The Silence of a Criticism-Free Era

The Korean contemporary art scene today is enveloped in a profound silence—the absence of art criticism. Exhibitions abound, artworks circulate rapidly through the market, and artists are consumed at speed, but there is scarcely a voice that interprets, questions, or inscribes meaning into these movements.
 
We are living in a time when criticism no longer functions. An art world without criticism is like a blind market. Decisions are left to the whims of popular taste and capital, artists’ practices are left unexplained, and art degenerates into mute, consumable images.
 
This is not simply a matter of having fewer art critics. The entire art ecosystem has transformed into a structure in which criticism is no longer necessary. This transformation has been catalyzed by an oversaturated art market, a proliferation of uncurated exhibitions, profit-driven public support programs, and superficial curatorial frameworks. The outcome has been devastating: the erosion of Korean art’s subjectivity, the disorientation of creative direction, and the degradation of artistic integrity.


 
Structural Drivers of Criticism’s Decline
 
1. Capitalized Art Markets and the "Curatorial Era"

Since the mid-2000s, Korean contemporary art has entered a fully capitalized phase. While the rise of art fairs, an expanding collector base, and a thriving gallery industry have brought visibility, they have also shifted interpretive power from critics to curators and dealers. Once, critics played the central role in discovering and justifying artists. Now, curators select artists, and the market appraises them.
Criticism is left with no place to intervene—curation has become interpretation, and the exhibition itself has replaced critique.
 

2. Grant Systems and Public Sector Monopolies on Curation

Government-funded museums and cultural foundations have institutionalized grant-based support systems that undermine the role of criticism. Artists are selected not by their work but through proposal documents. Critics are reduced to administrative reviewers, not as interpreters of artistic intent.
Criticism is reduced to an "attached document" in support of project execution. The language of criticism becomes standardized and bureaucratic. Most publicly funded exhibitions demand compliance with curatorial objectives rather than fostering pluralistic interpretation.

 
3. Media Ecosystem Shifts and the Isolation of Criticism

Since the digital transition, art-related content has shifted overwhelmingly toward news and interviews. Portal-based media platforms are not designed to handle in-depth writing, while social media favors sensation and publicity over critique. Traditional art magazines and journals that once published deep analytical texts have lost relevance.
Simultaneously, the infrastructure supporting criticism has collapsed. Critics can no longer sustain careers, academic departments dedicated to art criticism are shrinking, and independent platforms for publishing criticism have all but disappeared. In this environment, criticism has become a "lost practice."

 
4. The Structural Infeasibility of Critique in Korean Society

In Korean society, critique is often mistaken for partisanship or personal attack. Within the tight-knit art world, criticism is viewed as a dangerous language that risks reputational harm.

Critics must maintain professional distance, yet many are compelled to participate in curatorial or institutional systems to survive. In doing so, they inevitably compromise their independence and critical integrity. Intellectual silence becomes a survival strategy, and that silence has killed criticism.


 
The Recovery of Criticism Is the Recovery of Artistic Subjectivity

Criticism is not just a tool for interpretation; it is the conduit between artistic dignity and the spirit of the times. An art world without criticism loses autonomy, direction, and ultimately its creative engine. For Korean contemporary art to reclaim its subjectivity and forge independent discourses on the global stage, the restoration of criticism must come first.
 


Criticism in the Age of Globalization: Strategy and Methodology

The restoration of criticism is not only a domestic imperative. In an era of globalization, where artworks transcend borders, exhibitions are staged abroad, and artists participate in global discourse, criticism must be equipped with a global gaze and framework. In this sense, reviving criticism is both a strategic and methodological key to enhancing Korea's international competitiveness and nurturing sustainable, independent narratives.
 
In the global art world, artists and artworks are not understood solely as visual products. Criticism provides the interpretive framework and historical context that allows art to enter and sustain a presence in institutional and market systems. Without critical discourse to explain, analyze, and justify their relevance, artists risk being passively consumed.
 
Korean art criticism still largely operates within a domestically confined framework, offering fragmented appraisals or one-off introductions. There is a critical lack of structured, translated, and transferable criticism that can engage the global art scene. Thus, the current absence of criticism signals more than a lapse in interpretation—it directly reflects Korea's inability to articulate its own artistic voice on the global stage.
 
To change this, criticism must shift from speaking within the Korean art world to dialoguing with the world at large. It must contextualize Korean practices within global art history, theory, and philosophical frameworks. Only then can Korean art participate not as a peripheral phenomenon but as a fully voiced subject within global discourse.


 
Criticism as Cultural Power and Linguistic Sovereignty

The revival of criticism is not merely an internal concern of the art world. It is a matter of cultural power, of linguistic sovereignty, and of national identity expressed through art. As Korean artworks circulate globally, the absence of a native critical language means they risk becoming nothing more than "silent images" to be consumed by others.
 
Art is visual, but globalization is conducted in language. Now is the time to rebuild our critical voice—to once again speak, interpret, and assert value in our own terms.
 
This effort must go beyond merely "rewriting criticism." It demands the establishment of independent critical platforms, restructuring of public support systems, direct support for critics and scholars, and, above all, a cultural shift in the art world that revalues the role of criticism.
 
What we have lost is not just a few essays. We have lost the power of art to engage with society and reflect the spirit of the times. As the language of capital dominates the arts, we are compelled to ask again: Who is speaking for the value of art? And who is truly listening?

Jay Jongho Kim graduated from the Department of Art Theory at Hongik University and earned his master's degree in Art Planning from the same university. From 1996 to 2006, he worked as a curator at Gallery Seomi, planning director at CAIS Gallery, head of the curatorial research team at Art Center Nabi, director at Gallery Hyundai, and curator at Gana New York. From 2008 to 2017, he served as the executive director of Doosan Gallery Seoul & New York and Doosan Residency New York, introducing Korean contemporary artists to the local scene in New York. After returning to Korea in 2017, he worked as an art consultant, conducting art education, collection consulting, and various art projects. In 2021, he founded A Project Company and is currently running the platforms K-ARTNOW.COM and K-ARTIST.COM, which aim to promote Korean contemporary art on the global stage.