탈정치화된 영역의 공공적 예술 행위

Public Art Activities in the De-Politicalized Domain - “Other” Methods of Art Participating in the Community

We have a tendency to consider art as something limited to a personal field of art activity by a private subject. But in this paper, I intend to show how certain artists are overcoming private art and realizing the public dimension in a dialectical sense by redefining and reforming their private characteristics through their works, thereby “intervening/participating” in the public domain, In short, the theme of discussion is the “publicness of private art intervening/ participating in the public domain.” At a time when the absorption of avant-garde art in the art market is considered a matter of course, artists’ dissolute practice becomes moderate aesthetical collectibles of art museums, and urban public art projects organized by the central government or local self-governing bodies are widespread, ""where"" to practice is a crucial issue for artists, in addition to “how” to practice. Therefore, in terms of topics, I want to discuss works by Korean contemporary artists that do not belong to-or are believed not to belong to-the following categories: plastic art defined by conventional aestheticism, public art as a genre of fine art, and large-scale art events for an unspecified number of the general public (for example, biennales, blockbuster exhibitions, festivals and exhibitions organized by local governments for the sake of tourism or cultural education, etc.) Prior to the main discussion, the following is an example of detailed topics and cases. 1. Mixrice, a project team formed in 2001 in Bucheon, Gyeonggido, has dealt continuously with the issue of (illegal) foreign migrant workers, What is important is that the artists do not appropriate the migrant workers as art, Rather, Mixrice intentionally works with non-aesthetic and non-subjective form and content based on the aesthetic standards of plastic arts. Focusing on the art practice of Mixrice up to 2009. I will discuss the theme of “Korea’s reality of multi-culture society and other-oriented art for sustainable community.” 2. Through Park Chan-Gyoung’s art I want to discuss the conditions and possibilities according to which art that is theoretically so extreme that it appeals only to the minority, and art that consists of opinions on today’s politics and contents critical of history, may form a field for public discussion. In the case of Park Chan-Gyoung, he works with a relatively clear political position. With a relatively small-sized target group in terms of intellectual understanding and aesthetic empathy, he works with critical writing, photographs and videos that are political and critical of reality. The interesting point here is that his art is able to deviate from the narrow circular tracks within the art world, which is considered as a de-politicized domain, and to intervene in the domain of public discourse. 3. Hong Young-In makes installation art that intervenes in public places of everyday life to charge rot only the external features of the place, but also the customarily defined characteristics and functions of the space, and the habitual perceptions and experiences of those who use the space. In many cases, her art takes place by means of twisting or violating the inner system of government force, functions of public ottices, and ethical and efficient rules of daily life. Here I see that art in the form of private expression can serve as public art practice, which changes and brings ideology, contradictions, weakness, and our inertial and passive perceptivity to the surface, by intentionally selecting the “negative method.” Let us solve the above contents while conducting concrete analyses on the artists’ works. In the process of examining these works, it is my expectation that we will be able to discover “other” methods of participating in the public domain within art. Moreover, I hope that we can think about “publicness of art” and “public art” with a more expanded and complex significance.