* * *
 

The Gwangju Biennale as a Platform for Embracing the Contemporary: Focusing on P_A_U_S_E (2002)

Tiffany Yeon Chae: In this session, we will look back at exhibitions held under the condition of 'Globalization'. The active interaction between different countries is a relatively recent phenomenon. Since the end of the Cold War, the value of globalism has spread, and large-scale international exhibitions have increased globally. Notably, biennales in non-Western regions began to gain significant attention. Starting with Havana in 1984, followed by Istanbul in 1987, Brisbane in 1993, and Johannesburg in 1995, and others. The Gwangju Biennale also began in 1995 and rose to prominence as a major international biennale due to its vast budget, scale, and audience size. Thus, my research "The Gwangju Biennale as a Platform for Embracing the Contemporary" starts with asking, "What does globalization mean in Korea?" and "What role does the Gwangju Biennale play?"

Marking its thirtieth anniversary this year, the Gwangju Biennale has fostered numerous world-renowned artists and curators. But I feel evaluations of the exhibitions themselves from a contemporary perspective have been somewhat weak or overly critical. So I view the Gwangju Biennale to be a pioneering platform that realized contemporary values under the conditions of globalization. As evidence, I aimed to delve deeply into the fourth Gwangju Biennale's PAUSE exhibition held in 2002. To conduct this research, I visited the Gwangju Biennale Foundation and examined their previous events recorded in documents, catalogs, and articles from domestic and international newspapers and magazines. I also conducted interviews with related personnel and artists who participated. Today, I will share the interim findings of this research.

The launch of the Gwangju Biennale coincided with President Kim Young-sam's "globalization" declaration. The year 1995 was designated as the 'Year of the Arts', and the President personally visited Gwangju early in the year to deliver a speech. As shown in the comprehensive planning document on the screen published by the Gwangju Biennale Foundation, he described the Biennale as a decisive opportunity to showcase Gwangju to the world and as an essential step for Korea to move toward globalization. He promised active support from the central government for the Biennale's launch. With the government's push for the global vision taken up by the President, the Gwangju Biennale gained significant momentum. The aspiration for "globalization" is also evident in the Gwangju Biennale's founding declaration. It mentions becoming "a member of the global village era" and committing to "globalization rather than Westernization." This reveals a dual attitude toward the term "globalization." The expression that emphasizes the active role of Asian culture while avoiding Westernization reflects how "globalization," implying worldwide exchange, was understood in Korea in 1995.

In the first Gwangju Biennale, Sung Wan-kyung served as the commissioner for the Latin American region. He wrote a manuscript on Latin American art, noting that its conceptual art sought utopian practice through mass-produced commodities. He positively evaluated works that leveraged such phenomena within the context of globalization. Rachel Weiss, a researcher of Latin American exhibition history, referenced the 1989 Havana Biennale and asked, "How can cultural propositions of Third-Worldism be formulated without relying on the fiction of solidarity? How can unique forms of space be created?" I view the fourth Gwangju Biennale, under Sung Wan-kyung's direction, as a practical response to these questions.

At the symposium held during the Second Gwangju Biennale in 1997, globalization and post-colonialism were also discussed. The structure of commissioning exhibitions by global regions persisted until 2000. With the fourth Gwangju Biennale in 2002, the system transitioned to an artistic director model, with Sung Wan-kyung who had served as a commissioner for the first and second Biennales, becoming Korea's artistic director. This marked the introduction of a co-curator position, with Hou Hanru, Charles Esche, and Yong Soon Min being appointed. Together with Sung Wan-kyung, Hou Hanru, and Charles Esche co-curated Project 1: Pause, and Yong Soon Min curated Project 2: There: Sites of Korean Diaspora, and Sung Wan-kyung led Project 3: Stay of Execution.  Project 4: Connection was directed by architect Chung Guyon. As seen in the catalogs on the screen, these four projects were positioned as equal exhibitions without hierarchical distinctions.  Project 1 included the catalog titled Pause on the far left in the picture and an exhibition review catalog titled Realization, making it two volumes in total. Although they say there is no official distinction between the main and special exhibitions, Project 1 was effectively the main one, occupying four of the five Biennale exhibition halls, reflecting its scale and significance. Uniquely, Project 1 invited 27 alternative spaces from around the world to participate, a groundbreaking initiative across all Biennales at the time.

So my research focuses on Project 1.  Sung Wan-kyung, Hou Hanru, and Charles Esche, who participated in Project 1, approached exhibition space as a concept of a city village where alternative spaces from around the world meet. The image on the right was revealed during the preparatory stages, and it shows how they designed the exhibition halls as metaphors for community forms, with concepts ranging from city, suburb, village, to nature, as seen from top to bottom. I've extracted some intriguing remarks from the catalog by the curators. In the lower section, they state, "Biennales, as a global phenomenon, are still relatively young and have not undergone sufficient experimentation. Past Gwangju Biennales merely reproduced the European model originating from 19th-century Venice. We will inject new energy into the biennale, with creativity flowing from the East to the West." Sung Wan-kyung described the Pause as calling for "an attitude of active reflection and new exploration," implying critical reflection on the current biennale system.

As part of this practice, Hou Hanru from China and Charles Esche from the UK identified 27 alternative spaces and artist collectives from Asia and Europe during their research trips. The term "alternative space" here is used in the catalog, but the term "artist-run space" may be more accurate. Some of the participants were artist groups without physical spaces, making the term "collective" even more appropriate. One such collective was "ruangrupa," which later directed the 2022 Kassel Documenta. At the time, they were a newly formed, two-year-old group that participated in the Gwangju Biennale. They received the UNESCO Prize for their work. Their work involved gathering around an empty table, sharing food and conversations, and leaving the resulting waste to decompose visibly. The gathering of many collectives at the Gwangju Biennale in 2002 stands out as a significant event in itself. Before elaborating further, I will briefly explain Projects 2, 3, and 4 from the fourth Gwangju Biennale.

Project 2 featured an exhibition of 24 overseas Korean artists from five countries. It was curated by Yong Soon Min. Project 3 recreated a military detention center modeled after one used during the Gwangju Democratization Movement in 1980, with participation from 49 Korean artists. Project 4 took place on the site of the disused Namgwangju Railway that closed in 2000. It included installations by 22 artists, proposing architectural models for the future of the abandoned tracks. These are the photographs in the articles of the exhibition at the time. Clockwise from the top left, we see Jung Hyun's Uprising Railroad Ties, exhibited at the railway site in Project 4, the banner installation of Lyn Lowenstein from Project 1, Joo Jaehwan's satirical work on the situation post-9/11, referencing Osama bin Laden in 2001, that won the UNESCO Prize, and in the center, a work by Elmgreen & Dragset, and below, a pit installation by Cho Duckhyun's An Exhumation, which was installed at the 5.18 Liberty Park. To the left is Bae Youngwhan's Pop Song Project, which combined photographs and soundscapes of popular songs from the Gwangju Democratization Movement inside a recreated detention building.

