--> -->
  • January
  • February
  • March
  • April
  • May
  • June
  • July
  • August
  • September
  • October
  • November
  • December
  • 1945
  • January, 1945

    January

  • February, 1945

    February

  • March, 1945

    March

  • April, 1945

    April

  • May, 1945

    May

  • June, 1945

    June

  • July, 1945

    July

  • August, 1945

    August

  • September, 1945

    September

  • October, 1945

    October

  • November, 1945

    November

  • December, 1945

    December

  • 1946
  • January, 1946

    January

  • February, 1946

    February

  • March, 1946

    March

  • April, 1946

    April

  • May, 1946

    May

  • June, 1946

    June

  • July, 1946

    July

  • August, 1946

    August

  • September, 1946

    September

  • October, 1946

    October

  • November, 1946

    November

  • December, 1946

    December

  • 1947
  • January, 1947

    January

  • February, 1947

    February

  • March, 1947

    March

  • April, 1947

    April

  • May, 1947

    May

  • June, 1947

    June

  • July, 1947

    July

  • August, 1947

    August

  • September, 1947

    September

  • October, 1947

    October

  • November, 1947

    November

  • December, 1947

    December

  • 1948
  • January, 1948

    January

  • February, 1948

    February

  • March, 1948

    March

  • April, 1948

    April

  • May, 1948

    May

  • June, 1948

    June

  • July, 1948

    July

  • August, 1948

    August

  • September, 1948

    September

  • October, 1948

    October

  • November, 1948

    November

  • December, 1948

    December

  • 1949
  • January, 1949

    January

  • February, 1949

    February

  • March, 1949

    March

  • April, 1949

    April

  • May, 1949

    May

  • June, 1949

    June

  • July, 1949

    July

  • August, 1949

    August

  • September, 1949

    September

  • October, 1949

    October

  • November, 1949

    November

  • December, 1949

    December

  • 1950
  • January, 1950

    January

  • February, 1950

    February

  • March, 1950

    March

  • April, 1950

    April

  • May, 1950

    May

  • June, 1950

    June

  • July, 1950

    July

  • August, 1950

    August

  • September, 1950

    September

  • October, 1950

    October

  • November, 1950

    November

  • December, 1950

    December

  • 1951
  • January, 1951

    January

  • February, 1951

    February

  • March, 1951

    March

  • April, 1951

    April

  • May, 1951

    May

  • June, 1951

    June

  • July, 1951

    July

  • August, 1951

    August

  • September, 1951

    September

  • October, 1951

    October

  • November, 1951

    November

  • December, 1951

    December

  • 1952
  • January, 1952

    January

  • February, 1952

    February

  • March, 1952

    March

  • April, 1952

    April

  • May, 1952

    May

  • June, 1952

    June

  • July, 1952

    July

  • August, 1952

    August

  • September, 1952

    September

  • October, 1952

    October

  • November, 1952

    November

  • December, 1952

    December

  • 1953
  • January, 1953

    January

  • February, 1953

    February

  • March, 1953

    March

  • April, 1953

    April

  • May, 1953

    May

  • June, 1953

    June

  • July, 1953

    July

  • August, 1953

    August

  • September, 1953

    September

  • October, 1953

    October

  • November, 1953

    November

  • December, 1953

    December

  • 1954
  • January, 1954

    January

  • February, 1954

    February

  • March, 1954

    March

  • April, 1954

    April

  • May, 1954

    May

  • June, 1954

    June

  • July, 1954

    July

  • August, 1954

    August

  • September, 1954

    September

  • October, 1954

    October

  • November, 1954

    November

  • December, 1954

    December

  • 1955
  • January, 1955

    January

  • February, 1955

    February

  • March, 1955

    March

  • April, 1955

    April

  • May, 1955

    May

  • June, 1955

    June

  • July, 1955

    July

  • August, 1955

    August

  • September, 1955

    September

  • October, 1955

    October

  • November, 1955

    November

  • December, 1955

    December

  • 1956
  • January, 1956

    January

  • February, 1956

    February

  • March, 1956

    March

  • April, 1956

    April

  • May, 1956

    May

  • June, 1956

    June

  • July, 1956

    July

  • August, 1956

    August

  • September, 1956

    September

  • October, 1956

    October

  • November, 1956

    November

  • December, 1956

    December

  • 1957
  • January, 1957

    January

  • February, 1957

    February

  • March, 1957

    March

  • April, 1957

    April

  • May, 1957

    May

  • June, 1957

    June

  • July, 1957

    July

  • August, 1957

    August

  • September, 1957

    September

  • October, 1957

    October

  • November, 1957

    November

  • December, 1957

    December

  • 1958
  • January, 1958

    January

  • February, 1958

    February

  • March, 1958

    March

  • April, 1958

    April

  • May, 1958

    May

  • June, 1958

    June

  • July, 1958

    July

