On November 7, 2013, the seventh seminar of DOOSAN Curator Workshop III featured a presentation by Jeong Hwan Jo, who has conducted extensive research on “cognitive capitalism.” The seminar proceeded to develop into a wide-ranging discussion transcending the boundaries of art, life, and labor.
 
 
1) Korean Art Background and Trends of the 1980s and 1990s
Jeong Hwan Jo had previously researched Minjung (“People’s”) aesthetics at the Minjung Aesthetics Research Group Association and at the Culture and Arts Research Group Association. He began his lecture by explaining the background and meaning of Minjung aesthetics. When Minjung art first appeared in the 1980s?the era of industrial capitalism?physical labor and the body were at the center of production. However, in the 1990s, due to the collapse of socialism and the coming of the Third World, capitalists realized the limits of industrial capitalism and began to seek other alternatives. Through the establishment and financialization of corporations, a shift in the perception of “labor” emerged. Against this backdrop, Mr. Jo proposed the following as the most significant post-1990s transitions: (1) the laborer stratification of the intellectual class; (2) the injection of labor into information activities via venture businesses; (3) communication activities based on portal sites; and (4) non-material labor emphasizing the use of emotion. Utilizing the framework of these suggestions, he continued to discuss the importance and meaning of cognitive labor. Especially, he explained that the laborization of information activities and communication activities is deeply related to the isolation that contemporary artists feel.
 
2) Art-eschatology and Art-evolutionism
With regard to the changes that art underwent, Mr. Jo listed Marx and Lukacs as examples of followers of Hegel’s art-eschatology, and explained Marx’s interrelation of art and capital and the difference between industrial labor and art labor. Marx saw art as an activity arising from the self and from inner desires; thus, he considered art to be an activity that does not embody the “marketization” that arises from selling and buying. Therefore, he classified art activities and non-material labor as outside of the subject of analysis. Addressing this issue in the 1930s, Lukacs also explained that he agreed with Marx’s viewpoint on the position of art activities in his theory of the “capitalist hostility toward art.” Meanwhile, Walter Benjamin defended the flow of expressionism, which runs counter to Lukacs’ realism, and viewed the technical revolution in a positive light. Mr. Jo stated that Benjamin’s theories become an important basis of theoretical support when analyzing the process of the appearance of the “public” engaging capital and the other side of this process. He pointed out that this position is counter to Marx and Lukacs’ art-eschatology, and that it is one of art-evolutionism, which is an important theory and point leading the new current of art. Furthermore, he stated that the way one should assess this artistic actuality is an important issue.
 
3) The Laborization of Art Activities
Subsequently, Mr. Jo focused on the current situation, one in which distinguishing between technique and art is becoming difficult and the boundary between art activity and labor is murky. Moreover, the twentieth century’s avant-garde artists, including Situationist and Fluxus artists, are examples of those who pursued the art as livelihood, rallying against conservative stereotypes and knocking down divisions of genre. He pointed out that due to these inclinations, a winner-takes-all system is established in the current neoliberal competitive system, yet a problem emerges where a corresponding reward system is not available. The isolation that an artist senses emerges from this process. In conclusion, Mr. Jo emphasized that cognitive laborers, including artists, suffer experiences similar to these, and answered questions about the real-life situation where the labor of artists is neglected and denied recognition.
 
4) The Artist’s Condition 
Having drawn from his deep overall background in philosophy, art history, and economics to explain the current conditions, Mr. Jo utilized a question-and-answer format to delve deeper into the artist’s condition and existence. He asserted that as communication labor comes to the forefront and the face-to-face interaction between laborer and capital disappears, it follows that the artist’s attitude, awakening, and existential thought of becomes much more important. Mr. Jo pointed out that artists should think about the importance of the process of creative activities while recognizing themselves as artists, rather than thinking of themselves as laborers. Furthermore, he highlighted that as a condition of becoming artists, they should control their time themselves, and even in the opposite circumstance, they should find a way to overcome it. He further stated that art cannot be defined as being outside of our lives, since it is formed in the middle of a historical and social process. He closed the lecture by saying that since art is a realm that is only defined as being within our lives, the ambiguity of the point marking the boundary between artists’ lives and their art activities was a natural outcome.