1945–2009 Online Platform for Korean Modern and Contemporary Art

Change, Search, and Experiment: Ten Years of Korean Contemporary Painting

Change, Search, and Experiment: Ten Years of Korean Contemporary Painting Lee Yil Preface To trace the footprints of Korean art over the past decade may at first appear a relatively easy task, since the period still resonates vividly in our memory as a ‘lived past’. Yet when we attempt to apprehend and evaluate these years as a self-contained historical unit, and further to define their place in history, the task proves far more elusive – not least because the temporal distance required for historical assessment remains insufficient. What we call historical evaluation demands a certain degree of detachment in time; but the past decade remains firmly embedded in present realities, making it ‘a past in progress’ in which present and past coexist. What further obscures our historical vision is that the very age in which we live is one of accelerated movement. Contemporary art is no exception to this convulsive rhythm. At times, abrupt discontinuities resurface like an atavistic inheritance; at others, sudden shifts emerge as if by mutation. What may outwardly appear as rupture—an absence of historical perspective—may, in fact, conceal beneath the surface a deeper continuity of underlying currents that cannot be readily dismissed. In Korean art, even if transformations have not been as radically complex as elsewhere, the uneasy entanglement between the established and younger generations remains vividly present. Though often thinly layered and limited in scope, artistic expression encompasses diverse and sometimes contradictory tendencies, each asserting its claim to contemporaneity. Within such a tangled context, can one meaningfully articulate a dominant trajectory from the past decade of Korean contemporary painting? Perhaps, but if only the account were confined to a straightforward chronological narrative exclusively grounded in the available evidence. However, even the task of gathering and organizing the vast and still unprocessed body of material is itself daunting, and the subjective judgments inherent in selecting and excluding sources are unavoidable. With these conditions in mind, this overview of trends in Korean painting (Western-style) over the past decade will proceed according to the following method. First, the discussion will proceed chronologically, while also concentrating on those ‘movements’ that played a leading role in the development of contemporary Korean painting between 1966 and 1976. The concrete activities of these collective movements, along with the ideas and ideals they embodied, will be examined in relation to Korea’s historical and generational context and situated within the broader framework of international contemporary art. As a consequence, with only a few exceptional cases, individual artistic activities will be considered only in a limited way. It should be emphasized, however, that the term ‘collective movement’ refers not only to formally organized ‘groups’, but also to ideological and spiritual ‘kinships’ formed through individual practices that resonated with one another. 1. The Afterimage of Abstract Expressionism (1966–67) If 1957 is regarded as the year that Art Informel was introduced into Korea, then by 1966–67, a decade later, the prevailing tendencies of the art world were marked by the decline of Abstract Expressionism and by the inability, or relative absence, of a younger generation capable of moving beyond it. In effect, the Informel generation and the established artists associated with it, who had until then played a central role in shaping modern painting in Korea, had largely relinquished their earlier leadership, limiting their activities to the maintenance of the status quo. Meanwhile, the younger generation had yet to acquire the resources or confidence necessary to break through this inertia. This condition was clearly reflected in the Contemporary Art Exhibit organized by the Chosun Ilbo, which in 1966 reached its tenth iteration, despite not being held in the preceding or following year, and in the Congress for Cultural Freedom Invitational Exhibition (established in 1962). Both of these exhibitions, which had previously played leading roles in advancing modern Korean painting, at this point revealed symptoms of decline and stagnation. The generation of Abstract Expressionist painters who had once proclaimed a genuine avant-garde, even at an international level, together with the earlier generation of Abstraction Lyrique, could no longer maintain their position at the forefront. The global currents of contemporary art no longer allowed them to persist indefinitely in claiming an avant-garde stance. Yet, instead of responding to these shifts, they appeared largely indifferent, choosing instead to remain within, and even cling to, the stylistic frameworks they had previously