동서대학교 동서대학교 디자인대학
홈 일반대학원 디자인학과 한국연구재단 사이트맵 검색
아카이브학위논문박사논문(PhD Theses)

학위논문 Theses and Dissertations

NO.D.2019.08_02

공공예술에서의 “장소성” 구현: 가장 두드러지는 공공예술의 장소성을 향한 대중의 인식에 관한 평가연구 公共艺术中的 The Embodiment of “Sense of Place” in Public Art: An Evaluative Study of Public perception on The Salient Sense of Place of Public Art.

  • Name : Yuhanis Ibrahim
  • Info : 박사학위논문ㅣ博士学位论文ㅣDoctor's thesisㅣ2019.08
  • Adviser : 이성필ㅣ李成弼ㅣLee Sung Pil
192.168.95.161

초록

본 논문은 말레이시아에 있는 공공미술의 장소성 (Sense of Place, SOP)이 어떻게 구현되는지에 대해 연구하였다. 엄선된 공공예술 사업에 녹아 있는 장소성의 효능을 평가하기 위해 대중의 인식은 중요한 기준이 된다. 본 연구에서는 위해 기념의 의미를 강력하게 보여주며 국가 수준의 관광명소로 알려진 두 개의 장대한 사업인 아세안 조각 공원(ASEAN Sculpture Garden)과 말레이시아 국립 기념비(National Monument Malaysia)에 대해 연구하였다. 연구 1에서는 아세안 국가 간의 결속성에 대한 인식을 대중에게 퍼뜨리는 매개체의 역할을 하는 아세아 조각 공원의 잠재성과 결점을 조사하였다. 본문은 이론 및 사례 연구를 통해 구성되어 있고 기록 연구, 반 구조적 인터뷰 및 문헌 (site documentation) 그리고 방문 및 관찰을 통해 이루어졌다. 공간 유형 분석(space typology)에서의 공공예술 변수(public art variables) 조사 결과는 연결망 이론, 핵심어 코딩(keyword coding) 및 부지 분석 (site analysis)을 통해 분석되었다. 연구 2 에서는 기념비에 대한 인식을 평가하기 위해 질문지와 의미분별법 (Semantical Differential Methodology, SDM)을 사용하여 국립 기념비에 대한 공공 인식을 조사하였다. 이러한 인식은 신뢰도 인자(Reliability Factor)로 측정되었고 기념비 평가의 간략한 수치를 획득하기 위해 주성분 분석법 (Principal Component Analysis, PCA)이 이용되었다. 연구 1은 아세안 조각 공원이 왜 방문객으로부터 버림받았는지에 대해 장소성과 관련하여 ‘심포지엄, 공간의 유형, 위치, 시간,’ 총 네 가지 요인을 밝혀냈다. 연구 2는 의미성 (Meaningfulness), 사교성 (Sociableness), 친숙도 (Familiarity), 타당성 (Appropriateness) 총 네 가지의 복합계수를 확인하였다. 이러한 요소는 사람이 인식하는 방식과 관련이 있으며 국립 기념비에 대한 인식을 반영하였다. 의미성 항목에서는 애국적인지 (Patriotic, PAT), 기념적인지 (Memorable, MEM), 역사적인지 (Historical, HIS), 기념비적인지 (Monumental, MON)에 대한 항목의 요인 적재치 (factor loading)가 0.5보다 컸다. 이 네 가지 핵심어는 기념비에 대한 참가자의 인식을 30.051%의 총 공분산(shared variance)으로 나타낸다. 따라서, 애국적인지, 기념적인지, 역사적인지, 기념비적인지는 기념 조각상에 대한 인식 구조를 형성하는데 관련이 있다. 공공예술 사업에 있어서 장소성과 대중의 인식 사이의 관계를 볼 때 공공예술 사업을 시작하기 전에 이해 당사자가 이러한 요소를 이해하고 인지하는 것은 매우 중요하다. 대중은 기념비적인 사건을 토대로 세워진 동상을 보고 동경하기도 하고 회상하기도 하며 학습을 하며 사건에 대한 인식을 가질 수 있으므로 이런 동상을 성급하게 제작하여서는 안 된다. 신중하고 면밀하게 만들어진 조각상은 이전 슬라이드에서 다뤄진 장소성과 관련된 문제를 다룰 수 있어야 한다. 이러한 요소는 공공예술로서 기념 조각상을 세울 때 이해 당사자가 참고할 수 있는 기준이 될 수 있을 것이다.

