Appetite for Destruction: Modernist Architecture in Contemporary Korean Art

“Appetite for Destruction” is one of the most famous paintings by Robert Williams. This provocative painting, depicting a robot rapist, who is about to be attacked by a mysterious satanic monster, was featured as the cover for the Guns N’ Roses’ 1987 debut album of the same name. Undoubtedly, the cover put the album at the center of controversy and it was finally moved to inside the jacket. Although I was a great fan of the Guns N’ Roses’ music in the late 1980s through early 1990s, I did not pay much attention to this picture, because then I thought that it was too revolting to have an eye contact with. But, after two decades, I find the image quite fascinating, since it shows the artist’s metaphoric criticism on the widespread destruction in the machine age, which had been glorified in the name of modernization, and the harmful aftereffect that harasses human race.

In recent years, I have noticed that many contemporary Korean artists present works that share Williams’ reflection on machine culture or, in other words, modernization. Among them, in particular, I am interested in those who take architecture as the subject matters of their art, because, as the current cityscape of Seoul proves, Modernist movement left a significant visual legacy to the field of architecture in Korea, and I think it is only natural that artists direct their attention to this social history.

Korea was never the precursor or the leader of the international Modernist movement, but rather, Modernism was accepted as the filler of the chasm between the Korean people’s abandonment of indigenous culture and the aspiration to join the global community in the 1970s and 1980s. However, it can be said that Korean Modernism has its own aesthetics, distinguished from the international style, since some transformation occurred when it was combined with existing material culture. As seen in Kim Sang Gyun’s “The New Castle,” a series of cement building models which consist of an assemblage of the facades of actual buildings in Korea, the western architectural style was imported and actively accepted by the nation without criticism. As a result, even the most historical part of Seoul, such as Jongno, lost the patina as an ancient city, and the whole scenery was replaced with a new hybrid style, which erased the local identity.

It is also noteworthy that Modernism was introduced to Korea just as formal style, without the philosophy and theories behind the movement being considered. It was a political decision towards growth-oriented economy, rather than a utopian desire to create a better world, that motivated Korea’s modernization. As a result, modern architecture in Korea hardly contributes to urban planning nor serves as organizational solution for lower classes in society. Rather, modern skyscrapers erected next to old structures often create a chaotic street atmosphere and the cell-like apartments equipped with the latest technology and interior decoration tend to be the most expensive housings sought after by the upscale.

 

There are some artists of young generation who directly deal with this contemporary cityscape in their work. A photographic artist, Kim Sang-gil, captures ordinary buildings and street scenes that we see in our everyday life, and a painter, Kim Soo-young, fills her canvases with the detailed images of modern buildings in Seoul. The locations and the buildings that appear in their works are all familiar to Koreans, but at the same time, we feel strange to the view of their pictures. Certainly, they would have their own statement on the legacy of Korean modernization, but they cleverly disguise it under the cool and intelligently picturesque surface. Instead of having empathy with what has been happening in our society, they are observing it from a distance and presenting an uninterested view.

 

The last artist on my list is Lee Bul. Over the past 20 years, she has produced visually stunning yet theoretically provocative works. In the early stage of her career, she presented works demonstrating her strong feminist viewpoints, often using her own body as the subject as well as the medium. But, in the course of time, Lee has turned to create conceptual sculptures, and recently, she presented the works taking forms of architectural models. In a 2007 interview with Chosun Ilbo, she explained that her recent productions, especially the ones presented at her solo exhibition at Fondation Cartier, were her “architectural expression on the distorted ideal of Modernism.”

As an artist who has renown for being international, Lee expands her probe on Modernism into the global level. Through her work, she unfolds her knowledge and interpretation on the works by Modernist architects, such as Vladimir Tatlin and Bruno Taut, and at the same time connects it with Korea’s modern history, especially that of military regime. Although she transformed her work from human body to architecture, one big consistent subject underlying her entire practice is “the deep-seated human drive toward vainglorious ambition and the repercussions of inevitable failure.”[1]

 

Modernism’s grand ambition and its legacy have been credited with bringing remarkable progress in the global community and equally criticized for destructing the traditional culture and heritage. In Korea, the criticism can be more serious because the modernization of the society was not a voluntary and well-thought-out movement but the tide it had to follow during the political upheaval. In this sense, it is noteworthy to take a look at the modern landscapes depicted in the above works, because they remind us of what our society has been through in the past, enlighten us on the contemporary artists’ contributions towards redefining our culture and history, and inspire us to ponder on what we could and should do in the future.

YOO Sengeun Euna

---

[1] HG Masters, “Lee Bul: Wayward Tangents,” Art Asia Pacific, No. 56 November/December, 2007, p. 133

Santiago Sierra – Making Political art and making art political

From paying unemployed men for letting them tattoo a line across their backs to paying people to masturbate, Spanish artist Santiago Sierra rarely fails to create outrage. His actions based on Marx’s discussion of the value of labor and exchange are for sure accepted in art society. However, when inviting a German audience to don gasmasks and walk through a former synagogue pumped full of car exhaust fumes, he seems to have crossed a line.