  • August, 1958

    August

  • September, 1958

    September

  • October, 1958

    October

  • November, 1958

    November

  • December, 1958

    December

  • 1959
  • January, 1959

    January

  • February, 1959

    February

  • March, 1959

    March

  • April, 1959

    April

  • May, 1959

    May

  • June, 1959

    June

  • July, 1959

    July

  • August, 1959

    August

  • September, 1959

    September

  • October, 1959

    October

  • November, 1959

    November

  • December, 1959

    December

  • 1960
  • January, 1960

    January

  • February, 1960

    February

  • March, 1960

    March

  • April, 1960

    April

  • May, 1960

    May

  • June, 1960

    June

  • July, 1960

    July

  • August, 1960

    August

  • September, 1960

    September

  • October, 1960

    October

  • November, 1960

    November

  • December, 1960

    December

  • 1961
  • January, 1961

    January

  • February, 1961

    February

  • March, 1961

    March

  • April, 1961

    April

  • May, 1961

    May

  • June, 1961

    June

  • July, 1961

    July

  • August, 1961

    August

  • September, 1961

    September

  • October, 1961

    October

  • November, 1961

    November

  • December, 1961

    December

  • 1962
  • January, 1962

    January

  • February, 1962

    February

  • March, 1962

    March

  • April, 1962

    April

  • May, 1962

    May

  • June, 1962

    June

  • July, 1962

    July

  • August, 1962

    August

  • September, 1962

    September

  • October, 1962

    October

  • November, 1962

    November

  • December, 1962

    December

  • 1963
  • January, 1963

    January

  • February, 1963

    February

  • March, 1963

    March

  • April, 1963

    April

  • May, 1963

    May

  • June, 1963

    June

  • July, 1963

    July

  • August, 1963

    August

  • September, 1963

    September

  • October, 1963

    October

  • November, 1963

    November

  • December, 1963

    December

  • 1964
  • January, 1964

    January

  • February, 1964

    February

  • March, 1964

    March

  • April, 1964

    April

  • May, 1964

    May

  • June, 1964

    June

  • July, 1964

    July

  • August, 1964

    August

  • September, 1964

    September

  • October, 1964

    October

  • November, 1964

    November

  • December, 1964

    December

  • 1965
  • January, 1965

    January

  • February, 1965

    February

  • March, 1965

    March

  • April, 1965

    April

  • May, 1965

    May

  • June, 1965

    June

  • July, 1965

    July

  • August, 1965

    August

  • September, 1965

    September

  • October, 1965

    October

  • November, 1965

    November

  • December, 1965

    December

  • 1966
  • January, 1966

    January

  • February, 1966

    February

  • March, 1966

    March

  • April, 1966

    April

  • May, 1966

    May

  • June, 1966

    June

  • July, 1966

    July

  • August, 1966

    August

  • September, 1966

    September

  • October, 1966

    October

  • November, 1966

    November

  • December, 1966

    December

  • 1967
  • January, 1967

    January

  • February, 1967

    February

  • March, 1967

    March

  • April, 1967

    April

  • May, 1967

    May

  • June, 1967

    June

  • July, 1967

    July

  • August, 1967

    August

  • September, 1967

    September

  • October, 1967

    October

  • November, 1967

    November

  • December, 1967

    December

  • 1968
  • January, 1968

    January

  • February, 1968

    February

  • March, 1968

    March

  • April, 1968

    April

  • May, 1968

    May

  • June, 1968

    June

  • July, 1968

    July

  • August, 1968

    August

  • September, 1968

    September

  • October, 1968

    October

  • November, 1968

    November

  • December, 1968

    December

  • 1969
  • January, 1969

    January

  • February, 1969

    February

  • March, 1969

    March

  • April, 1969

    April

  • May, 1969

    May

  • June, 1969

    June

  • July, 1969

    July

  • August, 1969

    August

  • September, 1969

    September

  • October, 1969

    October

  • November, 1969

    November

  • December, 1969

    December

  • 1970
  • January, 1970

    January

  • February, 1970

    February

  • March, 1970

    March

  • April, 1970

    April

  • May, 1970

    May

  • June, 1970

    June

  • July, 1970

    July

  • August, 1970

    August

  • September, 1970

    September

  • October, 1970

    October

  • November, 1970

    November

  • December, 1970

    December

  • 1971
  • January, 1971

    January

  • February, 1971

    February

  • March, 1971

    March

  • April, 1971

    April

  • May, 1971

    May

  • June, 1971

    June

  • July, 1971

    July

  • August, 1971

    August

  • September, 1971

    September

  • October, 1971

    October

  • November, 1971

    November

  • December, 1971

    December

  • 1972
  • January, 1972

    January

  • February, 1972

    February

  • March, 1972

    March

  • April, 1972

    April

  • May, 1972

    May

  • June, 1972

    June