摘要

本论文是对马来西亚公共艺术的场所性(Sense of Place, SOP)如何体现进行了研究。为了对选定的公共艺术事业中融会贯通的"场所性"的功效，大众的认识是重要的标准。在本研究中，研究了具有强烈展示纪念意义，并达到国家水平的旅游名胜而闻名的两个壮大事业—亚洲雕塑公园ASEAN Sculpture Garden）和马来西亚国立纪念碑（National Monument Malaysia）。 研究1对散播亚洲国家间的联盟性认识，起到媒介作用的亚洲雕刻公园的潜在性和缺点进行了调查。本文以理论及事例研究构成，通过记录研究、半结构采访及文献（site documentation）及访问及观察形成。空间类型分析(space typology)中的公共艺术变数(public art variables)调查结果通过网络理论、核心语编码(keyword coding)及用地分析(site analysis)进行了分析。研究2中为了评价对纪念碑的认识，使用了问卷和语义分化法（Semantical Differential Methodology, SDM）对国立纪念碑进行了公共认识调查。 这种认识以信赖度因子(Reliability Factor)测定，为了获得纪念碑评价的简单数值，使用了主成分分析法(Principal Component Analysis, PCA)。 研究1就亚洲雕塑公园为何被访客疏远，查出了"研讨会、空间类型、位置、时间"共4个因素。研究2确认了意义性（Meaningfulness）、社交性（Sociableness）、熟悉度（Familiarity）、妥当性（Appropriateness）共4种复合系数。 这些因素与人们认识的方式有关，也反映了对国立纪念碑的认识。在意义性项目上，关于是否爱国 （Patriotic, PAT）、是否具有纪念性（Memorable, MEM）、是否具有历史性（Historical, HIS）、是否具有纪念碑性（Monumental, MON）的项目因子载荷 （factor loading）大于0.5大。 这四个核心词是参加者们对纪念碑的认识以30.051%的共享方差 （shared variance）来显示。 因此，是否爱国、纪念、历史、纪念碑等与形成纪念雕塑的认识结构有关。 从公共艺术事业中场所性与公众认识之间的关系来看，在开展公共艺术事业之前，当事人了解和认知这些因素是非常重要的。 大众看到以里程碑式的事件为基础建造的铜像后，既可以憧憬又可以回忆，还可以学习并认识事件，因此，不能急于制作。 慎重、缜密的雕像应该体现以前胶片中涉及到的与场所性有关的问题。 这些要素作为公共艺术建立纪念雕像时可以成为利害当事人可以参考的标准。

