A Study on Creative Mechanisms Based on Case Analysis of Suzy Lee’s Appropriation -Focusing on Interpretive Sovereignty in the Era of Generative AI
Abstract
본 연구는 생성형 AI의 확산으로 독창성의 개념이 재정의되는 시점에서, 작가 이수지의 작품 세계를 ‘차용’ 방법론을 통해 분석함으로써 인간 창작자의 주체성 발현 메커니즘을 규명하였다. 연구 방법으로는 메를로-퐁티의 ‘육화된 의식’과 호미 바바의 ‘흉내내기’ 및 ‘제3의 공간’, 린다 허천의 ‘패러디’ 이론을 분석 틀로 삼아, 이수지의 주요 작품에 나타난 거울 알레고리, 무대 구조, 매체 간 번역 사례를 심층 분석하였다. 연구 결과, 이수지의 창작 전략은 원형을 비판적으로 재해석하여 매체의 물리적 형식과 결합하는 ‘패러디적 장치’로 기능하며, 이는 확률적 조합에 의존하는 AI의 혼성모방과 질적으로 구분되는 인간 고유의 해석적 주권임을 확인하였다. 특히 이러한 주체성은 작가 개인을 넘어 타자와의 공감을 통해 ‘창조적 릴레이’로 확장되는 상호주체적 연결망을 형성한다는 점을 밝혔다. 본 연구는 특정 작가의 사례 연구라는 한계가 있으나, 그림책을 예술매체로서 차용이라는 포스트모던 이론을 중심으로 분석한 점에서 학술적 의의를 지닌다.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sakabe (2026) uses interpretive sovereignty to describe human creative subjectivity in an analysis of artistic appropriation in the era of generative AI.
“Sakabe (2026) uses interpretive sovereignty to describe human creative subjectivity in an analysis of artistic appropriation in the era of generative AI.”
From Hermeneutic Sovereignty under Generative AI: A Humanities Framework for Protecting Human Meaning-Making from Interpretive Foreclosure (2026) · cites this paper as Sakabe (2026)
Creative work shows why hermeneutic sovereignty should not be understood as opposition to AI assistance.
“Creative work shows why hermeneutic sovereignty should not be understood as opposition to AI assistance.”
From Hermeneutic Sovereignty under Generative AI: A Humanities Framework for Protecting Human Meaning-Making from Interpretive Foreclosure (2026) · cites this paper as Sakabe, 2026
Sakabe's account of interpretive sovereignty in creative authorship and Doshi and Hauser's empirical findings both point toward a more nuanced relationship.
“Sakabe's (2026) account of interpretive sovereignty in creative authorship and Doshi and Hauser's (2024) empirical findings both point toward a more nuanced relationship.”
From Hermeneutic Sovereignty under Generative AI: A Humanities Framework for Protecting Human Meaning-Making from Interpretive Foreclosure (2026) · cites this paper as Sakabe, 2026
Cited by
Sorted by citations
TAN, K. H. (2026) · International Journal of Law Management & Humanities · doi:10.63108/ijlmh.12783
- Authors
- Sakabe, H.
- Corresponding author
- Sakabe, Hitomi
- Venue
- Design Convergence Study
- Publisher
- Society of Design Convergence
- Published
- 2026-04-30
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 35-50
- ISSN
- 2287-4089 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7160955296
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 42.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- ko
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Design Convergence Study (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Visual Culture and Art Theory
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Themes in Literature Analysis
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Literary Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics
- Keywords
- appropriations, generative AI, originality, parody, third space, Homi Bhabha, Merleau-Ponty, intermedial translation, stage structure, picture books, intersubjectivity, postmodernism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