  • July, 1972

    July

  • August, 1972

    August

  • September, 1972

    September

  • October, 1972

    October

  • November, 1972

    November

  • December, 1972

    December

  • 1973
  • January, 1973

    January

  • February, 1973

    February

  • March, 1973

    March

  • April, 1973

    April

  • May, 1973

    May

  • June, 1973

    June

  • July, 1973

    July

  • August, 1973

    August

  • September, 1973

    September

  • October, 1973

    October

  • November, 1973

    November

  • December, 1973

    December

  • 1974
  • January, 1974

    January

  • February, 1974

    February

  • March, 1974

    March

  • April, 1974

    April

  • May, 1974

    May

  • June, 1974

    June

  • July, 1974

    July

  • August, 1974

    August

  • September, 1974

    September

  • October, 1974

    October

  • November, 1974

    November

  • December, 1974

    December

  • 1975
  • January, 1975

    January

  • February, 1975

    February

  • March, 1975

    March

  • April, 1975

    April

  • May, 1975

    May

  • June, 1975

    June

  • July, 1975

    July

  • August, 1975

    August

  • September, 1975

    September

  • October, 1975

    October

  • November, 1975

    November

  • December, 1975

    December

  • 1976
  • January, 1976

    January

  • February, 1976

    February

  • March, 1976

    March

  • April, 1976

    April

  • May, 1976

    May

  • June, 1976

    June

  • July, 1976

    July

  • August, 1976

    August

  • September, 1976

    September

  • October, 1976

    October

  • November, 1976

    November

  • December, 1976

    December

  • 1977
  • January, 1977

    January

  • February, 1977

    February

  • March, 1977

    March

  • April, 1977

    April

  • May, 1977

    May

  • June, 1977

    June

  • July, 1977

    July

  • August, 1977

    August

  • September, 1977

    September

  • October, 1977

    October

  • November, 1977

    November

  • December, 1977

    December

  • 1978
  • January, 1978

    January

  • February, 1978

    February

  • March, 1978

    March

  • April, 1978

    April

  • May, 1978

    May

  • June, 1978

    June

  • July, 1978

    July

  • August, 1978

    August

  • September, 1978

    September

  • October, 1978

    October

  • November, 1978

    November

  • December, 1978

    December

  • 1979
  • January, 1979

    January

  • February, 1979

    February

  • March, 1979

    March

  • April, 1979

    April

  • May, 1979

    May

  • June, 1979

    June

  • July, 1979

    July

  • August, 1979

    August

  • September, 1979

    September

  • October, 1979

    October

  • November, 1979

    November

  • December, 1979

    December

  • 1980
  • January, 1980

    January

  • February, 1980

    February

  • March, 1980

    March

  • April, 1980

    April

  • May, 1980

    May

  • June, 1980

    June

  • July, 1980

    July

  • August, 1980

    August

  • September, 1980

    September

  • October, 1980

    October

  • November, 1980

    November

  • December, 1980

    December

  • 1981
  • January, 1981

    January

  • February, 1981

    February

  • March, 1981

    March

  • April, 1981

    April

  • May, 1981

    May

  • June, 1981

    June

  • July, 1981

    July

  • August, 1981

    August

  • September, 1981

    September

  • October, 1981

    October

  • November, 1981

    November

  • December, 1981

    December

  • 1982
  • January, 1982

    January

  • February, 1982

    February

  • March, 1982

    March

  • April, 1982

    April

  • May, 1982

    May

  • June, 1982

    June

  • July, 1982

    July

  • August, 1982

    August

  • September, 1982

    September

  • October, 1982

    October

  • November, 1982

    November

  • December, 1982

    December

  • 1983
  • January, 1983

    January

  • February, 1983

    February

  • March, 1983

    March

  • April, 1983

    April

  • May, 1983

    May

  • June, 1983

    June

  • July, 1983

    July

  • August, 1983

    August

  • September, 1983

    September

  • October, 1983

    October

  • November, 1983

    November

  • December, 1983

    December

  • 1984
  • January, 1984

    January

  • February, 1984

    February

  • March, 1984

    March

  • April, 1984

    April

  • May, 1984

    May

  • June, 1984

    June

  • July, 1984

    July

  • August, 1984

    August

  • September, 1984

    September

  • October, 1984

    October

  • November, 1984

    November

  • December, 1984

    December

  • 1985
  • January, 1985

    January

  • February, 1985

    February

  • March, 1985

    March

  • April, 1985

    April

  • May, 1985

    May

  • June, 1985

    June

  • July, 1985

    July

  • August, 1985

    August

  • September, 1985

    September

  • October, 1985

    October

  • November, 1985

    November

  • December, 1985

    December

  • 1986
  • January, 1986

    January

  • February, 1986

    February

  • March, 1986

    March

  • April, 1986

    April

  • May, 1986

    May

  • June, 1986