Abstract

This thesis aims to investigate the embodiment of sense of space in public art in Malaysia. Public perception is used as matrix to evaluate the efficacy of sense of place (SOP) imbued in the selected public art projects. Two grandeur projects, ASEAN Sculpture Garden and National Monument Malaysia are selected for its salient sense of memorial, and they both are known as national attractions, to further this investigation. Study 1 analysed the potential and flaws of ASEAN Sculpture Garden, as a mediatory role of ASEAN in disseminating awareness of unity between ASEAN members to the public. The body of this study is formed by theoretical and case study research. It is embodied by three methods; archival research, semi structured interviews and site documentation; direct observations and site visit. The findings are then analysed using Actor Network theory, keyword coding and site analysis to reveal thematical understanding of public art variables in space typology. Study 2 analysed public perception of National Monument using a questionnaires and next Semantical Differential Methodology (SDM) was adopted to evaluate the perceptions about the memorial monument. These perceptions were then measured with Reliability Factor and then were factorised using Factor Analysis of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method to acquire concise factors for the monument assessment. S1 reveals four variables linked to the attributes of SOP that contribute to the desertion of tourist at the ASEAN Sculpture Garden. They are, i) symposium, ii) typology of space, iii) location and iv) time. S2 analysis identified four composite factors which are Meaningfulness, Sociableness, Familiarity and Appropriateness. The factors are related to the ways of people perceive perception, whilst reflect their perceptions towards the National Monument. Meaningfulness with factor loadings (greater than 0.5) items, PAT, MEM, HIS, and MON are loading high on this factor. These four keywords represent the participant’s perception on the monument with the amount of 30.051% (on Rotation SSL) of the total shared variance. Therefore, the four pairs of the adjectives: Patriotic (PAT), Memorable (MEM), Historical (HIS), and Monumental (MON) are relevant to be used to construct the perception framework of memorial monument. Acknowledging this connection between SOP and public perception, particularly, for public art project, it is essential for stakeholders to understand and aware of these attributes and factors before commencing a public art project. Public gains awareness by admiring, reminiscing and learning from the sculptures erected from memorial events, thus it should not be commenced in hasty. A carefully well-thought sculpture should address these concerns of SOP as discussed in the slide previously. These attributes are potentially acting as guiding principle for stakeholders to commence public art, in particular memorial sculpture.

키워드

  • # 장소성 # 공공예술 # 대중 인식 # 행위자 연결망 이론 # 인자 분석 # 주성분 분석 # 의미 척도법

  • # 场所性 # 公共艺术 # 大众认识 # 行为者网络理论 # 因子分析 # 主成分分析 # 语义分化法

  • #Sense of Place # Public Art # Public Perception # Actor Network Theory (ANT) Factor Analysis (FA) # Principal Component Analysis (PCA) # Semantical Differential Methodology (SDM)

참고문헌

[Book]

1. Arnheim, R. Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Univ of California Press, 1965.
2. Cartiere, C., & Willis, S. The practice of public art. London: Routledge, 2008.
3. Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone A. M., Public Space. United Kingdom, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
4. Connerton, P.,How societies remember. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
5. Czarniawska, B., & Hernes, T., Actor network theory and organizing. Copenhagen: CBS Press, 2005
6. Donat, J. Ed.. World architecture London: Studio Vista.,1967, Vol. 4.
7. Dowler, E., Green, J, Bauer, M., Gasperoni, G., & Dora, C., Assessing public perception: issues and methods World Health Organization, 2006 pp. 39-60.
8. Farías, I, and Thomas B., eds. Urban assemblages: How actor-network theory changes urban studies. Routledge, 2012.
9. Frey, W. H. Diversity explosion: How new racial demographics are remaking. America. Brookings Institution Press, 2018.
10. Gable, R. K., & Wolf, M. E., Instrument development in the affective domain 2nd ed. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1993
11. Hall, E.T., The Hidden Dimension, New York: Doubleday, 1966
12. Harman, G, The Quadruple Object. John Hunt Publishing, 2011
13. Hein, H., Public art: thinking museums differently. Rowman Altamira, 2006
14. Gooding, M., Public: Art: Space. Public: Art: Space: A Decade of Public Art Commissions Agency, 1998, 1987-1997
15. Januchta, S, A., The Role of Public Visual Art in Urban Space Recognition, 2010
16. Krier, R, and Colin R,. Urban space. London: Academy Editions, 1979.
17. Kwon, M., One place after another: Site-specific art and locational identity. MIT Press, 2004
18. Latour, B, Reassembling the social-an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, 2005.
19. Lawson, T, & Garrod, J. Eds. Dictionary of sociology. Taylor & Francis, 2001
20. Osgood, S., & Suci, G. J., Tannenbaum. The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957
21. Lefebvre, H., and Donald N.S., The production of space. Blackwell: Oxford, 1991. Vol. 142.
22. Low, S. M.,&Altman, I, Place attachment:A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman & S. M. Low Eds., Place attachment New York: Plenum, 1992 pp.1-12.
23. Lynch, K., The image of the city. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960
24. Lynch, K. What time is this place? Mit Press, 1972.
25. May, T., Social research: issues, methods and process 3rd Eds. Buckingham: Open University Press, 2000
26. Miles, M. Art, space and the city: public art and urban futures. Psychology Press, 1997
27. Relph, E., Place and placelessness, 1976 Vol.1, Pion,
28. Rietveld, T., & Van Hout, R., Statistical techniques for the study of language and language behaviour. Walter de Gruyter, 1993
29. Senie, Harriet F. Reframing Public Art: Audience Use. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
30. Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S., Using multivariate statistics 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2001
31. Tank, I. P. A. T., Public art: A guide to evaluation, 2013
32. Tuan, Y. F., Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977,2001
33. Waldheim, C., The landscape urbanism reader. Princeton Architectural Press, 2006
34. Woudstra, J., & Fieldhouse, K., The regeneration of public parks. Spon Press, 2000
35. Zucker, P. "Town and square: from the agora to the village green." 1959.

