requirement to revaluate the whole history of art including modernism. The necessity of art history in art education is indisputable, but methods and contents in the academic courses should be reexamined now. Because artists’ concept of history and past art has been altered, and art history as a humanistic discipline can only maintain its identity through incorporation with art itself. Academics teaching art history, or, strictly speaking, past works of art and history, to the student in art school, confront with the need to rethink the object of art history and its meaning to the artists.

Studies on western art in Korea has been caught in a dilemma that they could deal with only those things which had been arranged according to their ‘historical generalization’ in their contexts because of the bounds of time and space. It is not trivial that such conditions affect art studies in Korea. Access to the original texts and to their contexts of production is so restricted that the studies on them are prone to be superficial. And it is not independent on the politics of Korean art scene. Such factors are on the background of Korean art’s excessive ‘assimilation or accordance’ with western art. The domestic studies on western art history and art theory have failed to notice the differences in context and Korean art has simply mediated or reproduced the restricted information by those studies. Also the studies on western art in Korea have been made use of as a justifying method of one’s own academic domains. In such situations we should lead the studies on western art history and western art theory to a more reflective direction and confirm that the studies should not have any privileges of the realities. And we should try to reform a scholarship which participates in our life and existence. The field of domestic studies on western art history and western art theory should free itself from the invention of objectivity or the neutrality of mechanical reading and turn its eyes to the realities of life where events happens. Constantly suggesting which way Korean art and world art should go has to be the field’s new coordinates.

Compared to the influences of Korean art journalism, the researches on them are rarely conducted. This study aims to examine the influence of art journalism in art magazines in Korea. Although it is essential to consider media, journalism, public opinion altogether, I focused only on the media due to the absence of previous studies. I have analyzed the current conditions of korean art journalism, types of feature articles, sponsors, their relations with articles, and the comparison with foreign art journalism in terms of production conditions. There have been about one hundred art magazines published in previous sixty years and currently there are twenty three. Monthly periodicals are the majority; the publishers are sorted out as publishing houses, galleries, newspaper company in order; specialized art magazines developed from the eighties. Through an examination of feature articles in these art magazines, I found that they repeated similar art issues and covered the same artists, sponsors and articles. Moreover, when the magazines went through the conflicts between managers and editors, the ascendency of managers obstructed the development of art journalism regarding journal quality. These days, art journalism have been comparatively regressed compared to other art systems such as art museums, curatorship, international art festivals, distributions and art promotion policies. The main causes for failure were the lack of professional management, the limited effort to diversify sponsors, and the repetition of the same informants and events without making an effort to be specialized. Magazines are published media which contribute to the creation of culture, distribution, and preservation. Therefore art magazines can be said the most influential media in forming art culture and distributing it. It is quite necessary to reform the problems of repeating of information and the lack of speciality in conjunction with the commitment of management and editorialship.

This study examined the role of interpretation with various practices in art museums to seek a new meaning and a concept of art museum today. The exploration of interpretation would be a starting point to discuss about on art museums with professionals in each art-related field. While museums recognize the concept of interpretation and the scope of the functions in different levels, the study focused on the practices of collecting and exhibiting that will entrust the museum new realms of activities toward the audience. In particular, its emphases are set force on the information on the collections via the museum’s web sites, interpretation policies, and theories and methodologies in exhibition development. Art museum websites well reflect how museums utilize the new medium to enhance the understanding of art works by providing in-depth art historical information, comprehensive contexts, and subject/concept based search methods. In recent decades, these have enacted changes to expand dimensions of interpretive functions in most museums, particularly in the United States and others. In an administrative perspective, Tate Gallery Interpretation Policy became an good example how an art museum put its interpretation philosophy as the basis of interpreting collection and public programs. Tate established functions of intrepretation and education not only within a task-based team but also as an intrer-divisional coorperation to provide an interpretation scheme of information provisions such as guide brochure, audio tour, multimedia content, and library. New environment and trends of museum exhibition, and its development processes stem from communication theories, object interpretation philosophy, display strategies, and various evaluation techniques through audiences. With the communication theories of Shannon and Weaver, Berlo’s SMCR(Source-Message-Channel-Receiver) models were perceived as to understand the mechanism to communicate museum exhibits to visitors. Suzan vogel’s insight into object display strategy helped to conceive the mechanism of object recontextualization. She emphasized that the museum’s practice to construe opinions and impressions through object display should be discreet and critical. therefore, the professionals to plan the exhibition should reveal the intention and their practices. For a prevailing new methodology from the field, the interpretive exhibition development processes are articulated as the front-end, formative, and summative evaluation, futhermore the team process in industrial product management models was adapted. These have turned out to be more interactive with visitors and effective to communicate the exhibition concepts and messages, hence resulting in enriched museum experiences. Finally the study concluded that understanding the aspects of interpretation should help art museums to set a framework for current practices to expand its public dimension. It can provide curators with a critical view to website planning and its content. And obviously, the interpretive exhibition development methodology will lead museum exhibition developers to be skilled in its current approaches to thematic exhibition concerning diverse subjects and topics.