    June

  • July, 1986

    July

  • August, 1986

    August

  • September, 1986

    September

  • October, 1986

    October

  • November, 1986

    November

  • December, 1986

    December

  • 1987
  • January, 1987

    January

  • February, 1987

    February

  • March, 1987

    March

  • April, 1987

    April

  • May, 1987

    May

  • June, 1987

    June

  • July, 1987

    July

  • August, 1987

    August

  • September, 1987

    September

  • October, 1987

    October

  • November, 1987

    November

  • December, 1987

    December

  • 1988
  • January, 1988

    January

  • February, 1988

    February

  • March, 1988

    March

  • April, 1988

    April

  • May, 1988

    May

  • June, 1988

    June

  • July, 1988

    July

  • August, 1988

    August

  • September, 1988

    September

  • October, 1988

    October

  • November, 1988

    November

  • December, 1988

    December

  • 1989
  • January, 1989

    January

  • February, 1989

    February

  • March, 1989

    March

  • April, 1989

    April

  • May, 1989

    May

  • June, 1989

    June

  • July, 1989

    July

  • August, 1989

    August

  • September, 1989

    September

  • October, 1989

    October

  • November, 1989

    November

  • December, 1989

    December

  • 1990
  • January, 1990

    January

  • February, 1990

    February

  • March, 1990

    March

  • April, 1990

    April

  • May, 1990

    May

  • June, 1990

    June

  • July, 1990

    July

  • August, 1990

    August

  • September, 1990

    September

  • October, 1990

    October

  • November, 1990

    November

  • December, 1990

    December

  • 1991
  • January, 1991

    January

  • February, 1991

    February

  • March, 1991

    March

  • April, 1991

    April

  • May, 1991

    May

  • June, 1991

    June

  • July, 1991

    July

  • August, 1991

    August

  • September, 1991

    September

  • October, 1991

    October

  • November, 1991

    November

  • December, 1991

    December

  • 1992
  • January, 1992

    January

  • February, 1992

    February

  • March, 1992

    March

  • April, 1992

    April

  • May, 1992

    May

  • June, 1992

    June

  • July, 1992

    July

  • August, 1992

    August

  • September, 1992

    September

  • October, 1992

    October

  • November, 1992

    November

  • December, 1992

    December

  • 1993
  • January, 1993

    January

  • February, 1993

    February

  • March, 1993

    March

  • April, 1993

    April

  • May, 1993

    May

  • June, 1993

    June

  • July, 1993

    July

  • August, 1993

    August

  • September, 1993

    September

  • October, 1993

    October

  • November, 1993

    November

  • December, 1993

    December

  • 1994
  • January, 1994

    January

  • February, 1994

    February

  • March, 1994

    March

  • April, 1994

    April

  • May, 1994

    May

  • June, 1994

    June

  • July, 1994

    July

  • August, 1994

    August

  • September, 1994

    September

  • October, 1994

    October

  • November, 1994

    November

  • December, 1994

    December

  • 1995
  • January, 1995

    January

  • February, 1995

    February

  • March, 1995

    March

  • April, 1995

    April

  • May, 1995

    May

  • June, 1995

    June

  • July, 1995

    July

  • August, 1995

    August

  • September, 1995

    September

  • October, 1995

    October

  • November, 1995

    November

  • December, 1995

    December

  • 1996
  • January, 1996

    January

  • February, 1996

    February

  • March, 1996

    March

  • April, 1996

    April

  • May, 1996

    May

  • June, 1996

    June

  • July, 1996

    July

  • August, 1996

    August

  • September, 1996

    September

  • October, 1996

    October

  • November, 1996

    November

  • December, 1996

    December

  • 1997
  • January, 1997

    January

  • February, 1997

    February

  • March, 1997

    March

  • April, 1997

    April

  • May, 1997

    May

  • June, 1997

    June

  • July, 1997

    July

  • August, 1997

    August

  • September, 1997

    September

  • October, 1997

    October

  • November, 1997

    November

  • December, 1997

    December

  • 1998
  • January, 1998

    January

  • February, 1998

    February

  • March, 1998

    March

  • April, 1998

    April

  • May, 1998

    May

  • June, 1998

    June

  • July, 1998

    July

  • August, 1998

    August

  • September, 1998

    September

  • October, 1998

    October

  • November, 1998

    November

  • December, 1998

    December

  • 1999
  • January, 1999

    January

  • February, 1999

    February

  • March, 1999

    March

  • April, 1999

    April

  • May, 1999

    May

  • June, 1999

    June

  • July, 1999

    July

  • August, 1999

    August

  • September, 1999

    September

  • October, 1999

    October

  • November, 1999

    November

  • December, 1999

    December

toggle button for the quick banner area toggle button for the quick banner area

Features

Essays

Essays

(1) What Does Feminist Art/Artist Do?