[Academic Journal]

1. Bickel, B, Triggs, V, Springgay, S., Irwin, R., Grauer, K., Xiong, G. & Sameshima, P, Richgate: Transforming public spaces through community-engaged art. Amerasia journal, 2007, 33(2), 115-124.
2. Bleakley, A.. "The proof is in the pudding: Putting actor-network-theory to work in medical education." Medical teacher 34, 2007 Vol. 6 (2012), pp. 462-467.
3. Brandenburg, A. M., & Carroll, M. S., Your place or mine?: The effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Society & Natural Resources, 1995, Vol. 8 (5), 381-398.
4. Bruni, A., & Teli, M., Reassembling the social An introduction to actor network theory. Management Learning, 2007, 38 (1), pp.121-125.
5. Bunting, C., What instrumentalism? A public perception of value. Cultural Trends, 2008, 17(4), pp.323-328.
6. Carmona, M. "Contemporary public space: Critique and classification, part one: Critique." Journal of urban design 15, 2010, Vol. 1, pp, 123-148.
7. Carmona, M., Tim, H. Tiesdell, S. & Oc, T. Public places-urban spaces. Architectural Press, 1994, pp.157,
8. Cartiere, C. Re/placing public art: The role of place-specificity in new genre public art. VDM Publishing, 2010.
9. Clark, B. H., and David B. M., "Competitive reputations, multimarket competition and entry deterrence." Journal of Strategic Marketing 6, (1998) Vol. pp.2 8
10. Czarniawska, B., & Hernes, T. Actor network theory and organizing. Copenhagen: CBS Press .2007, pp.11.
11. Dawson J. and Jöns, H. Unravelling legacy: A triadic actor-network theory approach to understanding the outcomes of mega events. Journal of Sport & Tourism. 2018, Vol. 2;22,1, pp. 43-65.
12. Dunnett, N, Carys, S. and Helen, W. Improving urban parks, play areas and green spaces. London: Department for transport, local government and the regions, 2002.
13. Dwyer, O. J. & Alderman, D. H., Memorial landscapes: analytic question and metaphors. GeoJournal, 2008, Vol.3 (3), 165-178.
14. Easthope, H. "A place called home." Housing, theory and society 2004, 21, Vol. 3 pp.128- 138.
15. Doezema, M, and June E. H. The public monument and its audience. Cleveland museum of art, 1977.
16. Fallan, K. "Architecture in action: Traveling with actor-network theory in the land of architectural research. 2008 pp.80-96.
17. Ferris, J., Carol N, and Joe S. "People, land and sustainability: Community gardens and the social dimension of sustainable development." Social Policy & Administration, 2001, 35, Vol.5, pp.559-568.
18. Gibson, J. J., The perception of visual surfaces. The American journal of psychology, 1950, 63 (3), pp.367-384.
19. Gobster, P. H. "Urban parks as green walls or green magnets? Interracial relations in neighborhood boundary parks." Landscape and urban planning 41, 1998, Vol.1 pp:: 43-55.
20. Grose, J. M. "Changing relationships in public open space and private open space in suburbs in south-western Australia." Landscape and urban planning 92, 2009, Vol.1, pp.53-63.
21. Gosden, C, and Yvonne M. "The cultural biography of objects." World archeology 31, 1999, Vol. 2, pp.169-178.
22. Gable, R. K., and M. B. Wolf. "Instrument Development in the Affective Domain, 1993. Vol. 36." .
23. Hall, Tim, and Iain Robertson. "Public art and urban regeneration: advocacy, claims and critical debates." 2001, pp.5-26.
24. Hall, Stuart, ed. Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. Sage 1997, Vol. 2.