The artist transformed a former synagogue in Pullheim-Stommeln near Cologne into a gas chamber. He installed long plastic tubes to funnel the toxic fumes into the synagogue from six running cars parked outside. Visitors who had to wear gas masks to protect themselves could enter the site one at a time and stay for only a few minutes accompanied by a fireman. 245 cubic meters, a title which refers to the volume of the former synagogue, was finally and not surprising shut down by officials of the town of Pullheim-Stommeln after protests from the Jewish community in Germany. Stephan Kramer, secretary of Germany’s central Jewish council, displayed his disagreement and offense with the work in his statement:

   “Anyone who thinks it’s art to simulate a ‘gas chamber’ via highly toxic car exhaust  fumes in a former synagogue attempting to convey supposed authenticity is hurting not just the dignity of the victims but also that of the Jewish community. This has absolutely nothing to do with a culture of remembrance. It’s a scandal. It’s an unbelievable provocation at the expense of Holocaust victims.”

 

Sierra reacted by stating that with this work he hoped to raise awareness about “the banalization of the Holocaust” as well as “the industrialized and institutionalized death through which European people lived and still live in the world.”

 

Previously, the synagogue has been transformed by artists like Richard Serra, Rosemarie Trockel, Carl Andre, and Rebecca Horn, while the Synagogue itself has not been used for religious purposes since it was closed abd seized by the Nazis almost 80 years ago.

 

Frankly, I do understand the point of view of Sierra as well as the Jewish representative. I also understand that any reproduction of the heinous acts commited during the Holocaust will not be welcomed, in particular not by a well argumented and educated community like the Jewish in Germany – as a contrast to other groups like homeless people or prostitutes that Sierra has worked with in other projects. Yet, apart from the sensitive issues of Jewish and German communities, there is also a huge amount of critique against Sierra based on also other angles and collisions of interest. When looking into the reactions on the work, I was interested in many types of comments but I focused on a certain group of replies.  

 

I looked for certain angry and anonymous comments of his work. I’m not sure that whether people who commented are related to art or not. I have to assume they are sincerely interested in his work or art itself and want to share what they think and feel. But my main concern is when those people, randomly found on Internet,  critizises Sierra’s  work, many of them were emotionally focused on the “huge queues” waiting for the thrill of a “ride of death” in the presence of firefighters.

 

This critique did not consider so much the historical, economical, cultural or race issues and  also intended at insulting Santiago Sierra, without giving consideration to his bold approach running the risk of trivializing the Holocaust. I’m convinced these people also hate his other works.

 

When entering the empty space of the synagogue, visitors probably faced the immediacy of their own death, experienced the claustrophobia of a gas chamber behind their masks and could imagine the fragility of life. They surely felt the fear and were touched and deeply impressed individually. But the anonymous reactions from the internet found that Sierra was abusing the German with his work which they found very impure, mean, brutal, amoral, violent and harsh.

For me, these responses are just ways of showing dissatisfaction or complaint, while not having much values as judgements. Sierra’s main purpose of work is not primarily to create empathy for the victims. Maybe that is a side-effect of the work. But by making this a ”living” museum of death, we are provoked to face the gross injustices at the hand of capitalism in our own society.

   After reading people’s comments, I had an epiphany: in regards of Sierra’s work, there are two kinds of people in the world. On the one hand people in the art society, who accept his work and discusses it with very little attachment, and then on the other hand people feeling unjustified and who do not belong to the art world.

 

Still, this work by Sierra is a very poignant and powerful look into what so many Nazi victims went through. But it also seems like the purpose of the piece is to create controversy, and this purpose was certainly attained.  I also believe he wanted to avoid reactions only coming from the usual suspects, professionals that stand ready to comment on any artistic works. Within Sierra’s artistic context, we can understand that he doesn’t care about the feelings of people volunteering to take part in his work for usually an economical compensation. He might not even take the opinions of the Jewish community too seriously.

 

Then, Why did Sierra back off when the representatives of the Jewish community said ‘pull out!!!’? To defend his reasons to back off, his personal opinion can help explanation. In person, while Santiago Sierra considers his work as being politically driven, he is ultimately content with simply bringing specific situations from the world into focus. He believes that there is no possibility that we can change or avoid anything with our artistic work in the context of reality:

”We do our work because we are making art and because we believe art should be something, something that follows reality. But I don’t believe in the chance of change.”

 

In this statement he separates the art world from the real world. Probably many of his critics want to connect these two worlds again. To be precise speaking, his work does not cross or intend to cross the line between art and reality, and this work is not an exception.

 

It seems like this work crosses the line between art world and real world only on condition that it reality is be regarded as a part of the work. To sum up, when considering this work itself, it stays within the confines of formal art. However, when considering the vast comments, it crossed the line on the Internet between people inside of the art world and people outside of the art world, where people don’t read them formally.