‘They’ are returning. Today, there is a widespread “backlash”1 against the “feminism reboot”2 and “#MeToo.”3 A notorious anti-feminist government that uses misogynistic sentiment as a political weapon has taken office, and there is a rise in violence against women in the real and virtual world.
The political movement that sparked controversy across various social media platforms with the hashtag “#SexualViolence_in_ArtWorld”4 has now transformed into legal battles between individuals, losing its power and facing the end. The names of those who were accused, whether they faced legal consequences or not, were removed from public platforms under the name of the ‘law’5 and were forgotten in time. Those whose crimes have been forgotten silently made their comeback, and those who still face legal proceedings have returned under a different name with no remorse. Others who served their time have started legal processes to ‘recover.’ Of course, they are not ‘alone.’ The ways of trying to help cover up for their mistakes that occurred across all walks of life are just so colorful and earnest that one cannot mention each and every one of them. And what about intentional ignorance and indifference to these incidents and situations? The astounding ignorance brought on by a belief that we will never be ‘a victim’ and, of course, ‘a perpetrator’ has sometimes done more harm than the patriarchy in creating an environment for rape culture6 to spread quickly across Korean society.

In these circumstances, what did feminist art do or didn’t do? Didn’t we maybe use feminism simply as a “gold ornament”7 or, at most, comply with ‘gender balance’ and take credit for being “politically correct?” Did we not focus on ‘competitive victimhood’ politicizing the ‘victims’ by trapping them in their victimization forever? As long as something’s called feminism, does that always make it ‘right?’ Is today’s feminism truly opening up the horizon for the complexity of representation and interpretation of contemporary art? What future can feminist art envision in the face of this painstaking backlash? And is there no need to raise reflective questions ‘again’ about the things that we achieved as feminists?

This series, comprised of three columns, focuses on epistemology and the world shared by women’s solidarity that grew stronger with the ‘#MeToo’ movement as well as the artistic and political practice of feminist artists, including myself, who had to repeatedly adjust ‘Ontology_in_(Korean contemporary)artworld’ as we experienced this heated controversy.

***

The quote from cultural researcher Sohn Heejeong, “feminism has been rebooted,” in 2015 became a meaningful declaration within feminist circles in Korea as we experienced a change in epistemology due to the #MeToo movement. Sohn uses the term ‘reboot,’ a term mostly used in the film industry to indicate creating new content by breaking away from the continuity of the previous franchise while maintaining certain settings. She adds two reasons explaining the reboot of feminism. One is “to capture the fact that there is discontinuity and connection between the feminism movement of the past and the feminism movement since 2015,” and the second is that this term “enables us to express that [the] ‘feminism reboot’ recognizes the political and economic factors and reveals its cultural characteristics and its relationship with pop culture as the term ‘reboot’ is an expression based on capitalist rhetoric.”

The so-called ‘young feminist movement’ or ‘campus feminism’ that began in 1994, a year after I entered university, actively resisted the sentiment of universities that were ignorant towards gender issues even after achieving democratization at schools. It had a huge impact on positively changing the awareness of female university students regarding self-esteem and independence. Even as a passive participant in the movement, I, too, spent days with determination, being immersed in the wave of feminism on campus.

But since 2015, I have felt a sense of estrangement and was hesitant in the face of the new wave of feminism. While I related to the witty mirroring strategy of ‘Megalians,’9 I did not relate to the confusing ideas of heterosexism and gender binarism. I admired the declaratory and forward-looking strategy of the #IAmFeminist10 hashtag movement, and joining the movement was easy. But it was difficult to join the trend that seemed to stereotype identity and consider oneself as a judge of feminism. I, too, mourned the death of the victim of the ‘Gangnam Station murder case’11 and was enraged like many others but struggled to understand ‘how the frequent deaths of a certain minority group are not an object of concern.’ There cannot be a hierarchy in sadness. I experienced emotional shock and confusion to a level that kept me from continuing my life, as I witnessed the many accusations of the victims of sexual violence in the art world that followed one after another and the rising demand for the conviction of the accused. But I also felt fear in the obsession of wanting to oust the perpetrators, solve the case, and delete all the trauma instead of discussing the wisdom of rebuilding the community by taking the time to argue and discuss.