25. Hayden, C. "The proper copy: The insides and outsides of domains made public." Journal of Cultural Economy 3, 2010 Vol. 1, pp. 85-102.
26. Hein, H. What is public art ?: Time, place, and meaning. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 1996, pp.1-7.
27. Hu, M. & Chen, R. A Framework for Understanding Sense of Place in an Urban Design Context. Urban Science, 2018 Vol.2, pp. 2-34.
28. Hunting, D. "Public art policy: Examining an emerging discipline." Perspectives in Public Affairs 2. 2005.
29. Holtorf, Cornelius J. "The lifen histories of megaliths in Mecklenburgn Vorpommern (Germany)." World archaeology 30, 1998. Vol. 1, pp. 23-38.
30. Ibrahim, Y., & Yoon, J., ASEAN Sculpture Garden and Typology of Space Architectural Research, 2014, Vol.16 (2), pp. 37-44.
31. Ibrahim, P. H, Md Dali, M. and Muhammad S. Y. "Implementation of open space: The need for uniform policy." Journal of Sustainable Development, 2013, 6, Vol. 7, pp. 16.
32. Jasmi, M. F., & Mohamad, N. H. N. Roles of Public Art in Malaysian Urban Landscape towards Improving Quality of Life: Between aesthetic and functional value. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2016, pp.872-880,
33. Kabakov, I. "Public projects or the spirit of a place." 2003 Third Text 17, Vol. 4, pp. 401-407.
34. Kopytoff, I. "The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process." The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective 68, 1986, pp.70-73.
35. Kudryavtsev, Alex, Richard C. Stedman, and Marianne E. Krasny. "Sense of place in environmental education." Environmental education research, 2012 18, Vol. 2, pp.229-250.
36. Kwon, M. One place after another: Site-specific art and locational identity. MIT press. 2004, pp.69.
37. Kwint, M. Christopher B., and Jeremy A. "Material memories: design and evocation“ Berg. 1999.
38. Latour, B. "From real politik to ding politik." Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy 1444, 2005.
39. Latour, B., On actor-network theory: A few clarifications. Soziale welt, 1996, pp. 369- 381.
40. Latour, B., & Yaneva, A. Give me a gun and I will make all buildings move: An ANT’s view of architecture. Explorations in architecture: Teaching, design, research, 2008, pp: 80-89,
41. Matzner, F. Public Art: A Reader. Ostfildren-Ruit: Hatje Cantz Publishing. pp. 229-250.
42. Malek, N. A., Mariapan, M., Mohd Shariff, M. K. and Aziz, A. "Assessing the Quality of Green Open Spaces: A review." 2010.
43. Maruani, T, and Irit A. "The effectiveness of the protection of riparian landscapes in Israel." Land Use Policy 26, 2009 Vol. 4 pp:911-918.
44. Massey, D. and Rose, G. "Personal views: Public art research project." Milton Keynes: The Open University 2003.
45. McCullough, M. "New media urbanism: grounding ambient information technology." Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34, 2007 Vol. 3, pp. 383-395.
46. Meusburger, P., Heffernan, M., & Wunder, E. Cultural Memories: An Introduction. in Cultural Memories Springer : Netherlands, 2011 pp. 3-14.
47. Moore, R. L., and Alan R. G. "Attachments to recreation settings: The case of rail trail users." Leisure sciences 16, 1994, Vol. 1 pp: 17-31.
48. Pollock, V. L., & Paddison, R., Embedding public art: Practice, policy and problems. Journal of Urban Design, 2010, Vol.15(3), pp: 335-356.
49. Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., & Hellinckx, W., Reexamining the parenting scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 2007, Vol.23(1), pp. 24-31.