established. If the emergence of Art Informel and action-painting in Korea can be understood as a response to the nation’s concrete historical circumstances, more specifically, as a manifestation of a pervasive existential crisis, then the movement must be recognized as a decisive turning point in the trajectory of modern Korean painting. The difficulty, however, was that the sharper and more urgent such expressions became, the more rigorously artists were compelled to cultivate an acute awareness of their contemporary reality. At the same time, they were challenged to articulate more autonomous visions and methodologies in response to that reality. In comparison with international developments, Abstract Expressionism had by this time already become an outdated idiom. Here, it would not be necessary to rehearse the problem of international simultaneity, nor are we unaware that Korea’s circumstances were inevitably subject to limitations in this regard. It must be stressed, however, that in every place and period the development of art unfolds according to its own intrinsic and dynamic ‘laws.’ To embody the dynamism of these laws is what generates the collective movement of an era or sustains the consistent pursuit of an individual painter. In Korea, however, the vigorous energy of Abstract Expressionism and of its leading figures around the early 1960s had, by the latter part of the decade, reached a state of stagnation, while revolving in place without any visible signs of transition or struggle for renewal. Two painters seeking a new transition Yet painting in 1966, at the threshold of the latter half of the 1960s, cannot be regarded as entirely stagnant. Importantly, in the tenth edition of the Contemporary Art Exhibit (1966), two painters—Ha Chonghyun and Chun Sungwoo—emerged as pivotal figures in the search for new directions. Their approaches stood in sharp contrast, both in formal composition and painterly style. To borrow terminology then unfamiliar within Korean abstraction but current in American discourse, Ha gravitated toward the so-called ‘hard-edge’ style, aiming for sharp geometric compositions of color planes. By contrast, Chun’s works revealed affinities with ‘color-field’ painting, as broad fields of interpenetrating hues spread across the canvas. Despite these contrasting approaches, what the two artists shared was a determination to reposition painting not as an arena for existential crisis or as a situational expression of the zeitgeist, but as an autonomous and bounded order—an objective world of its own. However, these attempts at new directions were not yet sufficient to form a collective trend. The legacy of Abstract Expressionism, already deprived of its initial vitality and any forward-looking tension, persisted largely by sheer inertia. The emerging experiments in painting had not yet created the conditions for new approaches to take root. Even in 1967, when both the Contemporary Art Exhibit organized by the Chosun Ilbo and the Congress for Cultural Freedom Invitational Exhibition were suspended, the second edition of 10 Korean Contemporary Painters revealed little more than a state of stagnation. Among the artists selected to represent Korea at the São Paulo Biennale, it was only Ha Chonghyun’s rigorous color-plane compositions and Youn Myeungro’s pop art–inspired concepts and techniques that offered even a faint sense of freshness. Meanwhile, among artists in around their thirties—the generation that succeeded the Informel painters—there began to emerge tentative signs of a post-Expressionist orientation. Notably, Choi Myoungyoung and Kim Tchahsup, both of whom were selected to represent Korea at the Paris Biennale, presented works that, though still confined to the stage of exploration, nevertheless signaled an interest in cultivating new formal languages of their own. Choi sought to sublate conventional Expressionist styles into more intellectual and geometric compositions, while Kim, at the same moment, introduced bright, unmodulated colors and evocative imagery into his compositions. Yet neither had attained a fully coherent visual language. Nonetheless, as 1967 drew to a close, the seeds of a decisive turning point in Korean contemporary art had already been sown, and by December of that year they would emerge in the form of Union Exhibition of Korean Young Artists. 