Among the various practices associated with the ‘feminism reboot,’ the most problematic movement is the hostile and aggressive activities of ‘radical’ fundamentalist and separatist feminist groups that declared to “only embrace (biological) women.” These groups have returned to the ‘radical feminism’ of the early feminist movement in the West and only understand the current feminism movement as a confrontation between ‘radical vs. liberal.’ They maliciously erase and ridicule multiple issues addressed with reflection and correction for a long time in the history of the movement and its mentality, as well as key agendas, including disability, refugees, the environment, queer politics, and intersectionality. They simplify the issues of sex work, pornography, and sexual deviance as only serving to create victims. Furthermore, they strengthen the language that expands and reproduces the prejudice and hatred against people with disabilities, refugees, gay men, and transgender individuals, obsessively protecting the gender binary. These groups also blindly pursue the success stories of individuals through self-improvement that is demanded by neoliberalism while going against the structural changes and anti-capitalist values that feminist epistemology has demanded. The trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF) characteristics of ‘radical feminism’ that were expressed in the extreme hate and offensive language towards a transgender woman who got into Sookmyung Women’s University in 2020 are evidence of the danger of radical feminists. The student gave up her admission, while those who spoke out to use hatred to gain power are still alive and well. They continue to control social media, commit to gaining power by creating women’s organizations or political parties, become professors, distribute texts, establish publishing houses to sell books, have YouTube channels, and form art groups. Hatred spreads like air.

Is it because I’ve become the older generation? Or is it because I still feel strange that remarks and the way they seek solidarity are focused only on the Internet? Or is it because of my concern that the sadness and anger that gather are only focused on creating more anger and hate rather than allowing ourselves to better ourselves? To be honest, I didn’t understand the dynamics behind this trend and phenomenon when I was ridiculed as being a so-called “fuddy-duddy feminist” after I expressed my confusion about being hesitant towards post-reboot feminism on my personal social media account. Feminism must now fight against not only the misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the outside but also against misunderstandings and misinterpretations within the feminist community. Of course, in our history of feminism, there has always been a difference of stance among feminists. And through that history of conflict, feminists created better language and deepened discourse. However, the domestic discord happening among feminists today seems to be about solving ‘my inconveniences’ or playing ‘musical chairs’ to solely protect ‘my rights and interests.’

Must we risk all this ominous conflict by having faith in the positive function of the ‘politics of difference’ when it comes to “feminisms” in lowercase? Perhaps it is necessary to concede even the principles of feminist politics that have held ‘solidarity with others?’ Was the historical method of struggle in the feminist movement too romantic, offering a space to others, sharing a space with others, or trying to increase the number of voices rather than fighting over or taking the space to speak away from others? Are the efforts to endure the journey of leading more productive discussions in a more delicate and sensitive way instead of getting swept away in this great struggle of ‘speed’ simply useless? How can we lead the current turmoil in Korean feminism in a better direction?

A scholar of women’s studies, Kim Joo Hee, points to the almost impossible ‘fast speed’ captured in the huge movement of exposing sexual violence in the culture and art world in Korea and expresses concern that maybe feminism has become a moral compass, yet feminist politics is nowhere to be seen.12 Kim analyzes the case of a famous Webtoon artist L, whose webtoons were all deleted when he was accused of sexual violence in the storm of anger and exposé by Twitter feminism. Kim Joo Hee argues that there only remains a “feast of consumerist destruction” trying to erase the creative work of an “offending artist” without focusing on the value of discussion and criticism amid that ‘speed.’13 What’s more surprising is people considered accepting or consuming the artist’s work by any third-party individual who had no relevance to the case as secondary victimization. Cultural researcher Oh Hye Jin points out that the problem of such a situation resides in how the “interpretive community becomes a criminal community and then how ‘feminist criticism’ failed to intervene in the process of demanding ‘purification.’”14 Considering that this ‘gap in feminist criticism’ occurred in the same way during the process of resolving the “#SexualViolence_in_LiteraryWorld” hashtag movement, it may be valuable to further ponder the argument.15 

In April 2016, Korean Female, a photograph by artist L that appeared in an art marketing show for a bag by luxury fashion brand D, triggered controversy.16 The picture depicts a woman wearing a typical outfit as a working woman in the ‘adult entertainment district’ against the background of the main street in Gwangju, standing expressionlessly while holding a ‘high-end luxury bag.’ Some spectators, who believed that the photograph reproduces a cruel prejudice that ‘“Korean female” sell sex to buy luxury bags,’ argued that this reproduction is based on slut-shaming and misogyny and, therefore, must be removed from the show. This argument spread quickly on the internet, and many feminists agreed with the argument. The organizer, who was conscious of consumers’ anger, removed the work without the consent of the artist. And the incident seemed to look like a successful achievement made by the effort of feminists. However, in this case, as well, feminist criticism failed to gain an opportunity in the face of “feminism of speed.”17 We must take note of how an artwork that was displayed under an obvious consumerist strategy of art marketing by a luxury fashion brand was completely tied up in the economic logic of consumerism without even becoming a “feast of consumerist destruction.” The interpretation of some spectators mentioned above comes from a compulsion to trap the various ways of survival of women that exist in real life into an asexual perfection to judge and homogenize.