The purpose of this article is to delve into the problems of originality of the artwork by examining issues of reproduction within the contemporary art market. In contemporary arts, especially in terms of art production and consumption, we can’t overlook society and its economic structure and its connection with of capitalism. As the purity of art creation has turned into an exchange value, art, especially an object as artwork, has fallen into the status of production in an economic marketing system. Walter Benjamin mainly referred to that point in his thesis Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, which originated the sociology of plastic arts. This thesis, published in 1936, traced how the artistic functions of photograph and movie had been changed through the social development. His main concerns were movie and photograph but what I am concentrating from his point of view, is that even in the field of plastic arts, the manufacture of reproduction has been practiced as a primary method within the social and political contexts and development. Though I am referring to this in the main body of this article, reproduction in contemporary art strongly needs a new definition since it has been spread all over like a newest virus, not only by collector’s personal taste or but also by commercial circulations of these reproductions to the public. This relates to Benjamin’s argument about the value of an exhibition at a museum(Ausstellungswert). Since the function of an artwork has been one of cultural industry, the manufacturing of reproduction raises unexpected problems, such as, the originality of the artwork, the value of an exhibition at a museum, its achievement as documentary and as a territory of art criticism. In this point of view, I want to inquire into the value and criteria of an exhibition in contemporary art through the review of the definitions and the intrinsic attributes of reproduction. Somehow in a broad sense, the reproduction is a product coming out of representation or copy (replica) of an original art work or an model. Therefore, the problems it presents differ from the Simulacre, which is an image without an original one. In terms of the Meanings of reproduction, we can distinguish it as reproductions, copies, and productions. These types of reproductions are not the original artworks reflected by the creative intention of the artists. For example, a publishing company reproduced some of lithographs of Salvador Dali in the 1960s. They are commercial copies in the form of representation or reproduction with no artistic and creative intention of the artist. However, In despite of this theoretical basis, reproductions of the famous artists are still displayed without any verification for of the public’s quest for the artworks. Moreover, many commercial companies that are planning to exhibit art works of the world-famous artists only for their profits keep trying to speak ill of and judging by the law the honest art critics’ articles which discuss the true values of exhibition. If freedom of expression is one of the ideals of democracy, even the judgment of the originality of the artworks should be freely expressed.

The trend of “Blockbuster Exhibitions” over the past decade has led to the unfortunate reality that museums, losing sight of their role as an Academic organization, are becoming increasingly influenced by the corporate world. In my dissertation entitled “The Commercialization of Blockbuster Exhibitions in Museums,” I explore the modern tendency toward Blockbuster exhibitions in art museums and the negative impact of those exhibitions on the art world. Museums of the modern day have expanded their territory from the traditional venue of public education to the hybrid cultural space. This mission, evident in the museum’s attempt to satisfy audiences with the offering of diverse activities, has changed the concept of the museum, giving priority to the desire for financial gain. From the viewpoint of this new museology, the museum considers Blockbuster exhibitions as the safest method to increase ticket sales. As a program that openly reveals the commercialism of the museum, I explore the Blockbuster show and its strategies as a means of exposing the influence of the corporate world on art. A key component to the Blockbuster exhibition is the “hype” that is created to attract an audience. This devotion to increased publicity distracts from what should be the goal of public education, as the primary focus leans towards the desire for a large number of visitors. Consequently, this unavoidably standardized exhibition is presented to the public in a manner that deprives the audience of a unique experience. With large crowds and increased ticket prices, it is difficult to form a genuine appreciation of the artwork. In addition to the profit gained by increased ticket prices and the commercial sales of “souvenirs” from the museum gift shop, Blockbuster shows are used as a means to attract the attention of corporate sponsors. As explained in my dissertation, the importance that the museum places on corporate sponsorship as a capital resource is evident, however the degree to which the museum allows itself to be influenced by the desire for capital gain poses a threat to its function as an academic organization. Circumstances in American museum history, in particular, have influenced the transition from academic resource to corporation within museology. In keeping with the nation’s tendency towards capitalism, art museums in the United States were initially established and developed by individual capitalists who applied principals of corporate operation to museum management. As a result, in modern days, We witness the influence of enterprise on museum programs. while corporate management may be able to guarantee immediate fiscal benefits, however, it is unable insure the future of the museum. In sum, my dissertation discusses the mechanism of the commercialized “Blockbuster Exhibition” and the impact that it has on the future of the museum as an industry. This research provides an opportunity to reconsider the role of the museum as an academic institution, particularly in regard to the need to decrease the capitalization of exhibitions and refocus their influence on the art world as an educational resource.