2. Diffusion and Reduction (1968–70) The final two years of the 1960s may be regarded as marking another point of departure in the trajectory of contemporary Korean art. Previously, the general tendencies of this period have been characterized as the dynamic interplay between ‘diffusion and reduction’. This dynamic, however, should not be viewed solely within the context of Korean art; rather, it may represent a distinctive Korean response to broader global phenomena. This period may be understood as a second phase of engagement with global perspectives, succeeding the late 1950s, when younger artists first demonstrated a bold awareness of confronting global artistic trends. During this time, diverse modes of expression—at times seemingly contradictory—coexisted, as artists explored the rationale for their existence and sought to uncover fundamental meanings. Despite its temporal lag, this phenomenon appears to have corresponded with broader international trends. In the West, for instance, the waning fervor of Abstract Expressionism was followed almost simultaneously by the rise of Pop Art and the so-called Nouveau Réalisme. Concurrently, experiments were unfolding in Op Art and ‘hard-edge’ abstraction, as well as in Assemblage works known as ‘Junk Art’, and in attempts to transform everyday objects into conceptual or environmental forms. Art thus came to dismantle the boundaries that had traditionally separated genres, expanding into a state of ‘unregulated openness.’ At the same time, it moved toward a ‘reduction’ that sought to restore painting to its fundamental, inherent systems of form. The proposal of the designation ‘diffusion and reduction’ arose precisely from this line of thought. In Korea, the catalyst for this new phase was the earlier Union Exhibition of Korean Young Artists, organized by three groups that, while heterogeneous in character, joined together for a collective exhibition. The groups were Origin Fine Arts Association (Orijin), Zero Group (Mudongin), and Sinjeon Group (Sinjeon dongin). The Origin Fine Arts Association, which included Choi Myoungyoung, Suh Seungwon, Lee Seungjio, Kim Sooik, Shin Kiock, Choi Changhong, Lee Sangrak, and Ham Sup, consisted of painters belonging to the so-called “Generation of April 19 Revolution” and represented the cohort that directly succeeded the Informel generation. These artists shared, first and foremost, a common trait of anti–Abstract Expressionism, and secondly, they sought to consolidate this position in the direction of a planar, geometry-oriented aesthetic. It may be said that this orientation was first expressed in a collective form through Origin Fine Arts Association. In the Korean context, this form of ‘cool’ abstraction—at once constructive and planar-marked by fields of color that retained emotional resonance yet combined with simplified, lucid primary tones and what Clement Greenberg described as the ‘material openness of design’ and ‘linear clarity’ -did not appear to follow a distinctly consistent logic in its conception. Rather, it appears that these painters, without fully grasping the historical contexts or the conceptual particularities of the successive strands of geometric abstraction as they had developed in Europe and the United States, absorbed those diverse tendencies almost simultaneously and in largely sensorial terms. The Collective Emergence of Geometric Abstraction by Necessity In fact, there is no indigenous tradition of geometric abstraction in Korea. There was neither Piter Mondrian nor Kazimir Malevich, nor any direct encounter with Constructivist formal principles as mediated through the Bauhaus. Instead, what emerged—largely in reaction against geometric abstraction as it had developed elsewhere—was Art Informel, which forcefully asserted itself in the postwar years. "As a counter-reaction, the postwar ‘second generation’ moved toward a new pictorial order, once again seeking a unitary, homogeneous space. Yet recent abstraction in Korea goes further, rejecting even the constructive and painterly elements that had defined earlier forms of geometric abstraction. It also renounces the purely formal world to which Mondrian aspired, regarding his pictorial space as still constrained by the traditional dualism of ‘form and ground.’ When set against these Western contexts, one may question whether the Origin Fine Arts Association’s pursuit of a new formal order could genuinely overcome, or fully assimilate, the issues at stake. At the same time, these painters were shaped by the particular conditions of Korea’s own art-historical context, circumstances which inevitably imposed such limitations. Yet from this highly ambiguous position, and through equally ambiguous conceptions, the emergence of geometric abstraction in Korea as a collective movement was nonetheless the outcome of an undeniable necessity specific to our context. That necessity lay in establishing a formative order grounded in fundamental forms and a demand for visual clarity. On the other hand, the two other groups that participated in the Union Exhibition, namely Zero Group (Choi Boonghyun, Kim Youngja, Lim Dan, Lee Taehyun, Moon Bokcheol, Jin Iksang) and Sinjeon Group (Kang Kukjin, Yang Deoksu, Jung Kangja, Shim Seonhee, Kim Inhwan, Chung Chanseung), stood in sharp contrast to Origin Group. Grounded in the Dadaist spirit that underpinned Art Informel—namely, its ‘anti-art’ tendency—they openly declared a rupture with the realm of abstraction. Already in the early 1960s, Zero Group