50. Proshansky, H. M., The city and self-identity. Environment and behavior, 1978, Vol.10(2), pp.147-169.
51. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R., Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of environmental psychology, 1983, Vol.3(1), pp. 57-83,.
52. Rydin, Y. and Laura T. eds. Actor networks of planning: Exploring the influence of actor network theory. Routledge, 2016.
53. Rose, G. "Place and identity: A sense of place." A place in the world?: Places, Cultures and globalization, 1995, pp. 87-132.
54. Seamon, D., & Sowers, J. (2008). Place and placelessness (1976): Edward relph. Key texts in human geography, pp.43-52.
55. Shanken, A. M., Planning Memory: Living Msemorials in the United Statesduring World War II. The Art Bulletin, 2002, 84(1), pp. 137.
56. Stephens, J. Memory, commemoration and the meaning of a suburban war memorial. Journal of Material Culture, 2007. Vol. 12,3,pp. 241-261,
57. Stedman, R. C., Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of thephysical environment to sense of place. Society & Natural Resources, 2003, Vol.16 (8), pp.671-685
58. Stokols, D. Origins and directions of environment-behavioral research. In Perspectives on environment and behavior, Springer US, 1977 (pp.5-36).
59. Sussman,J., Art in Public Spaces. Nat Civic Rev, 2013, Vol. 102, pp. 6–47. Doi:10.1002/ncr.21126
60. Tarlow, Sarah. "An archaeology of remembering: death, bereavement and the First World War." Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7, 1997, Vol.1: pp.105-121.
61. Tringham, Ruth. "Archaeological houses, households, housework and the home." The home: Words, interpretations,meanings, and environments: 1995, pp.79-107.
62. Tuan, Y. F., & Hoelscher, S. Space and place: The perspective of experience, The University of Minnesota Press,1977. pp.162.
63. Umbanhowar, E., The Linking Form, Function and Meaning of Public Art. Public Art, 2012, Vol.2, pp.011
64. Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L., Affects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological methods, 1998, Vol.3(2), pp.231.
65. Yaneva, A. "Making the social hold: Towards an actor-network theory of design." Design and Culture 1, 2009, Vol. 3, pp.273-288.
66. Zebracki, M., Van Der Vaart, R., & Van Aalst, I., Deconstructing public artopia: Situating public-art claims within practice. Geoforum, 2010, Vol.41(5), pp..786-795.
67. Zebracki, M., Beyond public artopia: public art as perceived by its publics. GeoJournal, 2010. doi: 2011, 10.1007/s10708-011-9440-8

[Report]

1. DBKL interview. April 2013.
2. Fifth ASEAN Square Sculpture Symposium Catalogue. Retrieved from Malaysia National Archive 2002/0000928. 1987.pp. 8
3. Mohamed Yuran, N., S, Condition of outdoor sculptures in ASEAN sculpture garden Kuala Lumpur: A conservation study,Nora Sofia Mohamed Yuran, Dissertation, Universiti Teknologi Mara, 2006
4. Pataki, G.G. E. Local Open Space Planning Guide. State of The State. 2002. pp.33
5. Vickery, J. Public art and the art of the public after the creative city. IXIA Public Art Think Tank, http://www. Public art online. org. uk/whatsnew/news/article.php/Public Art and the Art of the Public After the Creative City. 2015
6. Williams, Katie, and Stephen Green. Literature review of public space and local environments for the cross cutting review. Oxford Brookes University, Oxford Centre for Sustainable Development, 2001.

목록