The catalog vividly captures audience reactions, such as one in the Indonesian artist group's Bamboo House, an visitor said "It felt like my country's traditional pavilion, so my children and I played there, not knowing it was an artwork. I was surprised it was actually an artwork. The piece invited audiences to rest, offering a sense of comfort." Other audience feedback mentioned the "Proto Academy" booth from the UK and the tent installation by Russia's AES Group. "Without the pretentiousness of so-called 'museum pieces,' I felt a sense of 'community' in an art space for the first time in my life, which was a precious experience. Sitting on Taegeuk-patterned cushions in the pavilion created by Proto Academy or inside AES Group's tent, and wandering through the labyrinth-like market of 26 alternative spaces from around the world, I truly felt the breath of global humanity for the first time." "This exhibition demanded a pause from the neoliberal globalization order and emphasized global community awareness in art. Without such recognition, the aura of art feels like an outdated garment." Choi Gene Uk, who was both an audience member and a participating artist, said this. I later asked Cho Inho, the former policy planning director of the Gwangju Biennale Foundation, who had also served in that role in 2002, for an evaluation. He mentioned that the elimination of the special exhibition and the extravagant events were groundbreaking. Given the situation where both the number of visitors and the budget were gradually declining, he saw this as a necessary alternative. He praised Sung Wan-kyung's foresight in appointing co-curators and inviting collectives, recognizing the experimental value of this approach, which I also agree with.

International media similarly praised the inclusion of alternative groups for the first time. "For a biennale as significant as Gwangju to boldly attempt to explain the now-central phenomenon of alternative groups in the contemporary art world was unprecedented." The raw and fresh spaces created by artists marked a first in biennale history. Notably, artists worldwide were organizing their foundations for creation, operating self-sufficiently in terms of space, finances, and human resources, a phenomenon happening simultaneously across the globe. This seemed significant. The Gwangju Biennale provided a meeting place for these collectives around the world, enabling them to discover similarities and differences in their activities, learn from one another, and gain the confidence to sustain their work. In this context, I believe the order of global capitalism, which globalization has spread, brings about a standardized and regulated system. By not conforming to this system but creating its own order, it has gained contemporary value.

The Gwangju Biennale also hosted a week-long workshop organized by participating artists in the forum titled "Community and Art." Fourteen alternative spaces gathered, living and working for a week, discussing the realities of their local regions, globalization, and the identity of their spaces. Recently, I asked Cho Jieun from IkkibawiKrrr, who partook in the Seongnam Project at the time, for her reflections. "I think some Korean participants had misunderstandings or one-sided perceptions about globalization back then. When we showed anger, Polish artists became angry in return, explaining what big corporations like Daewoo did in Poland. Hearing this, I realized that Korea is not just a victim." She had thought that Korea was a victim of globalization in the past, but realized the structure has various layers, and it is complex. Through conversations with the artists, she came to understand that Koreans, too, are involved in it. Her testimony illustrates how the encounters at the Biennale enriched artists' interpretations of reality and inspired new practices.

European collectives, who had relatively earlier exposure to globalization, were intrigued by the realism and critical social commentary in the works of Korean artists. They would often pose follow-up questions, asking about alternatives to the issues presented or what actions could be taken next. So while the collectives were at different stages of their inquiries, they shared similar concerns. For example, Shepherd Steiner, a member of the Proto Academy, said "The deconstructive critique of Proto Academy, the democratic initiatives of Superflex, the focus on local context and non-exhibitionary acts, the urbanism questions posed by Flying City, Seongnam Project, and Forum A, all ultimately ask questions about various aspects of capitalism. This seems to point out a clear connection between the concerns of different collectives."

So the 2002 Gwangju Biennale's Project 1: Pause is seen as pioneering in its approach to globalization. Projects with an educational nature, which utilize the freedom of movement, a product of globalization, by meeting and learning through direct conversations, continued to be a part of the Gwangju Biennale afterward. This aspect also shared certain points in common with the Platform project of the eleventh edition of Documenta held in Kassel in the same year, 2000. At that time, the director Okwui Enwezor later became the director of the 2008 Gwangju Biennale, where he led an educational program called the "Global Institute." This program was held over two weeks at the Korea National University of Arts in Seoul and Chonnam National University in Gwangju. It served as a temporary school, with participation from global artists, architects, and sociologists as lecturers, as well as students from multiple countries. In the first lecture led by Okwui Enwezor, he broadly explained how globalization unfolded in the context of art. They traced the shift from the internationalism embraced and disseminated by the Venice Biennale in the 19th century to the globalism articulated by Documenta in Kassel after 1955, posing the question, "What is the role of the Gwangju Biennale in this context?" During this period, the Gwangju Biennale actively experimented with the practical implementation of the concept of global knowledge production that biennales aim to pursue. The Gwangju Biennale Foundation has continued initiatives like the Gwangju Biennale Curatorial Course.

In 2018, during the twelveth Gwangju Biennale, I had a pleasure of working David Teh, with one of 10 co-curators of the project, in organizing his Archive Lounge program. This was an experimental educational event combining exhibitions, talks, and performances. As part of revisiting the early history of the Biennale, we re-invited ruangrupa who had participated in 2002. They joined this time not under the name "ruangrupa" but as a new derivative collective called "Gudskul," By presenting "Collective is School" project, they held workshops and lectures with collectives in Gwangju. In an interview afterward, they shared, "The 2002 Gwangju Biennale was our first overseas invitation, and winning an award helped globalize Ruangrupa's activities. It's meaningful to have evolved into Gudskul, showing that we refuse to stagnate." Thus, while the fourth edition of the Gwangju Biennale used its exhibition as a platform to experiment with the dynamics of globalization through direct encounters, in the seventh and twelveth editions, these efforts evolved into a refined educational aspect. Even today, under the conditions of globalization, I believe in the Biennale's role to reimagine reality, or, in other words, to pursue contemporary values. I believe this role of the Gwangju Biennale must continue.


Overseas Korean Contemporary Art Exhibitions and Their Curators
Jeon Yushin: Today, I will present on the topic "Overseas Korean Contemporary Art Exhibitions and Their Curators." I will use the term "Korean Contemporary Art Exhibitions" for exhibitions introducing Korean contemporary art abroad. While such exhibitions have been held since the 1950s, in the 1990s, the frequency of them increased dramatically and there was a notable shift in focus from Asia, centered on Japan, to Western regions like Europe and the U.S. This shift can be attributed to the global spread of globalization during this period, and domestically, the globalization policies of the civilian government, which aligned with the increased international exchange in the field of art.

In this discussion, I will focus specifically on Korean Contemporary Art Exhibitions held in the Western during the 1990s and 2000s. In particular, I will emphasize the curatorial entities responsible for organizing these exhibitions. An exhibition involves a planner selecting and arranging subjects based on certain criteria. The selection of artists and artworks is not determined solely by objective standards. The criteria, or curatorial intent, are inevitably influenced by the curator's perspective on art and the position they hold within the art world of their time. Korean Contemporary Art Exhibitions held in the Western during the 1990s and 2000s provide fascinating case studies of how Korean contemporary art was defined and curated differently, depending on the identity of the curators and the context in which they operated.  As the most representative case, the first generation of curators frequently centered their exhibitions on themes such as naturalism and traditional Eastern aesthetics. Second-generation curators focused on political and social realities to define and introduce Korean contemporary art. Let me now introduce examples of each.