had staged a solo exhibition of object-based works with strong Dadaist inclinations, marking one of Korea’s earliest ventures into the new avant-garde. In the Union Exhibition, they continued to present everyday objects, rejecting the established boundaries of ‘art as art’ and dismantling the framework of conventional form. At the same time, they pursued new approaches to the objet, while making explicit their intention to return artistic practice to a point of origin. This position became both a challenge to art and an ethical provocation, calling for greater awareness of contemporary reality. Toward the Everyday and Environmental Integration of Art Finally, Sinjeon Group, the youngest generation among those in the Union Exhibition, appeared—unlike the rather negative orientation of Zero Group to accept urban realities and the environments they provided in a positive light. This group pursued more actively the integration of art into everyday life and into the environment. In doing so, they avoided both the lofty, rarefied stance of Origin Fine Arts Association and the cynicism of Zero Group, instead displaying a constructive disposition toward engaging with urban and everyday spaces. These tendencies defined the distinctive character of this younger generation of artists. Moreover, as 1968 unfolded, responding to the signal for change heralded by the Union Exhibition, the artistic scene began to display an unprecedented vitality from the very outset of the year. The start of the 1968 art season was marked by the Comprehensive Art Exhibition, a group invitational organized by the Korean Information Service Gallery, which had newly relocated to a site beside Deoksugung Palace that year. Both established groups and emerging collectives were invited to share this platform, yet the generational gap between them, at once ideological and sensorial, was evident. Representing the younger generation were the very three groups that had participated in the Union Exhibition of Young Korean Artists at the end of the previous year. Their presence in this exhibition affirmed their determination to pursue, with even greater vigor, the directions they had already set forth. Separate from the Comprehensive Art Exhibition, another strikingly fresh group emerged in the opening season of 1968, reaffirming that the Korean art scene was entering a new phase. This was the First Painting ’68 Exhibition, held in March. Its founding members were Kwak Hoon, Kim Kulim, Kim Tchahsup, Park Heeja, Yu Bukang, Li Jagyong, Cha Myeonghui, Ha Dongchul, and Han Gisu. Rather than presenting stylistic or ideological homogeneity as a group, the participating artists pursued the development of their individual idioms and aesthetic positions with greater breadth. Although the exhibition therefore lacked collective consistency, the fact that all its members as representatives of a new generation demonstrated fresh sensibilities and strong ambitions made it a particularly stimulating and inspiring debut. Although it is admittedly problematic to reduce the tendencies of these artists to a few categories, their principal orientations may be identified, in rough terms, as follows: an Op-art tendency (Kim Kulim); a color-field or imagistic tendency (Kim Tchahsup); a Pop-oriented tendency (Ha Dongchul); and lyrical abstraction, pursued by several of the women members. Among these, the works of Kim Kulim and Kim Tchahsup attracted particular attention. Kim Kulim may have been the first in Korea to assimilate the visual language of Op Art into his pictorial practice, employing meticulous calculation, method, and materials to produce works of considerable refinement. His plastic reliefs generated strong visual impact through the disciplined rhythms of patterned surface repetition. It may be argued that the addition of color contrast to the repetitive relief forms would have further amplified their intensity. By contrast, Kim Tchahsup pursued what may be characterized as a form of ‘New Imagism,’ developing a distinct pictorial mode. In his works, geometric lines alternated with rhythmic ones, across which vivid color fields extended. As these lines and fields dissolved into one another, they generated fluid silhouettes and highly suggestive images. Meanwhile, the Contemporary Art Exhibit —after skipping 1967 and returning in 1968 for its twelfth iteration—appeared to have undergone a significant renewal. Most notably, it featured an unprecedented number of younger-generation artists, a scale of inclusion never before seen in the history of the exhibition. At the same time, this very fact testified to a marked transformation in the landscape of the Korean art world. The clearest manifestation of this shift was the emergence of Op Art and geometric modes of expression, revealing the changing direction of the period. The Pitfalls of Homogeneity However, phenomena of this nature are not without their inherent pitfalls and