The term “post-contemporary condition” is not employed here as a rigorously theorized or analytically fixed concept. Rather, it functions as a provisional designation—an expedient term used to describe the current state of contemporary art, both in Korea and globally, in the aftermath of what has been called the contemporary.
 
As such, the term does not seek to define a new movement, generation, or emerging tendency. Nor does it claim to offer a conceptual framework that explains the structural conditions under which contemporary art is transforming. It is instead a temporary marker—an index of a situation that has yet to be fully articulated.
 
Accordingly, this series does not aim to present definitive conclusions. It begins, instead, from a set of questions: What conditions currently structure contemporary art, both domestically and internationally? And to what extent do these conditions remain operative?
 
This project is neither an attempt to introduce or advocate for Korean contemporary art, nor an effort to declare a new artistic paradigm or predict future forms. Rather, it seeks to examine, in structural and comprehensive terms, the conditions under which contemporary art—globally and within Korea—has operated over the past two decades, and to analyze the outcomes those conditions have produced.
 
 
 
The Operational Conditions of Contemporary Art
 
Contemporary art is not merely art produced in the present. It has functioned as a system of cognition and a form of institutional consensus. This system is grounded in the assumption that the world is interpretable, that critique remains valid, and that meaning can be continuously produced.
 
Within this framework, the artwork has continued to operate as a central unit, while criticism and institutions have formed a structure through which meaning is mediated and accumulated. Judgment of value has not been fixed by a single criterion, but understood as an open process allowing for multiple interpretations.
 
Three key operational principles have structured this system: the deferment of judgment, relationality, and institutional critique.
 
The deferment of judgment functioned as a mechanism to resist hierarchical valuation based on singular criteria. Relationality provided a framework for interpreting artworks within broader social and institutional contexts. Institutional critique exposed the power structures and norms of art institutions, rendering them open to revision.
 
For a significant period, these principles operated as effective tools for understanding and expanding contemporary art.
 
 
 
Transformation and Limits of These Principles
 
However, through prolonged repetition, these principles have begun to generate unintended consequences.
 
The deferment of judgment no longer functions as a flexible structure enabling multiple interpretations. Instead, it has solidified into a condition in which the achievements and failures of exhibitions and artworks are no longer explicitly articulated. Judgment is not merely postponed—it is structurally avoided. As a result, criteria for evaluation and revision fail to accumulate.
 
Relationality, too, has shifted from an analytical tool into a language of justification. The formation of relations or modes of participation increasingly substitutes for the intrinsic achievement of the work itself. Discussions of form, structure, density, and completeness have receded from the center of criticism. The artwork ceases to be an object of evaluation and instead operates as a case, an event, or a trigger for discourse.
 
Institutional critique has likewise undergone transformation. While critique continues to be performed, it has become internalized as a stable function within institutions. It no longer leads to structural revision or the reestablishment of evaluative criteria. Consequently, responsibility for curatorial decisions, selection, and institutional operations becomes diffuse and obscured. Critique persists, but accountability is dispersed or rendered invisible.
 
These shifts do not represent a mere weakening of function, but a transformation in the mode of operation itself. Exhibitions continue to be produced, yet the structures through which their outcomes are evaluated, corrected, and accumulated have ceased to function effectively.
 
 
 
The Post-Contemporary Condition
 
This state—where judgment is structurally deferred, relationality operates as a language of justification, institutional critique is stabilized within institutional frameworks, and systems of responsibility and revision are weakened—is what this text defines as the “post-contemporary condition.”
 
This condition does not signify a future stage or a new artistic tendency. It refers to a structure that has already formed and is actively operating in the present. Nor is it limited to a specific region or to non-Western contexts; rather, it represents a structural condition observable across global contemporary art.
 
 
 
The Position of Korean Contemporary Art
 
Korean contemporary art has experienced these conditions in a relatively compressed timeframe. Having rapidly absorbed and internalized international discourse and institutional formats, it no longer remains merely in a position of responding to external frameworks.
 
Instead, it now occupies a position from which it can reanalyze and reconstruct the conditions of contemporary art itself.
 
At this juncture, the crucial question is not what Korean art should follow, but how it recognizes and conceptualizes the conditions that contemporary art currently confronts.
 
 
 
Structure of the Series
 
In line with these concerns, this series is structured in two parts, comprising a total of ten essays.
 
