The Meaning of Postmodernism and Korean Art

Abstract

The author explicates various contexts of postmodern discourses in the West, as an effort to position Korean art and society within a ‘proper’ context of postmodernism. The author provides four categories of postmodernism 1) theory in American literature, 2) theory in art and architecture, 3) post-structuralist philosophy, 4) a symptom of post-industrial society. The author emphasizes Korea’s current status as “a third world nation” under a military dictatorship, and argues, therefore, that Korean art and culture cannot abandon humanist values and enlightenment ideals, because it is yet to resolve the problems of national division, class conflict, an authoritarian nation-state, and the cultural imperialism of the West.

Keywords:

• Korea
• contemporary art
• postmodernism
• postmodernist theory
• pluralism
• multinational capitalism
• New Criticism
• post-Marxism
• Neo-Expressionism
• Pop art
• Jacques Derrida
• Irving Howe
• Harry Levin
• Leslie Fiedler
• Ihab Hassan
• Jean-François Lyotard
• Robert Venturi
• Charles Jencks
• Bauhaus
• Daniel Bell
• Julian Schnabel
• Jürgen Habermas
• Neo-Expressionism

Notes

1 Matei Calinescu, Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avant-garde, Decadence, Kitsch, Postmodernism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987), 267.

2 Ibid., 41–42.

3 In Korea, however, these theories of social and philosophical postmodernity are usually called post-structuralism or deconstructivism and tend to be treated as marginal elements of postmodernism in literature and the arts. The term postmodernism in the US is related to post-structuralism, the postmodern, and post-industrial society.

4 ’Camp’ is a synonym of ‘kitsch.’ It means something is so childish or awful that it is rather beautiful.

5 Steven Connor, Postmodernist Culture: An Introduction to Theories of the Contemporary (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 111.

6 In Korea, however, as those who first introduced postmodernism were mainly from the literary world, the outdated postmodernism of American literature dominated the debate to an excessive degree, causing confusion with the 1980s theories of social and philosophical postmodernity. An extreme case can be seen in Kwon Taek-young’s forward in What is Postmodernism (Seoul: Mineumsa, 1990). Kim Wook-dong’s Understanding Postmodernism (Seoul: Moonji, 1990) is more objective than the latter, but still does not clearly differentiate the two areas. Kim Seong-kon’s “third choice” of rejecting the opposition between modernism and realism in postmodern literature in Korea during the 1980s makes a conclusion in advance, and selectively extracts and quotes from the post-structuralist theories of postmodernism (Lyotard and others), which is not directly related to literary theories of postmodernism (see Postmodernism and Contemporary American Novels,” Seoul: Yeol-eumsa, 1990). Postmodernism in American literature from 20 or 30 years ago was introduced in Korea in a highly exaggerated manner, because it shared the same name as the post-structuralism and theories of postmodernity that became internationally current in the 1980s (Lyotard, Baudrillard, Jameson), even though the two currents were quite different from each other. See Do Jeong-il, “Postmodernism—What is the Problem?,” Changbi (Spring 1991): 303–4.

7 Lyotard is known to have supported Minimal art and organized an exhibition of its works. Charles Jencks, who viewed the recovery of form and double coding as elements of postmodernism, criticized Lyotard for confusing late modernism with postmodernism. See Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991), 18.

8 Ibid., 125.

9 This categorization is based on Alex Callinicos’s Against Postmodernism. Though Callinicos divided postmodernism into three groups, the author believes that postmodernism in American literature has its own considerably unique history and, given its exaggerated introduction in Korea, will treat it as a separate category in this essay. Lyotard himself has divided postmodernism into three: ① architectural theory; ② doubt about faith in progress in Western society in the past 200 years; ③ new trends in art, literature, and politics. See Lisa Appignanesi ed., Post Modernism: ICA Documents (London: Free Association Books, 1989), 7.

10 Although there are similarities, Lyotard’s ‘rejection of totality’ (structuralist postmodernism) is not identical to the ‘rejection of reality’ in the postmodernist theories of American literature. Kim Seong-kon, who introduces postmodernism in American literature, specially researched similarities between the two and treats them as being similar (Kim, Postmodernism, 101); but such correlations are only an American phenomenon. For this refer to Andreas Huyssen’s article in Jeong Jeong-ho and Kang Nae-hee (eds.), Theories of Postmodernism (Seoul: Teo Publishing, 1989), 309 and ibid, “Postmodernism,” 303–4.

11 Translator’s note: efficient in clarifying its nature.

12 This kind of crossover of fields is seen in the works of Fredric Jameson (architecture, literature, consumption society, and so on) and Linda Hutcheon, in particular, which display extreme and unreasonable generalizations. Kim Wook-dong also points out this problem in Postmodernism and Art (Seoul: Chungha, 1991), 36.

13 C. Barry Chabot, “The Problem of the Postmodern,” in Zeitgeist in Babel: The Postmodernist Controversy ed. Ingeborg Hoesterey (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press), 35. Those who are concerned about and criticize the importation of postmodernism to Korea are excessively dependent on Fredric Jameson. His postmodernism as a cultural aspect of multinational capitalism is fundamentally different from Lyotard’s theory of postmodernism as the ‘end of grand narratives.’ In other words, it is difficult to discuss or overcome the postmodernism Lyotard presents optimistically by reference to Jameson’s theory, which criticizes the postmodern situation in America. The basis of Jameson’s view becomes weak once it leaves the US and also, since it is based on historical determinism, one needs to be particularly careful in accepting its theoretical criteria in Korea.

14 It is also called the October group after the name of the quarterly journal October, which was founded in 1976 and functioned as a principal site of their activities. Their well-known major publications include Hal Foster ed., The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture (Port Townsend, WA: Bay Press, 1983), Brian Wallis ed., Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation (New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art, 1984), and Hal Foster, Recodings: Art, Spectacle, Cultural Politics (Seattle, WA: Bay Press, 1985).

15 Foster, Recodings, 129.

16 Nancy Hartsock, quoted in Lucy R. Lippard, Mixed Blessings: New Art in a Multicultural America (New York: Pantheon Books, 1990), 12.

17 Victor Burgin, The End of Art Theory: Criticism and Postmodernity (New York: Red Globe Press, 1986), 198.

18 See Edward Harman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988).

19 Lippard, Mixed Blessings, 156.

20 This refers to Korean art only and is different from when Habermas criticized (in the philosophical sense) Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, and other post-structuralists by calling them ‘anti-modernists.’

21 Talchum (masked dance) and Madangguk (traditional performance art) could be examples of pre-modernism. However, in the strict sense, Levee deals with contemporary issues hence it cannot be simply deemed pre-modernism.

22 It has been pointed out that, in Japan, the lack of modernity should not be confused with postmodernism of the West (Masao Miyoshi and H. D. Harootunian, Postmodernism and Japan (Durham, NC: Duke Univerity Press, 1989), 11). There is also an argument that Japan went straight from the pre-modern to the postmodern without modernism (Fumio Nanjo, “Situation in Japan,” Third Text 6, 32). Both argue for the absence of modernity in Japan, which are worth referring to in the Korean context.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mo Bahc

Translated from Korean by Jeong-Yon Ha and Jieho Choi

Originally published as “포스트모더니즘의 의미와 한국미술,” in Cultural Change and the Response of Art Criticism (Seoul: Research Society for Art Criticism, 1993), 145-173.