CHO Ikjung

 

 

 

 

 

The Development of Contemporary Korean Photography and Kim Atta

 

 Although photography is still a new genre in Korea, over the recent years Korea has produced some internationally acclaimed artists. Names such as Bae, Bien-U, Koo, Bohn Chang and Kim Atta have become familiar to both the Korean and international collectors. These artists have contributed considerably in transforming the fundamental contemporary photographic tendencies of Korea.

 Like all Korean art forms that developed over the course of many generations the original influence was received in an indirect method, in other words it was forced upon the nation through the control of another culture and the evolvement was not in accordance with the will of the Korean people. Until the beginning of the 20th century, Korea had limited exposure to the outside world and it was only then, that Korea opened its ports to foreign countries. As a result developments in photography at the time were basic, consisting of portrait images and documentations.

 During the Japanese occupation, the Japanese amateur photographic competitions and the 1958 exhibition “Family of Man” were the most influential events and they affected many photographers infatuated with realism. The interesting fact is that this tendency continued until the 1980’s. So even after independence, aesthetical photography that we know of today did not actually exist.

 Transitions in contemporary Korean photography did not occur until the latter part of the 1980’s and it is only then that photography progressed, moving away from the stereotyped nude images, documentations, in addition to other photographic forms based on realism. The change is owed much to a group of emerging new photographers, who set the tendencies in this field for generations that followed.

 Today, the field of photography has become versatile in terms of artists and their methods of expression, with funds from different channels, and other introduced extensively by the central government of Korea. As a result the nation soon experienced a renaissance of photography.

 The last 10 years has seen Korean photography expand actively to establish exchanges with international art organizations. An exhibition of contemporary Korean photography was organized for the Houston FotoFest in the year 2000. This exhibition was the first to actually represent Korea as a nation, in front of many internationally acclaimed curators. Until then, only a few artists represented their works internationally through solo exhibitions.

 Recently contemporary Korean photography has been shown in Denmark (Odense Photographic Festival), Australia (ACP Sidney) and in Germany. This international phenomenon has allowed more people to study and expose themselves outside Korea. Another factor which has enabled Korean photography to progress is the increase of exhibitions on renowned photographic works by foreign artists such as Thomas Ruff and Kandida Höfer, showing in Seoul.  

 Korea still has a long way to go as the majority of Korean photographers are largely distanced from the main flow of international photography. The issue that we are presently confronted concerns finding specialists who can bridge the gap between Korean and international photographic scenes. This is crucial and high in demand. Similarly, it is important for international specialists in the field of photography and exhibitions, to have an open mind, whilst taking an interest in different cultures so that Korean works can also be considered as part of their promotional venue.

 

 

The Photographic Works of Kim Atta

 

 If the photograph of Bae Bien-U is a subjective interpretation of trees, and if Koo Bohn Chang’s is a painterly experimentation using the camera, then how can one sum up the photographic works of Kim Atta? With the precision coming from his engineering background, Kim Atta is a master at manipulating his “byproducts” technically. His photographs are his subjective view on life’s philosophy and the name “Atta” in itself describes his outlook on life and art.

 “Atta” is the photographer’s philosophy condensed into one word, meaning “myself” (“a”) simultaneously as insinuating all that is beyond the subjective self, ”another person” (“ta”).

 Although Kim, Atta did not study photography academically, his interest began from his youth. He enjoyed experimenting with the camera as a tool and in his college years, he took abstract images.  This developed into taking pictures of people with different backgrounds and time spans.

 Kim Atta’s inspiration comes mainly from the concept of interconnectedness in Zen Buddhism as clearly depicted in his early works where he makes a direct, primary interpretation of this conception. He is also influenced by the writings of the German philosopher, Martin Heidegger and the ideas on transcendence stressed by Russian-Armenian mystic G.I. Gurdjieff.

 Despite the fact that Kim Atta is not a practicing Buddhist, he uses the prevalence of Buddhist iconography and concepts in his work. In his early works this phenomenon is clearly evident but over the course of several years, his work changed considerably. The themes of interconnectedness and ephemeral reality remains present in the photographs, yet the method he uses to resolve his subject matters have become highly refined and almost too polished.

 His mastery in long camera exposures and layering of different human images, create unusual almost uncomfortable effects. When standing in front of Kim Atta’s photograph, one cannot help but become mesmerized. Not because the image is aesthetically pleasing to the eye but because the subject matter is often intriguing, going beyond anyone’s imagination.

 Kim Atta’s photographs are certainly original and interesting. At times they appear like visual sculptures. From laying naked bodies down on open fields to placing them in transparent plexiglas boxes, to sculpting icons with ice, the ideas and conceptions are definitely beyond what we are familiar with.

 Kim Atta has gained international recognition and his work is collected widely by an international audience. He was the first photographer chosen to represent Korea in the 25^th Sao Paulo Biennale, in 2003. His work has been exhibited in the USA, Germany, Singapore, Korea and many more countries around the world.

CHO Hyeyoung