such pitfalls are not confined to the younger generation alone. Instead, they have always existed as latent conditions within the very climate of Korean art. A salient example can be found in the Informel generation, where the danger lay precisely in the pitfalls of homogeneity. As noted earlier, geometric abstraction in Korea constituted a mode of expression lacking any deep-rooted logical necessity. Although engagement with this form of abstraction may be seen as justified within the developmental trajectory of modern Korean painting, what was lacking was the firm establishment of a systematic conception and methodology. In reality, however, there was no assurance that the younger generation would not simply repeat the very missteps of the Art Informel generation. At this point, it may be useful to turn outward to Sam Hunter’s classifications in Modern American Painting and Sculpture. In defining the anti-expressionist, or so-called “post-painterly” abstraction of the 1960s, Hunter identified several principal categories: Color-Field Painting: Represented by painters such as Kenneth Noland and Jules Olitski. Hard-Edge Painting: A term first introduced by critic Jules Langsner in the late 1950s, applied in particular to artists including Ellsworth Kelly, Al Held, and Frank Stella. Shaped Canvas: Works in which the canvas is treated not merely as an abstract plane but as an object in itself, often extending to the edges, whereby the painted surface acquires a relief-like, objecthood quality. Monochrome Painting: A tendency that assumed a decisive form in the work of artists ranging from Ad Reinhardt to younger figures such as Robert Mangold. Op Art: Brought to prominence in 1965 through The Responsive Eye, the exhibition organized by William Seitz at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Serial Art: A more recent development within abstraction, characterized by the systematic repetition of identical images or abstract forms in serial arrangements, resulting in works where variation across the surface is minimized or eliminated. Hard-edge abstraction’s inroads into the established generation For reference, one might also add the so-called school of ‘non-relational’ abstraction. Yet even without being explicitly identified as such, it may reasonably be subsumed within the six categories noted above. Sam Hunter’s classification can hardly be regarded as definitive; nevertheless, it illustrates the extraordinary diversity of new forms of abstraction that emerged in reaction against Abstract Expressionism from the 1960s onward. This is not to suggest that such classifications can be applied without modification to Korean abstraction, for it must be acknowledged that our own cultural and historical circumstances differ fundamentally from that context. Still, even allowing for these differences, it must be noted that constructive or schematic hard-edge styles of abstraction nonetheless emerged as a dominant current in painting. This occurred despite their lack of an independent pictorial vision at the level of conception, the absence of a corresponding methodology, and, above all, a striking poverty of individuality. And importantly, this was not a movement confined to the younger generation alone. In other words, this wave had spread even to the established generation. For example, in the Contemporary Korean Painting Exhibition, held for the first time at the National Museum of Modern Art, Tokyo (July–September 1968), the following artists participated: Byun Chongha, Choi Youngrim, Chung Changsup, Chun Sungwoo, Ha Chonghyun, Kim Foon, Kim Youngjoo, Kwon Okyon, Lee Seduk, Lee Soojai, Nam Kwan, Park Seo-Bo, Quak Insik, Lee Ufan, Yoo Youngkuk, Kim Chonghak, Kim Sangyu, Rhee Seundja, Yoo Kangyul, and Youn Myeungro (as listed in the exhibition catalogue). In this exhibition, Yoo Youngkuk’s expressionist abstractions, once dominated by the intensity of color, shifted toward compositions structured around geometric patterns and color fields. Kim Youngjoo’s canvases, previously characterized by impassioned brushwork, abruptly turned to schematic repetitions of triangular color bands. Chun Sungwoo’s formerly hazy, all-over surfaces, meanwhile, were redefined by straight lines that divided the canvas into large zones beneath layered fields of color. Even Park Seo-Bo, one of the strongest advocates and most representative figures of the Art Informel movement, presented works marked by lucid geometric compositions, in which verticals, horizontals, and diagonals intersected sharply, while color fields of strong contrast were set against one another. What distinguished his canvases, moreover, was a resolute, systematic spirit, lacking in the works of Ha Chonghyun, that endowed them with a uniquely balanced solidity. Park Seo-Bo’s shift in artistic direction is particularly noteworthy, not only because he had been one of the leading painters of the Informel generation, but also