First-generation curators primarily emphasized naturalism and Eastern traditions, focusing on nature and tradition as the core of Korean contemporary art. These included critic-curators Oh Kwang-su, Yu Jun-sang, Lee Kyungsung, and Lee Yil. Most of these figures served as chief curators or directors of MMCA, resulting in their exhibitions being closely tied to those of the museum. One of the most frequently mentioned exhibitions introducing Korean contemporary art abroad is Working with Nature, co-organized by the MMCA and Tate Gallery Liverpool in 1992. The artists featured included Kim Tschang-Yeul, Park Seo-Bo, Yun Hyongkeun, Lee Kangso, Lee Ufan, and Chung Changsup, all of whom are commonly categorized as "Dansaekhwa" artists. While the exhibition catalog included essays from two MMCA directors, the most critical essay was written by critic Lee Yil. His essay highlighted naturalism and an Eastern worldview as the essence of Korean identity. He argued the Dansaekhwa works featured in the exhibition were Korean contemporary art that inherited this identity, introducing the core of Korean contemporary art using the keywords "nature" and "tradition." Three years later, in 1995, Lee Yil served as a curator for the inaugural Korean Pavilion at the Venice Biennale. The featured artists included Kwak Hoon, Kim Inkyum, Jheon Soocheon, and Yun Hyongkeun. Yun Hyongkeun had also participated in the Working with Nature exhibition. A notable performance by Kwak Hoon as shown in the slide involved traditional earthenware symbolizing Korean heritage, and it was performed by Buddhist nuns, with elements closely tied to tradition. Reflecting on how this exhibition opened in the mid-1990s, it is worth considering how 1990s Korea was presented to international audiences.

Looking at the Korean Contemporary Art Exhibitions by MMCA, there are several key exhibitions, but I will introduce a few representative ones. Exhibitions by MMCA often highlighted nature and tradition, as shown in their titles. In 1995, The Tiger's Tail: 15 Korean Contemporary Artists for Venice '95 was held in Venice, Italy, alongside the inaugural exhibition of the Korean Pavilion at the Venice Biennale in a nearby exhibition space. This exhibition shaped how international audiences visiting Venice back then perceived Korean contemporary art, emphasizing elements of nature and tradition on two separate occasions.The title involved the word "tiger." Similarly, the 1998 touring exhibition in Berlin and Eine, Germany, was titled "Year of the Tiger." The tiger itself symbolized the Korean Peninsula's shape since the early 20th century, serving as a signifier that encompasses traditional history and nature. This symbolism was carried forward to Hodori, the mascot of the 1988 Olympics, maintaining its modern significance for Koreans. The title of the exhibition explicitly emphasizes these two elements through the tiger.

The 2003 exhibition Leaning Forward Looking Back: Eight Contemporary Artists from Korea held at the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco. that even in the 2000s, nature and tradition continued to be emphasized. The title Song of the Four Seasons is from Jung Jongmee's Four Seasons of Fishermen - Spring, Summer, Fall and Winter,  which itself was inspired by Yun Seondo's classical poem Four Seasons of Fishermen. This poem reflects the traditional Korean worldview of living in harmony with nature. This demonstrates that such elements were still being highlighted in the 2000s. Works like Hwang Inkie's After Mt. Diamond on the right shown in such exhibitions reinterpret traditional Korean painting in a contemporary context, continuing to highlight the themes of nature and tradition. An analysis of MMCA's Korean Contemporary Art Exhibitions held in the West during the 1990s and 2000s involved about 150 artists. Seventeen of them participated multiple times, some as many as four times. Excluding Paik Nam June, Dansaekhwa artists were heavily featured. Among the new generation, artists who visibly incorporated traditional and natural elements were selected, reflecting the curators' strong focus on these themes.

Second-generation curators organized Korean Contemporary Art Exhibitions on Korea's political and social realities. Prominent curators representing this generation include Kim Sunjung, Beck Jee-sook, and Lee Youngchul. One of the most important exhibitions in the history of Korean contemporary art is Across the Pacific: Contemporary Korean and Korean-American Art held in 1993 at the Queens Museum of Art in New York. This exhibition was organized by the Seoro Korean Cultural Network, an organization founded by artist Bahc Yiso in the United States, and it was proposed to the Queens Museum. The curatorial team consisted of Lee Youngchul, Park Hyejung, and Jane Farver, curator of the Queens Museum. Among them, Lee Youngchul was the president of the The Research Society for Art Criticism (RSAC), a group aligned with the Seoro Korean Cultural Network.

The Research Society for Art Criticism was formed by critics from the Minjung art movement, such as Beck Jee-sook, Um Hyuk, and Park Chan-kyong. These critics led the Korean art scene in the early 1990s by engaging in postmodernism debates with modernist critics. The art world has always been characterized by differing perspectives between groups such as artists and critics, but the 1990s were marked by a stark division between these camps. This divide became evident through heated debates on postmodernism, which brought its issues to the forefront. During this period, it became clear to anyone observing the Korean art scene that there was a distinct separation between the Minjung art movement and the modernist camp. In the exhibition catalog, Lee Youngchul defined modernist art, exemplified by Dansaekhwa, as "the opposing force that must be overcome and confronted." He criticized this style of art for being based on a natural aesthetic that emphasized Orientalism, which reinforced the idea that nature and tradition were essential aspects of Korean identity. He argued that this view had solidified into a fixed conception of Korean contemporary art.

Looking back, Across the Pacific: Contemporary Korean and Korean-American Art introduced Korean contemporary art to American audiences in 1993, a time when very few people in the United States were familiar with either Korea or Korean art. When introducing Korean art to such audiences, one approach could be to present it based on Korea's significant historical developments. However, this exhibition distinctly reflected the critic's perspective. The catalog accurately described the atmosphere of the time's Korean art scene as a conflict between the modernist camp and the Minjung art movement. Notably, it also provided a somewhat critical interpretation of this. In the 2000s, the curator most active in organizing Korean Contemporary Art Exhibitions abroad was Beck Jee-sook, a former member of Research Society for Art Criticism, and director of the Insa Art Space and ARKO Art Center. The 2003 Facing Korea-Korean Contemporary Art 2003, the 2005 The Battle of Visions in Germany, and the 2007 Activating Korea: Tides of Collective Action in New Zealand are some of the key exhibitions. Most of the participating artists were from the Minjung art or post-Minjung art movements. In the Facing Korea catalog, it is explained that the heirs of modernism in Korea were fiercely challenging Minjung art by importing postmodern theories. Heirs of Minjung art are described as intellectual descendants focusing on new media art. It's interesting to note how, in these exhibitions aimed at introducing Korean contemporary art abroad, the divisions in the art scene were clearly evident.

In fact, Korean Contemporary Art Exhibitions in the Western in the 1990s and 2000s were less about presenting a comprehensive overview of Korean contemporary art and more about revealing structures of the Korean art scene, with curators' perspectives being clearly expressed. While the Postmodernism debates of the early 1990s had waned, the exhibitions held abroad highlighted the divided state of the Korean art world, with each faction using international exhibitions as a platform to explain their own positions on what Korean art was. Thus, exhibitions of Korean contemporary art did not necessarily aim to explain Korean art from modern to contemporary times or simply highlight key works. Instead, they reflected the unique aspects of Korean contemporary art at the time.

