Democratization and museum policy in South Korea

ABSTRACT

This article examines the two distinct historical policy paths taken by the South Korean government in the late twentieth century towards the democratization of museums. One was based on the creation of a museological public sphere as an extension of the political democratization movement of the 1980s. This demonstrated the potential to become a valuable component of the wider incipient national public sphere within which civic subjects could discuss their individual and collective historical memories. However, despite this potential, a museological public sphere failed to influence the general trajectory of national policy regarding the democratization of museums that had been in development since the early 1980s. This other policy path towards cultural democratization was triggered by the award of the Seoul Olympics in 1981. It was based on public participation and entitled the ‘cultural Olympics’. An important strategy of the cultural Olympics was the construction of a new institutional infrastructure to expand the public right to enjoy culture. This path facilitated an increasing entanglement with neoliberalism in 1990s. Finally, the 1997 IMF crisis furthered the association between a superficial idea of democratization through institutional expansion and the practices of neoliberalism, a trend which continues within South Korean museum policy today.

KEYWORDS:

• Democratization
• public sphere
• cultural right
• cultural Olympics
• neoliberalism

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. As a former officer in the Japanese army, Park Jung-Hee witnessed Japan on a war footing in the 1930s, which made the promotion of heavy industry a top priority and which he saw as the best method for the reconstruction of Korea. Park firmly believed that Korea should learn from the Japanese ‘total mobilization regime’ (Kang and Hyun 2010; Park 1961). For this purpose, he sought to encourage social revolution based on remodelling supposed ethnic characteristics and the spiritual reconstruction of the Korean people, according to elements he judged to be the most important for achieving the modernization of the nation (Im 2012; Jung 2005).

2. This plan could not be realized because of resistance from within the field of art history. It was settled by establishing a national museum that was exclusive to the contemporary arts and separated from antiques in 1969 and relocating the national museum in 1972 (Lee 2002b).

3. The scope of this ministry’s responsibilities included the dissemination of wholesome national entertainment, the creation of artwork concerning the achievements of the military revolutionary government, the distribution of educational books and films, the promotion of culture and the arts, the active participation of culture and arts’ associations in public events for propaganda, the assistance of art events for students and children, and the introduction of national culture and art overseas (Yoo 2012).

4. The Museum Act was finally appointed at the National Assembly as prevalent public opinion held that it had been a ‘shame for a cultured people’ not to have a Museum Act in ‘a nation rich with historical relics and steeped in history’ (Dong-A Daily, January 27, 1978).

5. In accordance with the second clause of Article 61 within the act, the national and local governments held the power to promote, consign, or enforce a commemoration service in partnership with public institutions and private organizations.

6. The popular culture industry, specifically films, popular music, and the television industry, rapidly evolved due to an influx of foreign content. Merchandise from the global cultural industry flowed into Korea through legal/illegal markets and became part of the young generation’s everyday enjoyment. The government could no longer stem the tide of this cultural phenomenon although the ethics of this culture were considered to be unfavourable. In fact, young people were so fascinated by popular culture that Hollywood films, pop songs and even Japanese popular culture, which was officially prohibited due to the colonial experience, were enthusiastically received through an underground market.

7. The term ‘democracy’, which was prohibited in the realpolitik of Korean society, was frequently used in culture-related terms such as cultural democracy or the democratization of culture (Oh 1995).

8. When the Museum and Art Gallery Support Act was enacted, a question was raised with regards to the issue that individual small museums could not be registered because the registration condition was uniformly defined. To solve this issue, the amended law ‘enabled individually managed small museums to have legal benefits and support [which] allowed [them] to easily establish museums by easing facility standards’ (Mae-Il Economy Newspaper, September 21,1990). Additionally, public opinion at the time registered a positive response towards the amendment in general (Kyung-Hyang Newspaper, March 4, 1991; Mae-Il Economy Newspaper, December 25, 1992; Kyung-Hyang Newspaper, December 12, 1992; Han-Gyo-Re Newspaper, January 29, 1992). However, there were also voices concerning problems such as the illegal dealing in museum collections, the abuse of tax benefits, satisfaction of registration conditions through expedient measures, and a decline in the professionality and quality of museums. (Han-Gyo-Re Newspaper, March 12, 1992; Mae-Il Economy Newspaper, March 12, 1992; Han-Gyo-Re Newspaper, May 10, 1992).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korean Government (MEST) [NRF-2018S1A6A3A01081183].

Notes on contributors

Sohyun Park

Sohyun Park is currently an assistant professor at the Department of Digital & Cultural Policy, Graduate School of Public Policy and Information Technology, Seoul National University of Science & Technology. After receiving her Ph.D. in cultural management and museology at the University of Tokyo, she was appointed as the senior research fellow at the Korea Culture and Tourism Institute and moved to her current position. She has published several articles and books including: ‘The public administrative reforms of “Small Government” and the publicness of the art museum – on art museum policies in Japan’ (2015), ‘Where is the court of art?: arts and bureaucracy’ (2016), ‘Demographic turn of cultural policy and the status of artists’ (2017. In Korean), and Museum as Battlefield (Tokyo: Brücke 2012. In Japanese).

Hang Kim

Hang Kim is currently an associate professor at department of cultural anthropology and the Institute of Korean Studies, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. Since the completion of his Ph.D. in Cultural Studies and the Intellectual History of Modern Japan/Korea, he has been at his current position. His recent publications include: ‘The commemoration of the Gwangju Uprising: of the remnants in the nation states’ historical memory’ (2011), ‘Universalism and colonialism: reconsidering postwar democracy in Japan’ (2016), A threshold of the Japanese empire (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2010. In Japanese), and The history of thoughts in the Japanese empire (Seoul: Changbi, 2015. In Korean).