because his influence on his contemporaries was considerable. His exceptionally strong artistic personality, which had already distinguished him during the Informel period, can be assumed to have exerted a significant impact during the subsequent phase of geometric abstraction as well. Indeed, his transition affected many younger artists—whether consciously or not—and ultimately led to the formation of what might be described as a distinctively Korean “school,” that is, a stylistic group centered around a particular artist or manner of painting. Affirmation of Solidarity and Resistance to Homogenization However, to return once more to the case of Park Seo-Bo: as his transition from constructive abstraction around 1968 to the Illusion series presented in his solo exhibition Heredity (遺傳質) in the 1970s demonstrates, the overall current of the art world was by no means confined to a single trajectory of geometric abstraction. The Contemporary Art Exhibit of 1969, held the following year, proved instead to be a regressive and heterogeneous group exhibition lacking clear character, and the year as a whole saw no individual activity of significant influence. Yet if any collective movement emerged that outwardly expressed a sense of shared solidarity and a search for new possibilities, it was the founding of the AG Group (Korean Avant-Garde Association). (Founding members: artists— Kwak Hoon, Kim Kulim, Kim Tchahsup, Park Suk-won, Park Chongbae, Suh Seungwon, Lee Seungjio, Choi Myoungyoung, Ha Chonghyun; critics and theorists—Kim Inhwan, Oh Kwang-su, Lee Yil; listed in alphabetical order.) The original purpose of founding this association, which included art critics among its members, was to serve as the nucleus for a genuine avant-garde art movement within the contemporary art scene of the time and to become its ideological center. Accordingly, “AG” set as its primary task the establishment of a theoretical framework to define the coordinates of contemporary art, publishing a specialized art journal for this purpose (the first issue appeared in the same year, and the series ended with the fourth issue). Along with this, the group’s practical propositions took concrete form with the opening of the AG exhibition in 1970. This event marked another turning point in the Korean art scene. Around the same time, the Sincheje group held its inaugural exhibition in May, followed by a second in December, further reflecting the fervent enthusiasm and creative drive that characterized this period. (Members: Kim Soo-Pyung, Yun Geocheol, Kim Changjin, Lee Kangso, and Lee Jooyeong) In short, the founding of AG, the AG 1970 Exhibition, and the various group shows associated with its members—each in its own form—responded sensitively to the spirit of the times and, through the articulation of their independent artistic ideals, seem to have affirmed a sense of historical solidarity. These experimental propositions served to restrain the younger generation’s movements from lapsing into uniformity, while fostering new experiences of artistic creation and perception, thereby expanding the expressive range of Korean painting to an unprecedented degree. 3. The Current Situations and Prospects (1971–76) It was Michel Tapié, it is said, who once remarked that the era of collective artistic activity had already lost its validity. Yet such a claim can hardly be applied directly to the Korean context. On the contrary, collective activity, whether on a large or small scale, and the ‘shared ground’ underpinning it continue to be regarded as indispensable. Indeed, as if to confirm this, the early 1970s witnessed the emergence of numerous groups, many of which, as previously noted, were bound together by a sense of historical solidarity or by ideological commitments, each leaving its own distinct trajectory. Although it may not be especially necessary to enumerate in detail the rise and decline of all such groups, two in particular may be cited as representative examples in which the voices of the younger generation were articulated in a concentrated and relatively consistent manner: the ST (Space and Time) Group (founded in 1971 by Lee Kun-Yong, Park Wonjun, Kim Munja, Han Jeongmoon, and Yeo Un) and the Esprit Group (founded in 1972 by Kim Gwangjin, Kim Myeong-su, Kim Taeho, Noh Jaeseung, Yang Seung-ock, Lee Byungyong, Lee Ilho, Chun Kook-hwang, and Hwang Hyochang). The Esprit Group, moreover, created a broader forum for younger artists, staging the ambitious Exhibition of Contemporary Artists in Their Twenties (1973), which featured Kim Youngsu, Kim Juyeong, Kim Jinseok, Nam Sanggyun, Kim Taeho, Baik Kunnam, Eom Gihong, Yeo Myeonggu, Lee Dooshik, Lee Byoungyong, Lee Jongnam, Lee Ywanho, Lee Wonhwa, Lee Hyangmi, Hur Hwang, and Hong Minpyo. Alongside these, groups such as ‘Plane’, ‘Structure,’ and ‘Crosswise’ also engaged in notable activities in parallel. Taken together, the early 1970s constituted a period