Additionally, these exhibitions demonstrate that the concept of "Koreanness" is not a fixed identity but can be defined differently by the curators depending on their perspectives, and it is crucial to understand their viewpoints when examining these exhibitions. Moreover, during the 1990s and 2000s, the Korean art world was deeply divided, with curators from both camps organizing major exhibitions. As a result, these exhibitions often had similar characteristics, and it is important for curators with diverse perspectives on Korean contemporary art to partake in such exhibitions. By doing so, they can contribute to a broader and a more nuanced understanding of Korean contemporary art.


Electronic Superhighway: Interactive communication Through Technology, focusing on InfoART(1995)

Bae Myungji: I've prepared a presentation examining the InfoART exhibition which was part of the first Gwangju Biennale and held as a special exhibition titled Beyond the Borders, in the context of 1990s globalization. As you know, globalization emerged as an alternative to the collapsed Cold War ideologies following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. It introduced a neoliberal economic order that organized the entire world into a single system. The driving forces behind globalization included the global movement of capital, trade, migration, and post-colonial situations. The commercialization of the Internet and the rapid rise of computer-based digital technologies in the early 1990s provided the practical force that made the global interconnected era possible. The interconnectedness, networks, borderlessness, and hybridity generated by globalization reshaped the landscape of contemporary art in the 1990s, and this became the background for curating the InfoART exhibition. 

The theme of the 1995 Gwangju Biennale, Beyond the Borders, aligned with the spirit of globalization. The InfoART exhibition also resonated with this, proposing global communication as its central concept, utilizing cutting-edge information technologies of the time. It sought to transcend borders between audience and artwork, audience and audience, nation and nation, and the Western and non-Western. The exhibition highlighted the technological dimensions that made such global communication possible, specifically, interactivity and interconnectedness, as participatory and practical concepts in the exhibition. This presentation will explore three perspectives on InfoART within the discourse of globalization.

Firstly, the introduction of a multinational curator system and the major video artists from around the world. This exhibition was held at the Gwangju Biennale Exhibition Hall and the Gwangju Museum of Art. At the entrance, there was a piece by Paik Nam June, Electronic Transportation. Paik Nam June's Dolmen was displayed at the Gwangju Biennale, not the InfoART exhibition. Kim Daejung, the then-President of South Korea, and his wife Lee Heeho visited the exhibition. This exhibition involved multinational curators, with Cynthia Goodman and Paik Nam June as exhibition directors, and Kim Hong-hee participating as a curator. The exhibition was divided into three sections. 

First, Interactive Art and the Creation of Interactive Devices, was curated by Cynthia Goodman and Paik Nam June, and it occupied the majority of the exhibition space. The participating artists were very young and used cutting-edge technology available in 1995. The second section, Asian Video Art and Multimedia, was curated by Kim Hong-hee and exhibited in a section of the Gwangju Museum of Art. It was organized into two themes, Asian Video Installation and Korean CD-ROM. The prominent artist in this section was Shigeko Kubota. The third section, Videos from Around the World, was divided into Asian Video Art and Multimedia by Kim Hong-hee and "International Video" involving multiple multinational curators. The curators included Christine van Assche, video curator from the Pompidou Center, Michael Bilyk, video professor from the Prague Academy of Art, John Hanhardt, video curator from the Whitney Museum, Wulf Herzogenrath, former director of Kunsthalle in Germany, Barbara London, video curator from MoMA, Katsue Tomiyama, director of the Image Forum Festival in Japan, and Stephen Vitiello, director of EAI, and others. This exhibition saw the participation of a large number of video curators who were very active at the time. Prominent video artists, such as Joan Jonas, Gary Hill, Peter Campus, Bill Viola, Bruce Nauman, and Woody Vasulka, also had their works showcased.

A total of 99 works by 94 artists from 15 countries were exhibited at the Gwangju Museum of Art and the Gwangju Biennale. Based on the renown of the international curators and the lineup of participating artists, this exhibition can be seen as one of the largest media art exhibitions in Korea before Media_City Seoul in the 2000s. Through collaboration with specialized video curators, the exhibition introduced video art masters who hadn't been showcased in Korea, as well as young video artists, mostly from the West and mainly using advanced technologies. There were also over 100 non-Western Asian artists, with the total number of participating artists surpassing those in the 1995 Gwangju Biennale. The fact that these large-scale video works from around the world were introduced in the same exhibition is the first point where this exhibition can be discussed within the context of globalization.

The third section was exhibited on small televisions as seen in the slide. This is the layout of the exhibition. Most of the exhibition space at the top of Gwangju Biennale Exhibition Hall and Gwangju Museum of Art was Section One. To the left was Section Two, curated by Kim Hong-hee, and in the middle was the much smaller Section Three, titled International Video.

The first section, InfoART, could be seen as a dream of a utopian society based on "global communication". The information technology used in the works of this exhibition, instead of having the critical or anti-art context of early video art of the resistance of alternative media, was understood as a tool for interactivity and interaction, specifically, a means for "access" and "sharing." Many works in the exhibition that used information technology were seen as pathways for connecting the present and past of both the East and the West, transcending boundaries of nations, regions, races, genders, and generations, and allowing people with diverse cultural backgrounds to communicate and create a new global culture.

One representative work of Internet art in Section One was The World's First Collaborative Sentence by Douglas Davis. In this piece, the artist himself and another artist from Geneva, Switzerland, exchange a "love story" live online, transcending a great disaster. By 1995, over 50,000 users contributed sentences, and more than 1,000 audience members, in real-time, created a "shared sentence" that overcame limits of time and space. This was an example of an interactive project that created infinite "forms of life narratives."

Another work is Family Portrait by Luc Courchesne, in which he uses the Internet to interact with virtual entities in real time. This was a work that imagined the creation of a new community and solidarity within virtual reality. Benjamin Britton, a virtual reality expert, presented an interactive installation titled Lascaux. In this work, he traveled to the actual Lascaux cave to create 3D representations, and when visitors entered the space and focused on specific images, artificial intelligence would generate animations of ancient animals from Lascaux cave paintings for physical viewing. Through the use of early VR technology and current VR technology, the work aimed to connect prehistoric mythical times with present time.

Section One featured numerous media artists who were also computer scientists, astrophysicists, and researchers from institutions such as NASA and MIT, reflecting a dual identity. Although the exhibition was focused on interactive art using advanced technology at the time, as Cynthia Goodman and Paik Nam June pointed out in the preface, information technology in this exhibition was seen to reveal political, social, cultural, and ecological meanings. Kim Hong-hee said that Paik Nam June, through the humanization of machines and technology, aimed to restore lost humanity and proposed an electronic alternative. For instance, Peter D'Agostino presented String Cycle, a work based on ancient string-like art widely known as the "cat's cradle," which used the internet to allegorically show knowledge delivery in an internet age. Within a special environment created by the Internet interface, artists participated, and the work interwove traditional narratives from different cultures, such as African folk songs, Native American creation myths, Homer's epics, and Mallarme's visual poetics. 

