The second seminar of DOOSAN Curator Workshop III was presented on July 9th, 2013 by Young Min Moon, an art critic and artist whose exhibitions, writings, and artwork all reflect a particular reality of Korea. The Workshop participants were particularly interested in learning about his curating philosophy and writings stemming from his personal experiences, as well as about his viewpoint towards Korean society.

1) Beyond Time and Space, and the Experience of his Prior Year in Korea
Young Min Moon’s experience as a visiting professor in Korea is somewhat unusual because he left Korea in the mid-1980s and subsequently spent an extended period of time in North America before coming to Korea as a visiting professor. Although his comprehensive experience is limited, for purposes of comparison, to North America and Korea, he said that he feels the sensitivity toward trends in all aspects of Korean life was, and is, the same before and after his immigration. He reasons that Korean is superficially diversified, but it is actually confined to a certain standard. Also, he finds thereality of Korea?one that creates new trends and solely visible outcomes while being utterly indifferent to history, the essential, the unseen, and things that cannot be converted to economic value?to be very regrettable. With regard to Korean contemporary art, Moon noted that representative artists of the 1980s and 1990s revealed their distinct styles and individuality in their work, but the characteristics of post-2000s artists represent physical or existential “lightness,” rather than any specific style. Further, he pointed out the “weakness of structure” prevalent in the Korean art scene, and he singled out the weakness of criticism as one of its causes. He argued that the Korean art scene needs to address not only the issue of vulnerable academic criticism, but also the absence of journalistic criticism and issues associated with writing fees and copyright; in other words, that there is a need for earnest criticism.

2) The Exhibition Incongruent: Contemporary Art from South Korea and the Method of an Exhibition
While in North America, Moon recalled memories of the violence and suppression that he had experienced in Korea, and in the process of curating Incongruent: Contemporary Art from South Korea, he sought to suggest that Korean modern history is relevant to the history of America, and also sought to evoke a dialogue addressing modernism and colonialism through the exhibition. Although there
was a budget issue when organizing the exhibition, he intentionally did not include paintings and sculptures, which he considers the vestiges of modernism, and instead composed the exhibition solely with photographs and videos. The exhibition method in Incongruent focused on the expression of temporal importance and geographical factors. In terms of temporal importance, he utilized the frames of
the Korean War and the democracy movement; with regard to geographical factors, he dealt with Dongducheon, the DMZ, the United States, and so on. Furthermore, Moon attempted to sublate national boundaries and cultural exoticism and break down stereotypesheld by viewers.
Moon asserted that the most crucial factor in curating is to start from the point that a curator is the most interested in. In his own case, he has conducted his discourse based on his interest in how both the violence that he experienced in his youth and the experience of trauma that is rampant in society carry weight and influence, and has chronicled this story through his curating activities and writings.

3) Issues Associated with Korean Art in the 1990s
Moon explained the value of examining why a distinctive form of art conjoining a democracy movement and art movement exists. Specifically, Moon emphasized the inherent contradiction in Minjung Art’s rapid change from being a target for political persecution to the target of national art museum collections and gallery exhibitions; in other words, the necessity of an analysis that understands the
complex contradictoriness within Minjung Art. He also pointed out the possibility, following a dispute on postmodernism, of interpreting art within a wide range of visual culture, and also discussed the long-awaited acceptance of photographs as a form of art, as seen in various biennials. Last but not least, he discussed the need to inquire whether global art is even feasible within the numerous international viewpoints and re-localizations that characterize biennials today.

4) Failure and Korean Art
Moon’s stance on Post-Minjung Art is ambivalent. He believes that the political characteristics of the 1970s-1980s and the current neoliberal atmosphere are clearly different, but while a connecting point certainly exists, there is simultaneously a severing point. Meanwhile, he believes that the issue of identity, that is, the inquiry about complex and heterogeneous identities, is still valid today. He discussed how one contradictory circular structure?in which Korea, which was formerly a weak power against Japan and the United States, later became a dominant power against Vietnam and used violence against it, but due to the Korean Wave, Vietnam is now emulating Korea?illustrates the necessity of cooperating with “the Other.”

Finally, Moon’s experience of guest editing a special issue of the online photography criticism journal Trans Asia Photography Review titled “The Aftereffects of War in Asia: Histories, Pictures, and Anxieties” left the participants with many points to contemplate. This special issue reveals through photographs and their related essays how, in the many Asian countries that have experienced war, the trauma of war remains, and this collective trauma is not limited to one country, but is rather interconnected within multiple countries. The participants agreed with Moon’s observation that “whatever remains, it is clear that war and violence do not ‘end’ as such.” Considering our own reality, in which Korea is still a divided county and technically in a state of war, it is apparent that a fear of war remains with us today.