Doesn’t the argument that the photograph must be removed because it reproduces the prejudice that ‘Korean women sell sex to buy luxury bags’ mean that they are acknowledging that the prejudice is actually ‘true?’ Who is controlling whose prejudice? And who are those who noticed that the outfit worn by the woman in the picture is the so-called ‘sexy dress’ usually worn by women working in adult entertainment establishments?

Also, whose belief is it that a reproduced image only exists as a mimicry of reality? When a woman is forced into sex work in the face of the huge burden of ‘survival,’ there must be relevant factors involved such as a class-structured society or unequal labor environment and the rights and interests of workers. Is taking a look at these issues not a necessary process in interpreting a reproduction? What feminist art must demand is not to randomly censor and delete the lives of a certain group of women but to improve and change the awareness of the social structure that produces and oppresses such lives or to continuously discuss and raise questions about the economic exploitation and legal inequality they struggle with, is it not? Of course, it may not require a painstaking discussion of art criticism to argue that this work is vulgar and low, and it may be much more helpful to take the strategy of getting rid of the piece in silence. Then, I ask again. What is the benefit of the loud controversy? Is it self-efficacy that comes from having removed a piece of work from a show? Is it the elimination of feminist politics that attempts to expand reproduction by raising social criticism and political voice against contemporary art?

Artist J’s ‘real doll scandal’18 that broke out at the Korea Artist Prize exhibition in 2020 proves that the feminist reading of art reproduction is still at a standstill. Some of the audience argued that artist J’s piece triggers misogyny because it uses the sex doll ‘real doll’ that mimics and recreates the female body. They demanded the work be removed and that the artist be eliminated as a prize nominee. The ‘Network of Female Artists in Visual Arts, Louise the Women’ (hereinafter, Louise the Women), one of the organizations that were strongly opposed to the piece, said in its official statement:
 
“(…) Representation of an image objectifying women is violence against women perpetrated in the name of the public. Artist J’s reproduced sex doll image is based on the premise of sexual objectification of women and therefore does not address universal human issues in a neutral manner. The attempt of demonstrating ‘humanity’ through a distorted sex doll image created by objectifying a real woman’s body for sexual purposes is itself deception and is merely pornographic reproduction.”19
 
This argument reminds me of the outdated and boring puritanical feminism in the U.S. 50 years ago that took issue against pornography. And it ties up art representation under the structural dependence of reality, easily obliterating the possibility of overturning and restricting the critical interpretation of images under the name of morality. They make the argument that representation is only meaningful when it is innocent in the face of moral judgement, as if this is the answer to a feminist interpretation. And then, they face the oxymoron of being a ‘representational artist defending the unrepresentable.’ While they are drunk with moral superiority, the discussion of the ‘humanity’ that the artwork stands for has not advanced even one step further from the initial ‘post-human’ discourse. Additionally the fact that they concealed the existing problems with the visual fascination that reproduces the masochistic body did not become a topic of discussion. What’s more is the fact that a portrait of artist B, who was accused of sexual violence during the #SexualViolence_in_ArtWorld movement, was used in a work that addressed ‘artists’ by artist C, another nominee of the Korea Artist Prize 2020. This was a very problematic situation where the title ‘artist’ that was taken away from artist B momentarily was given back to the artist in a very safe way at a public venue. But this, too, was overlooked during the controversy.

As explained in the case of Korean Female, when there is an issue or a scandal in contemporary art, there is a need to look not only at the represented image itself but also at the context of historicalness and performativity of the incident outside the image. In this context, the argument of some viewers and Louise the Women has partial significance in the fact that it reminds us of how the institution and art competition that holds the hegemony, as well as the authority of an art piece, can be subject to the judgement of the art world. Unlike fashion brand D, which had to be conscious of consumers, the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art (MMCA) and SBS Culture Foundation which held and sponsored the Korea Artist Prize 2020 were intentionally non-responsive to the controversy. And we didn’t even get the chance to take part in the criticism and discourse around the artwork. The argument made by Louise the Women and some of the viewers only contributed to attracting people’s attention to the artist’s ‘qualification as a prize nominee.’ And future discussions centered around bringing up ‘women’ artists who deserve the prize, in other words, ‘great’ female artists who are deserving of a ‘great’ art prize, and not an ‘airheaded male artist.’ In the end, the controversy sparked by their argument only concentrated on ‘grasping for women’s share of the pie’ and failed to challenge the ‘prestige’ of the art prize.
 