The works in Section One of InfoART proposed a world of global interconnection and cultural fusion where boundaries were blurred. This was, in part, inspired by Paik Nam June's early mention of the concept of "Information Superhighway" 20 years earlier, which made the exhibition possible from a cultural policy perspective. Cynthia Goodman highlighted in her essay The Electronic Frontier: From Video to Virtual Reality that Paik Nam June was the spiritual pillar of this exhibition, guiding it, and she also mentioned his concept of the Information Super Highways. In the report commissioned by the Rockefeller Foundation in 1974, titled Media Planning for the Post industrial Age – Only 26 years left until the 21st Century, Paik first proposed the concept of the Electronic Super Highways. He imagined an electronic communications network working at a powerful transmission range, connecting New York and Los Angeles with continental satellites, waveguides, coaxial cables, and laser-beam optical fibers. The concept realized as the World Wide Web and the internet, foreshadowed developments that would come 20 years later.

The concept of the electronic superhighway was realized in a trilogy of works that connected different writers and artists in virtual spaces, Good Morning Mr. Orwell in the 1980s, Bye Bye Kipling, which linked Seoul, Tokyo, and New York, and Wrap Around the World, conceived for the Olympics. Later, in the 1990s, it continued with The Electronic Superhighway: From Venice to Ulaanbaatar at the 1993 Venice Biennale, and in 1995, with the InfoART exhibition, along with the Electronic Transport-Carriage and multimedia works like The Electronic Superhighway: Continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii. Through the "Electronic Superhighway," Paik Nam June dreamed of a utopian world horizontally linking the West and Asia without hierarchies, embracing different cultural diversities. Likewise, InfoART envisioned a global culture that connected people across different times and spaces using IT, linked cultures of heterogeneity, and foresaw a new meaning of global culture without center and periphery hierarchies.

Thirdly, InfoART was also an exhibition that focused on non-Western Asian media artists. With globalization leading to the decentralization of power and the establishment of a multicultural worldview, previously overlooked non-Western art began to emerge, resonating with the global art scene. While Section One emphasized technology-based interactivity, Section Two, curated by Kim Hong-hee, exhibited works that dealt more with issues like multiculturalism, diaspora, post-colonialism, and identity politics, which could be discussed in the context of globalization. For example, there was a work by Taiwanese artist Wang Junjie, which explored the cultural clash between East and West through the theme of popular Chinese cuisine. 

Then, Gu Xiong's video installation addressed the artist's identity as part of the diaspora, born in China and later immigrating to Canada. Ellen Pau's work dealt with the social issues surrounding the merger of mainland China and Hong Kong in 1997. Japanese artist Katsuhiro Yamaguchi, a highly influential video artist, combined traditional Eastern thought with Western philosophy. Additionally, there were works by Angel Velasco Shaw, a Filipino-American artist who dealt with multiple identities surrounding ethnicity, race, class, and gender. Alongside these works, pieces that revealed a fragmented and unstable subjectivity, such as those by Moon Joo, Hong Sungmin, and Wang Jianwei, formed key elements of Section Two. This is Hong Sungmin's work, which I captured from a video. In the catalog, there is Man and Queen, and in the exhibition, there was a work that represented fragmented corporeality, Windows 95 (Open, Close), which portrayed the opening and closing of windows, reminiscent of the opening and closing of the Windows 95 interface.

Lastly, although InfoART was Korea's first large-scale media art exhibition that sought to express the historical video masters, emerging young technology-based artists, and Asian artists considering the locality of Gwangju, the exhibition structure was made up of different layers. As I mentioned earlier, Section One featured many young artists, primarily from the Western, using cutting-edge technology. Section Two showcased works by Asian artists, while video masters around the world, despite their fame, presented works not through projections but small monitors. Some reviews mentioned that due to the mixed sound, visitors could not properly experience the artists' works. This type of exhibition structure with different layers seemed to act as an obstacle to presenting in-depth discourse on information art. 

When discussing globalization, there were two layers. One layer focused on global communication and cultural fusion from a cultural anthropological perspective, as discussed by Paik Nam June, and the other viewed technology as a tool for utopian community, sharing, and connection. Meanwhile, there was a layer reflecting a post-colonial view, a cultural pluralism perspective that discussed the world from the standpoint of that area. These two layers often overlapped in the exhibition. Despite limitations, considering that the new media department at MoMA and the Pompidou Center were created, and video curators began exhibiting video art in the early 1980s through shows like "Computer and Art," InfoART can be seen as a decisive exhibition that demonstrated how technology could serve as a tool for global cultural communication and a medium for cultural fusion, particularly in the year of '1995', when the Korean Pavilion was established at the Venice Biennale and the first Gwangju Biennale took place. The exhibition held in Korea can be seen as meaningful within the context of these global discussions.


Globalization and Korean Contemporary Art: Study on the Exhibitions of the Korean Pavilion of the Venice Biennale

Kim Hong-Ki: I would like to trace the discourse and changes in the exhibition format regarding how Korean contemporary art was introduced in the context of globalization at the Korean Pavilion, which was established in the Giardini area of the Venice Biennale, Italy. The Korean Pavilion, which opened in 1995, is the 29th and final national pavilion in the Giardini, where other pavilions are located. The plan to secure the Korean Pavilion, initiated in 1993, achieved the result of winning the last plot of land in the Giardini ahead of other nations in just 2 years. This success was made possible by the active involvement of Paik Nam June, who participated with Hans Haacke at the German Pavilion in 1993, and by the policies of the Kim Young-sam government, which advocated for globalization and opening to the world. 

1995 is a highly significant year in the history of Korean art exhibits, notably in relation to globalization. Domestically, it marked the founding of the first international-scale biennale in Korea, the Gwangju Biennale, while internationally, it secured the condition for regular representation of Korean artists at the Venice Biennale. The Gwangju Biennale can be seen as a system that brought international contemporary art to Korea, while the Korea Pavilion at the Venice Biennale can be seen as a system that introduced Korean contemporary art to the global art scene. Therefore, the exhibitions at the Korean Pavilion in Venice, in the context of globalization, can be understood as the result of the thought of how Korean contemporary art is perceived and defined internationally. How can Korean contemporary art assert its universality in the global art scene? At the same time, what is the specificity of Korean art that cannot be entirely reduced to that universality? Within the dialectic of universality and specificity, or global art and Korean art, the exhibitions at the Korean Pavilion in Venice have consistently attempted to synthesize these contradictions in an appropriate manner. In this context, we want to revisit the trajectory of the Korean Pavilion at the Venice Biennale, which played a major role in shaping the representation of Korean contemporary art in the era of globalization. Specifically, I'd like to focus on the 6 exhibitions over the first decade, from the first exhibition in 1995 to 2005. There are three main reasons for this.

First, the period from 1995 to 2005 marked a time when, immediately after the establishment of the Korean Pavilion, the Korean contemporary art scene sought to define its own character amidst the dichotomy of the global and the local. By examining the six exhibitions held during this period, I believe they provide a foundational sketch for understanding the development of the Korean Pavilion exhibitions that followed. 

The second reason is that the global financial crisis which began in 2007 led to a negative shift in the perception of the globalization discourse. As Curator Bae Myungji mentioned earlier, following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, globalization became a rapidly expanding topic of interest in the art world. However, after the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the discourse on globalization began to diminish. This is evident in the fact that, in the 1990s, numerous international biennales were founded in the Global South, but by the late 2000s and into the 2010s, the biennale boom began to subside. I believe it is more appropriate to consider the period from 1995 to 2005 in relation to the globalization session.