in which the Korean art scene, viewed from a broader perspective, was steadily working toward the genuine consolidation of contemporary art in Korea. The Groundbreaking “Independent Exhibition of New Faces” Coinciding with this period, the inauguration of Korea’s first Indépendants in 1972 carries epochal significance in the development of contemporary Korean art. Not in the sense of an official Indépendants modeled on the French precedent, but rather as a ‘truly independent exhibition for new faces,’ it marked a dramatic turning point in the landscape of Korean contemporary art. Admittedly, the exhibition inevitably entailed considerable trial and error and various constraints inherent in any initial attempt. Nevertheless, by the time it reached its second iteration in the following year, the exhibition had already evolved into a genuine forum for ‘young art’. Yet I would argue that there was an important stepping stone in this process of growth. This was the First Seoul Biennale, organized by the AG Association, which was held prior to the Second Indépendants in 1974. Although the two exhibitions differed in both title and organizational structure, they shared a common objective: to provide the younger generation with a platform through which freer, more creative, and more individual expressions could be articulated within a collective context. Building on these two group exhibitions in 1974, the following year witnessed the opening of both the École de Seoul exhibition and the Seoul Contemporary Art Festival. In the present year, these two exhibitions, along with the Indépendants, now in its fourth iteration, have continued to be held. To this, one may add the establishment in 1974 of the Korean Young Artists' Association, founded primarily by younger sculptors and continuing to pursue sustained collective activity. Taken together, these developments amount to the advent of a veritable ‘spring and autumn period’ of group exhibitions in Korea. At the same time, however, it should not be overlooked that such phenomena inevitably entail a number of complex issues. In other words, these successive group exhibitions, regardless of their form, must not assume a ‘power-oriented’ bias. Fortunately, such partiality, at times bordering on the very homogeneity that should have been resisted, appears to be gradually diminishing. This is an encouraging development, whether considered from the perspective of collective tendencies or from that of individual artistic practices. Moreover, it is particularly noteworthy that, in both the reception of contemporary art and the interpretation of our own indigenous traditions, these works strongly convey a consciousness of active engagement. This, I believe, makes the prospects for the future all the more promising. It is widely recognised that we must be especially careful today about attempting to interpret the diverse tendencies of Korean art through frameworks shaped by Western concepts. Moreover, the very term ‘conceptual art’, or what it ideologically signifies, in fact implies a fundamental re-examination of established artistic notions. This is all the more relevant given that, in Korea, we have yet to reach a clear definition of ‘contemporary art’ itself. As a result, the expression ‘conceptual art’ may still sound somewhat misplaced or unfamiliar. Yet from our present perspective, it would seem that the time has come to articulate our own definition of the concept of art. In this regard, the impact of Lee Ufan through both through his works and his theoretical writings on the Korean art world since the 1970s must be regarded as highly significant. The decade of the 1970s has now entered its latter half. Looking back once more on the art world of the past ten years, it is evident that substantial transformations have taken place. Beyond the limitations of the ‘movements’ discussed in this essay, several painters now approaching their late forties are revealing new pictorial worlds. At the same time, in contrast to these developments, a number of younger artists who are indifferent to the ‘eye’ of the general public are engaging in experimental practices. Ideologically and methodologically, their orientations span from Lao-Tzu (老子) and Chan-Tzu (莊子) to structuralism, each asserting its own foundations. To schematically unify the present situation of Korean art, shaped by such divergent tendencies, would seem an impossible undertaking. Today, however, it can be asserted with confidence that Korea now possesses artists who are even capable of manifesting genuine individuality on the international stage, while the younger generation likewise exhibits comparable artistic potential. Collectively, these developments suggest that the prospects for contemporary Korean art are becoming increasingly broad and promising. *Source: Lee Yil, “Change, Search, and Experiment: Ten Years of Korean Contemporary Painting,” Space (November 1976): 42–48.