Of course, one of the ‘greatest’ questions in the history of feminist art, “Why have there been no great women artists?”20 is still meaningful after half a century has passed since it was first raised. Unfortunately, Linda Nochlin, who raised this ‘great’ question, passed away in 2017 right around the time the ‘feminism reboot’ brought about the hope that it may realign the chaotic world of contemporary art. The death of the art historian not only reminded us of the sense of time that an intense century may be coming to an end but also urged us to question feminist art once again. The historic article by Linda Nochlin, “Why have there been no great women artists?”, which was published in the January edition of 1971 by ARTnews as a controversial special feature on women’s art, became a stepping-stone in challenging the history of feminism in art in line with the women's liberation movement that stormed American society in the 1970s. At a time when the hegemony of ‘abstract expressionism in the U.S.’ was dominating the global aesthetic standard, and when the narrative of ‘white-elite-man-genius’ was following the longstanding artist-centrism tradition in the art world, Linda Nochlin’s one question brought the current urgency of the feminist movement to the attention of academia, and the historical construction of the discipline that was tied to the idea of the past.
 
According to Nochlin, behind the “reproachful” question of “why have there been no great women artists?” lies an insidious tacit answer: “There have been no great women artists because women are incapable of greatness.” Nochlin said that we should change the question to the following: “Well, if women really are equal to men, why have there never been any great women artists (or composers, or mathematicians, or philosophers, or so few of the same)?”21 Therefore, this question is not asking ‘why there have not been any great women artists in the history of art,’ but rather, it is questioning the premise behind that question.22 Nochlin believes that there is a “huge and dark” premise of “uncertain stereotypes” behind ‘women,’ ‘art,’ ‘greatness,’ and all the surrounding social order.23 Therefore, her question about women is a sharp criticism of the myth of the ‘great artist’ written in the history of art or the misunderstanding that practicing art is a visualization of the life of an ‘individual’ and the narrow-minded perspective of considering artistic achievement as the success of an individual, separate from the structure of social institution based on past history.
 
What happened in feminist art today in 2022, half a century later after Nochlin raised the question? Exposing the politics of ‘others,’ liberating the issue of gender and body from essentialism to the context of constructivism and beyond, understanding works from the perspective of psychoanalysis or deconstructivism, intercrossing the politics of queer and minority with the politics of feminism, breaking our existence from a subject and returning it to life in practice, and restoring the politics and aesthetics of ‘trans’ that is not subsumed by the ideology of nationalism, assimilation, or normality… The ideas that were developed across other areas of humanities have also been urgently and acutely addressed through feminist criticism. In the recent horrible disaster of the ‘pandemic’ that has continued over the past three years, art gave up all its vitality and intelligence to the market economy. And the art market, which is enjoying an unprecedented boom, has embraced the discourse and dialogue of feminist politics as well as values into its market economy. The market trades feminism. In other words, feminism makes money!24 
 
So, did feminism win? Does it hold ‘Femicoin’25  and ‘Femitoken’26 in its hands, desiring ‘successful’ female artists, winning the spotlight and ‘chair’ faster than anyone else? Has it become the cool ‘feminist hipster’ who considers oneself as being ‘trans,’ ‘virtual,’ ‘queering,’ and ‘glitch,’ while supporting neoliberalism at the same time, hiding the ‘victim-centered approach’ card behind its back when it only becomes a ‘tool,’ and gladly joining the effort to gain power from desire while turning a blind eye to the political actions of a minority group? Is it satisfied with the Korean Pavilion at the Venice Biennale that was entirely made up of women or the list of nominees for the Korea Artist Prize? Is the “era of female curators” writing a new paradigm for museums? Have their lives become richer because the art market found commercial value in the works of female artists? Are we happier because there is more art history, art criticism, and art exhibitions addressing women artists? Is the headwind from the backlash, which we will have to endure following the storm of feminism, worth it? What is feminist art/artist doing today? These questions are not to sabotage the historic achievements brought on by the accomplishments of past feminists and feminist epistemology. I simply want to argue that we can no longer work toward a better feminist transition by raising only elegant, moderate, and safe questions. Amia Srinivasan contemplates the #MeToo movement and writes as follows.
 
“If the aim is not merely to punish male sexual domination but to end it, feminism must address questions that many feminists would rather avoid.”27

Art Terms

Art Terms