The third reason is that from 1995 to 2005, the Korean Pavilion featured multiple artists in its exhibitions, ranging from as few as 2 to as many as 15 artists. In contrast, starting in 2007, the exhibitions featured solo presentations by one artist or one team. I believe that group exhibitions, rather than solo or team exhibitions, allow for a more multifaceted approach to the macro issues of globalization and Korean contemporary art. For these three reasons, I've chosen to focus on the six exhibitions from 1995 to 2005. 

As I mentioned earlier, although the Korean Pavilion was established in the Giardini in 1995, there were actually earlier precedents for Korean participation at the Venice Biennale. Korea began participating in the Venice Biennale in 1986, not with a national pavilion, but by obtaining a temporary booth, marking the first time Korea participated in the national pavilion exhibitions. Korea continued to participate in the biennale every two years, four times in total. At that time, there was no physical national pavilion, so the exhibition was held in a temporary booth format at the Arsenale, which served as the main venue. The exhibition was organized by the Korean Fine Arts Association, and the commissioner in 1986 was Lee Yil, an art critic and curator, who was also mentioned in Curator Jeon Yushin's presentation. However, except for Lee Yil, all the commissioners and participating artists of the Korean Pavilion at the Venice Biennale, held before the pavilion was constructed, were artists themselves. Prominent figures such as Park Seo-Bo, Ha Chonghyun, and other senior artists were both commissioners and participating artists. After several exhibitions like this, the Korean Pavilion was eventually established in 1995. So I've formulated a hypothesis by grouping these six exhibitions into two parts each.

The first period includes the 1995 to 1997 exhibitions. During this time, there was a tendency to emphasize Korea's traditional aesthetics in response to the question of what Korean contemporary art is in the age of globalization. The first exhibition in the Giardini Pavilion in 1995, the inaugural exhibition of the Korean Pavilion, marked a transitional phase from the old system, led by the Korean Fine Arts Association, to the current system under the Korea Culture and Arts Foundation.

In this exhibition, Lee Yil, who had served as the commissioner for the Korean Pavilion in 1986, was appointed as the commissioner again. Participating artists Kwak Hoon, Kim Inkyum, Yun Hyongkeun, and Jheon Soocheon, were older in their late 40s to 60s. Among them, Kwak Hoon, Kim Inkyum, and Jheon Soocheon showed installations, and Yun Hyongkeun participated in painting. This shift to emphasize other media, moving away from the previously dominant painting in Korean art, signaled a change in the exhibition's focus. In his article about the exhibition, Lee Yil made the following statement regarding globalization. "Along with the overseas expansion of our art, we need to attract international-scale overseas art." He emphasized globalization shouldn't be seen as a one-way process for Korean art to enter the international scene, but rather as a mutual exchange between both sides. This was how globalization was mentioned. This 1995 presentation can be seen as an extension of exhibitions like Working with Nature. where the focus shifted toward increasing the presence of installation artists simply to hold an exhibition in Venice.

Moving on to 1997, the commissioner for the Korean Pavilion exhibition was Oh Kwang-su, an art critic and exhibition curator. The participating artists were Kang Ik-Joong and Lee Hyungwoo. Kang Ik-Joong, typically classified as a painter, exhibited a piece made up of numerous small wooden relief. Rather than being a mere painting, his work was closer to a painting installation. Sculptor Lee Hyungwoo presented geometric sculptures made from wire, terracotta, and a wooden frame. Both of these artists had studied abroad and were relatively young, in their 30s and 40s. Oh Kwang-su explained his selection of these two artists by stating that both "possess not only a universal aesthetic sense but also remnants of Korean traditional aesthetics." For Kang Ik-Joong's work, he highlighted the connection to Korean traditions, like the use of traditional talismans and folk paintings, continuously emphasizing the relationship with Korea's cultural heritage.

In the globalization era, the exhibition sought to locate Korea's uniqueness in its traditional aesthetic sense. Then, in the subsequent two exhibitions, changes began to be seen. The 1999 Korean Pavilion exhibition was curated by art historian Song Misook, and the artists featured were Lee Bul and Noh Sangkyoon. Both artists were relatively young, in their mid-30s to early 40s. Noh Sangkyoon's Buddha sculptures made of resin and sequins still carried an orientalistic impression, appealing to traditional aesthetic sensibilities. However, Lee Bul, the first female artist to participate in the Korean Pavilion, exhibited karaoke installation work that diverged significantly from traditional aesthetics. Lee Bul's work did not emphasize traditional Korean specificity but rather sought to highlight the unique aspects of contemporary Korean society, presenting these as local characteristics that could be shown by a Korean artist. Song Misook described their works as possessing an international universality that traverses both modernism and postmodernism. She also noted that "their works reflect the contradictions and truths of the value systems, especially the bipolarity that prevails across the globe", thus showing the specificities of contemporary Korean life rather than those of traditional Korean culture. 

In the following 2001 exhibition, curator Park Kyungmi, who was preparing for the opening of the PKM Gallery, was in charge. The participating artists were Michael Joo and Suh Doho. Michael Joo, a Korean-American, became the first foreign artist to participate in the Korean Pavilion. Park Kyungmi introduced their works, mentioning both their modern and traditional aspects, as well as their cultural identity as Korean. However, she emphasized how their recognition of Korean culture and traditions were not fixed, but rather nomadic and multicultural. For example, Suh Doho's installation work did not directly refer to traditional Korean culture, but instead expressed modern aspects of life, such as military culture, symbolized by things like army dog tags.

Finally, I will briefly discuss the 2003 and 2005 exhibitions. The evolution of the Korean Pavilion exhibitions at the Venice Biennale suggests a process in which Korean contemporary art, in the context of globalization, gradually moves away from an explicit presentation of tradition. In 2003, curator Kim Hong-hee completely moved away from issues of tradition and regional identity, focusing on 'landscapes of difference' instead. She presented an exhibition that showcased relative 'site-specificity', rather than rooted and fixed particularities. She said, "Rather than focusing on something Eastern or traditional, the intention was to construct the identity of the Korean Pavilion from its site-specificity." This placed the uniqueness of Korean art directly within an international context. The three artists featured in the exhibition, Bahc Yiso, Chung Seoyoung, and Hwang Inkie, created works that intervened in the spatial, structural, and institutional site-specificity of Korean Pavilion Giardini, filling both the inside and outside of the pavilion. 

Lastly, for the 2005 exhibition, curator Kim Sunjung invited an unusually large number of artists, 15 in total. The artists, ranging in age from their 20s to 40s, worked in diverse media. The exhibition was a collection of individual and personal works, with no common features that could be generalized. This can be seen as a move beyond the framework of dichotomous issues like universality versus specificity, internationalism versus regionalism. The exhibition attempted to showcase Korean contemporary art in its most active form, as it existed in the 'present'.

Perhaps, in the era of globalization, it was an exhibition that considered the units of nation or ethnicity too scattered to define contemporary art. Like this, the issue of Korean art in the context of globalization can be seen as transitioning from tradition to modern regionalism, and even emphasizing the individual over the concept of the nation. This exhibition could be seen as the first decade where this shift took place.


