“Asian contemporary art” does not refer to a single shared style or aesthetic. Korea, China, Japan, and the countries of Southeast Asia each have distinct histories, political and social conditions, art institutions, and markets.

The Anachronism series began by examining how Korean art has continued to understand and organize itself under changing conditions through languages, institutions, and models of success inherited from the past. It considered the recurring tendency to reproduce earlier

A fundamental problem in Korean art history remains insufficiently resolved: the criteria by which its historical periods are distinguished. When did Korea’s modern period in art begin? What does hyeondae misul—the category conventionally called “modern art” or “contemporary art” in Korean—actually signify, and where does it begin? And from what

The previous two essays examined the anachronism of Korean contemporary art. The first identified the problem of explaining the present through the languages of the past. The second examined the structure through which past models of success continue to be repeated as strategies for the future.

The anachronism of Korean contemporary art is not simply a matter of outdated institutions or obsolete sensibilities. The more fundamental problem lies in the way methods that once proved effective continue to be repeated today as strategies for the future. A failed past can be criticized relatively easily. A successful past, however, tends to survive for a long time. It becomes inertia within institutions, a standard within policy, an object of imitation within the market, and a source of justification within discourse.

Anachronism generally refers to a temporal dislocation. It describes a condition in which objects, languages, institutions, or sensibilities from different historical periods appear out of sync within the same moment. Yet under the post-contemporary condition, anachronism does not simply mean something old, outdated, or behind the times.