The overall trajectory moves progressively from a theoretical examination of the operational conditions of contemporary art, to an analysis of their concrete manifestations within institutions and markets, and ultimately to a reassessment of the position of Korean contemporary art.
 
 
Part I analyzes the operational conditions of contemporary art and their structural limitations.
 
This section focuses on how contemporary art has been constituted as both a cognitive framework and a form of institutional consensus. It examines the historical and theoretical contexts in which its key operative principles—the deferment of judgment, relationality, and institutional critique—emerged.
 
Rather than treating these principles as isolated concepts, the analysis emphasizes how they have functioned together as an integrated system shaping criticism, exhibition-making, and institutional practices. It further investigates how, through prolonged repetition, these principles have been transformed in their function and effect.
 
The aim is not merely to describe their original roles, but to identify the point at which their operational logic begins to produce structural limitations. In doing so, Part I establishes that the post-contemporary condition should not be understood as a surface-level shift, but as the cumulative result of transformations within the foundational logic of contemporary art itself.
 
 
Part II examines how these conditions operate concretely within art institutions and the market.
 
This section extends the theoretical discussion into the realm of practice, focusing on key structural components such as museums, biennials and non-profit institutions, galleries, art fairs and auctions, and cultural policy.
 
Each chapter analyzes how the deferment of judgment, relationality, and institutional critique function within specific operational processes, including exhibition planning, artist selection, discourse production, pricing mechanisms, and systems of circulation.
 
Particular attention is given to how discourse, institutional frameworks, capital, and visibility intersect and interact, and how these interactions shape both the formation of artistic value and the positioning of artists.
 
In this context, institutions and markets are not treated as passive backgrounds, but as active structures that materially produce and regulate meaning, value, and visibility within contemporary art.
 
The series concludes by reassessing the position of Korean contemporary art in light of these analyses.
 
It examines how Korea’s rapid assimilation of international discourse and institutional models has generated specific structural characteristics and considers how these conditions simultaneously produce both limitations and possibilities within the post-contemporary context.
 
Through this, Korean contemporary art is positioned not merely as a regional case, but as a critical site from which the current conditions of global contemporary art can be reinterpreted.
 
This structure is not intended as a sequential presentation of isolated phenomena, but as a systematic effort to deconstruct and reassemble the operational logic of contemporary art itself.
 
In other words, by moving from theory to institutions and markets, and ultimately returning to questions of position and potential, the series adopts a recursive structure that seeks to propose an effective perspective for understanding contemporary art as a whole.
 
 
 
Moving Forward
 
Today, the global art world continues to produce an abundance of discourse and exhibitions. Yet, structural analysis of its operational mechanisms and the reestablishment of evaluative criteria remain insufficient.
 
What is required is not the introduction of new terminologies, but a precise recognition of what no longer functions—and a clear articulation of the structures that have emerged as a result.
 
Without examining how the deferment of judgment has shifted into structural avoidance, how relationality has come to replace intrinsic artistic value, and why institutional critique has become stabilized within institutional systems, any discussion of the future will inevitably remain abstract.
 
This series, grounded in these concerns, attempts to structurally understand the present condition of Korean contemporary art within the global art context and to analyze the direction of its transformation.
 
At the same time, it seeks to establish a theoretical foundation for Korean contemporary art to move beyond a position of passive reception and toward an active role in interpreting and reconstructing the conditions of global art.
 
In other words, this text is not intended to explain Korean art per se, but to propose an analytical framework for understanding the present state of global art—and, within that framework, to examine the position and potential of Korean contemporary art.
 
What is at stake is not the interpretation of isolated events or tendencies, but the recognition of the structural conditions that shape them. Such recognition is not merely an accumulation of information; it entails a transformation in how contemporary art itself is perceived.
 
Ultimately, this series aims to establish a theoretical and critical foundation for understanding and responding to both the present and future of the global art world, while identifying the conditions necessary for Korean contemporary art to function as a significant site of production within it.
 
This is not a matter of short-term strategy or institutional reform. It is a more fundamental question: by what criteria and from what perspective do we understand and judge art?
 
The future does not arrive through the declaration of new forms. It becomes possible only when existing conditions are recognized as no longer valid, and when those conditions are transformed into objects of analysis and thought.
This series seeks to mark precisely that point of departure.

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.