Roundtable Question 1. The Legacy of the Korean Pavilion Exhibitions at the Venice Biennale

Tiffany Yeon Chae: During this time, we'll revisit Part 2 that we couldn't cover earlier, and with ten distinguished individuals from the audience joining us, we'll take 20 minutes to address any questions you may have. Please wait for a moment as we prepare to proceed. We'll begin by addressing some of the Questions and Answers we had planned for Part 2, and then we'll invite questions from the audience. I will be moderating this session. First, I'd like to direct a question to Kim Hong-Ki, one of the presenters. In your earlier presentation, you mentioned that 1995 was a pivotal year for the globalization of Korean art. The exhibitions studied by the researchers involved in Topic 2 all began around 1995, marking the "Year of the Arts" as a significant turning point with various exhibitions taking place during that period. You analyzed the six exhibitions held at the Venice Biennale Korean Pavilion, highlighting their pursuit of universality and specificity. If those were strategies to effectively present Korean art to an international audience, I'm curious about the impact or influence those practices had on the Korean art scene at the time or in the years that followed.

Kim Hong-Ki: Given that the Korean Pavilion exhibitions at the Venice Biennale occur biennially and take place overseas, it's admittedly difficult to gauge the extent of their influence on contemporary Korean art domestically. However, if we examine how the Korean Pavilion exhibitions developed after the six shows I analyzed, we might be able to infer some of the early exhibitions' legacy. As I mentioned in my presentation, starting in 2007, the Korean Pavilion began to feature solo exhibitions. I consider this a progressive development because, if there had been a persistent burden or obligation to showcase Korean identity to the global art community, it could have been challenging to fill a national pavilion with a solo exhibition format. 

However, through several iterations of the Korean Pavilion exhibitions, the emphasis gradually shifted. There was less pressure to showcase Korea's traditional heritage explicitly, and instead, the focus moved toward representing the regional and specific aspects of contemporary Korean life. This transition proved to be unproblematic. In fact, upon closer examination, modernization or Westernization in Korea and the West share similarities. Through repeated exposure to these ideas, the Korean Pavilion adopted the solo exhibition format. Today, in exhibitions by contemporary Korean artists, compared to the globalization era of the time, there's a sense of liberation from debates over regionality versus universality, or specificity versus universality. I believe this shift originated during the period I studied, marking the beginning of a transformative process.


Roundtable Question 2. Changes in the International Status of Korean Art Exhibitions

Tiffany Yeon Chae: I'd like to continue with a question for Jeon Yushin. You pointed out that the overseas exhibitions of Korean art you introduced were in some ways an "outside battle" between two camps, Modernism and Realism. Before considering the effects of these exhibitions in promoting Korean art, it seems that they also played a role in solidifying differing positions. As you mentioned, the notion of "Koreanness" seems less significant now, and I find myself reflecting on the recent exhibitions of Korean art. The exhibitions of Korean art in the 1990s you analyzed and the current exhibitions, often in collaboration with overseas institutions, along with foreign museums collecting Korean art or curating related exhibitions, have raised questions for me. How should we view these recent developments compared to the context of the time of your presentation?

Jeon Yushin: In fact, the article I presented is something I published seven or eight years ago. At that time, my perspective was different. After conducting the analysis, now, revisiting the work for the MMCA Research Lab "Study Group", I realize that the context surrounding the Korean art world has changed dramatically in the interim. The curators have also changed, and a lot of transformations have taken place. As you mentioned, Korea's standing in the world has significantly risen, and many foreign institutions now want to collaborate with Korea, or specifically with MMCA. Looking back at the exhibitions I mentioned from the 1990s and 2000s, I noticed that certain curators monopolized the planning of these exhibitions. While they were technically co-curated with foreign curators, the content of the catalogs was nearly identical. At that time, there weren't many opportunities to approach Korean art, so foreign curators could only understand it through the lens of the Korean curators, who curated the art scene and selected the artists. In practice, even though the exhibitions were co-curated, the Korean curators played a significant role, acting as intermediaries. 

These days, it's more common for foreign institutions to curate independently, but the participation of diaspora curators seems to play a large role. While there are cases where foreign curators have a genuine interest in Korean art, the involvement of diaspora curators remains a prominent feature. There are still many joint curations, but it's difficult to assess how much the trend has changed. With the increasing number of foreign curators researching contemporary Korean art, there's a noticeable shift from the past. It might be interesting to explore how the trends from the 1990s, 2000s, and beyond have evolved through comparisons in future research, considering the various exhibitions that have recently taken place.


Roundtable Question 3. The Socio-cultural background of Information Technology themed Exhibitions

Tiffany Yeon Chae: I have a question for Bae Myungji. Listening to your presentation, it became clear to me that contemporary art exhibitions and curators themselves are products of globalization. I'm curious about the background behind the theme of "Information Technology" being chosen for the exhibition in 1995 within the context of globalization. In other words, was there an external, non-artistic force driving the theme of "Information Technology" in Gwangju, Korea in 1995, or was it more of a Korean-specific motivation? 

Bae Myungji: I would appreciate your response. Since the late 1980s, particularly after the 1988 Olympics, there was an excessive increase in government interest in science and technology. As a result, large budgets were allocated through the Korea Science Foundation to high-tech artists back then. The government believed that progress in technology signified national progress. Nowadays, the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism invests significant money in cutting-edge technology. Similarly, in the late 1980s and after the Olympics, government budgets were also allocated to technology-based artists, which created a background for the formation of groups like Art Tech in 1991. Artists who had studied in France, such as Kim Jaegwon, or those using computers and high-tech technology like Kim Yoon, Song Juhwan, Shin Jinsik and Choi Yoonkyung. Some of their works were exhibited in Part Two of InfoART which was curated by Kim Hong-hee.

By that time, there was a group in the Korean art scene focused on video art and the technological aspects of it, especially after 1988 and into the early 90s. Another layer of this was when Paik Nam June's Good Morning, Mr. Orwell was introduced to Korea in 1984. At that time, I interviewed Yi Wonkon while preparing an exhibition, and after that, many video artists were shocked and became aware of the liberating properties of the video medium. Artists like Yi Wonkon, Moon Joo, Kim Haemin, Yook Taejin, and Yook Keunbyung, who gained prominence through video works at the Kassel Documenta, helped establish the video art scene in Korea in the late 80s and early 90s.

In the meantime, many exhibitions took place to fund video artists and technology-based works through government budget allocations. The Art Tech group hosted several exhibitions, including Art and Technology in 1991, Science+Art Show in 1992, Expo '93 Technology Art Exhibition: Nature and Technology and Man & Machine: Technology Art in 1995, just before the InfoART exhibition at the Dong-A Gallery. The post-Park Hyunki generation's video art scene became more introspective, with works exploring the relationship between reality and virtuality, and more philosophical, as Jung Hyun said, anthropological, and archaeological video works emerged. On the other hand, there were truly technology-driven works that focused on reflective aspects of the medium. with journals discussing the relationship between man and machines from a more introspective perspective, alongside Paik Nam June's theories. I believe that the Korean video art scene had matured to a certain point by then, and it was at this stage that the 1995 InfoART exhibition could take place.


Roundtable Question 4. Perspective of 'Alternative Globalization’ in the 2002 Gwangju Biennale

Bae Myungji: I found the 2002 Gwangju Biennale exhibition Pause by Tiffany Yeon Chae particularly interesting. One of the curators, Charles Escher, mentioned that the exhibition aimed to present a "globalization with a human face," and Choi Jinwook also spoke about the Pause of neoliberal globalization. Listening to these statements, I began to think about how the exhibition Pause, which took place in 2002, was critical of globalization from a very different angle compared to the utopian optimism of Paik Nam June's worldview from the 1990s. After the 1999 Seattle protests, a wave of critical views on neoliberal globalization emerged, and there was a large movement to rethink globalization, especially around the year 2000. This was framed under the term "alternative globalization," which called for the recovery of the public realm and community solidarity lost by neoliberal globalization. In Korea, there was a surge in discussions and projects focused on publicness, community, and Maeul Misul Project. So I became very curious about whether projects like those of the Seongnam Project or Forum A were connected to that making the exhibit convey a view like, "We must put a halt to the utopia of globalization in the year of 2002 and tell another story on globalization which views it differently."

Tiffany Yeon Chae: Looking at the Korean artists in the fourth Gwangju Biennale, many of them were from Art Space Pool, Flying City, and had a critical view of urbanism. It was an exhibition showing works within the Forum A collective booth. What I want to convey is that the phenomenon of urbanization in Korea also reflected globalization, and through their participation in the exhibit, the artists showed and learned from each other's perspectives.

Furthermore, these practices were already in place in the Korean art scene, where art that sought to recover the value of publicness and community, and post-Minjung art practices, had already established a foundation. So, when the exhibition was held within this context, it was a great example of how the responses to globalization in other world cities interacted with the Korean context, causing a chemical reaction. In this regard, I believe Korean artists were responding to the flow of alternative globalization through their work.


Q&A

Tiffany Yeon Chae: Now, we would like to take some questions. If you have any questions, could you please raise your hand? Please pass the microphone to the person in the fourth row.

Audience 1: Hello, my name is Lee Junghyun, and I study philosophy and art at Yonsei University. First of all, I think this has been a meaningful opportunity to hear various discourses on a somewhat unfamiliar field, "Korean Art and Exhibition Histories." The question I had while listening to the lecture is about the field of curating. It seems that curating, as a comprehensive skill covering aesthetics and art history, is not yet fully accepted as an academic discipline. If this field were to be established as an academic discipline, I believe it could greatly support the professional status of curators, the preservation of various materials, and the research activities related to exhibition history. I have an optimistic expectation that this could help in many areas. What efforts would be needed for curating to be established as an academic discipline, and what processes could be followed to achieve this?

Jung Hyun: Globally, there aren't many places where curating is studied as a department or discipline. Of course, it exists in Korea, but still, since art encompasses everything from everyday life to the most sophisticated technologies, and transcends gender, continents, and even engages with supernatural or trans states, it's difficult to study just one academic field to fully understand it. I remember that Philippe Parreno, a French artist, had an exhibition at the Leeum Museum of Art. I wrote a review of it. I have liked Parreno's work ever since I studied in France, and his works are often on similar themes, but presented with subtle differences at various locations, talking about topics like the climate crisis or post-humanism. In my review, I wrote about Parreno's youth. He grew up in a city near the French Alps, where there was an art school and an experimental lab next to it, which served both as an exhibition space and a place where curating was taught. It was a place where students could experiment with many practices, while studying art theory and history. Dominique Gonzalez-Foerster, another artist, was his peer there. Both of them worked in a way where their artistic practices were deeply connected with curatorial methods. At the time, Philippe Parreno was a student and also worked as an engineer in a factory, dealing with technical aspects. In 1985, he visited the Immaterial exhibition at the Pompidou Center in Paris, which made him decide to become an artist. This happened back in the 1980s.

Looking at recent trends in the Korean art scene, I've noticed that many non-major artists are making their way into the field. Sometimes this is exciting, and sometimes it's daunting. I remember one artist in their late 20s, who suffered from severe narcolepsy, and had studied science. He worked on a project using his own narcolepsy as an experiment, but at first, no one accepted it. Then, I was judging a residency program, and he applied and was accepted. Now, he is working in Germany. This is an example of the inclusivity that visual arts can offer. Art is not made solely from tools, mediums, and technologies. It can transcend those and create interesting situations and events.

So, instead of creating curating as an academic discipline, I think, especially regarding media art, institutions like MMCA, which has a film and video department, and the Korean Film Archive, which has an archive, should collaborate with other institutions, creating a broad network that connects media works, technologies, and artists' activities. My response was too long already, so I'll stop here

Audience 2:  I would like to direct my question to Jang Seungyoun. As someone interested in book design and visual culture, I found the various examples of exhibition catalogs you introduced very engaging. While a catalog can be an everyday object, it can also be seen as a legacy that records past exhibitions or inaccessible works. From the examples you showed earlier, some designers seemed to approach catalogs as works of art in their own right. This makes me wonder whether catalogs be viewed as works of art, or remain categorized as everyday objects? How do you perceive the boundary between the two? Additionally, I'd like to ask whether you think this perspective affects the value or status of catalogs in the context of Korean art.

Jang Seungyoun: Thank you for your question. While there are many ways to approach this topic, my interest in the term "visual culture" stems from the fact that, even by its dictionary definition, art is included within visual culture. In other words, I view the term as expanding the boundaries of what we traditionally consider "art." I see the term "visual culture," conceptualized in the 1990s, as marking a decisive moment for broadening those boundaries. If exhibition catalogs in the 1990s were so experimental and served as a medium to creatively expand the themes of curators and creators, then your question "Are they catalogs or works of art?" is quite relevant. The direction of my research is not about assigning artistic value to catalogs or evaluating their worth beyond their role as archives or records. Rather, I'm more interested in how they fit into the framework of visual culture. For me, it's not a matter of definition.

In fact, this perspective isn't solely my own. Although discourse on visual culture hasn't fully developed in Korea, I see it as a series of diverse viewpoints aimed at breaking down boundaries, as demonstrated in visual culture discourses in the West. I'm often reminded of a statement by Keith Moxey, an art historian. He argued that visual culture studies don't seek to classify things as "art," "documents," or "posters" but rather view them as components of visuality, each with its differences, functions, and roles. This aligns with the concept of "alterity," which refers to unique characteristics. By framing visual culture in this way, we can appreciate its diversity without being overly concerned with defining boundaries.

Audience 3: My question is about how you perceive exhibitions. For example, can an exhibition be considered a medium or an art form? I'd like to hear your opinions. Earlier, Jung Hyun referred to exhibitions as artifacts, and I'd like to hear others' opinions on this matter. If possible, I'd like to hear from one curator from MMCA and one theorist. 

Bae Myungji: While each curator may approach exhibitions differently, I can only answer from my personal perspective. I consider exhibitions as a medium. Of course, the work of the artists and the ideas and concepts behind their creations are paramount. However, the process of organizing and assembling these works also generates stories that, in turn, become another form of art. For instance, as Jung Hyun mentioned earlier, the exhibition When Attitudes Become Form, which was recreated in Venice, which I saw myself, was not just a collection of works but felt like a single, unified piece. It embodied the curator's thoughts and discourse, functioning as a generative entity akin to a work of art. As we revisit exhibition histories and reinterpret past exhibitions, this act of reinterpretation itself feels like a generative process like an organism or a work of art. Thus, I view exhibitions as artifacts.