Twenty Years After Nam June Paik


The year 2026 marks the 20th anniversary of the passing of Nam June Paik (1932–2006).
 
Long before the emergence of the World Wide Web, Paik envisioned a globally networked society. In 1974, he began conceptualizing Electronic Superhighway, anticipating the cultural and social transformations that digital networks would bring. As early as 1964, he introduced Robot K-456, bringing the relationship between humans and machines into the realm of artistic experimentation.

Robot K-456staged a “traffic accident” performance during Paik’s retrospective at the Whitney Museum of American Art in 1982. The scene presented the machine not as a symbol of technological progress, but as a being capable of experiencing life and death. Through this gesture, Paik offered a powerful metaphor for the human condition within technological civilization. In an era defined by artificial intelligence and automation, this work resonates with renewed urgency.
 
To mark the 20th anniversary of Paik’s passing, institutions in Korea and abroad are revisiting his legacy. The Nam June Paik Art Center is currently developing the “AI Robot Opera project”, centered on Robot K-456, in collaboration with artists including Byungjun Kwon. Wooyang Museum of Contemporary Art in Gyeongju continues its Nam June Paik exhibition, first opened last year, through May.

Amorepacific Museum of Art will present Paik’s large-scale work Turtle Ship in its upcoming collection exhibition this April. Meanwhile, the Getty Research Institute has launched a research collaboration with the Arts Council Korea (ARKO), and in November, the Nam June Paik Art Center and the Pinacoteca de São Paulo will jointly present an exhibition supported by Hyundai Motor Company’s “Hyundai Translocal Series”. Together, these initiatives signal a renewed global engagement with Paik’s work.

Whitney Biennial New York 1993
 
The “Whitney Biennial 1993”, held in New York, was more than a single exhibition; it marked a critical turning point within the American art institution. Departing from traditional emphases on painting and sculpture, the biennial foregrounded video, installation, performance, text-based, and research-driven practices. The exhibition positioned social conflict and institutional critique at its core.

At the time, the exhibition faced harsh criticism for being “overly political” and “lacking aesthetic pleasure”, becoming one of the most controversial biennials in Whitney history. Yet this criticism precisely captured the exhibition’s significance: it declared, at an institutional level, that contemporary art could no longer operate on the basis of shared taste or stable aesthetic standards.

Many of the exhibition formats now commonplace in museums—discourse-driven curating, identity politics, and research-based practices—can be traced back to the radical decisions made during this period. In this sense, the “Whitney Biennial 1993” was not a problematic past, but a formative moment shaping the conditions under which contemporary art institutions operate today.


 
Whitney Biennial Seoul 1993

That same year, the Whitney Biennial was presented in Seoul at the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Gwacheon, under the title《Beyond the Border Line》. This marked the first overseas presentation in the history of the Whitney Biennial.

The Seoul presentation was not a simple act of international exchange or a high-profile exhibition import. It immediately generated both attention and resistance. Public discourse questioned whether such works could even be considered art, while critics described the exhibition as difficult, inaccessible, and excessively political. Some questioned why a national museum should host such an exhibition at all.

Yet this friction was not incidental. The Seoul exhibition was designed not to provide comfortable viewing, but to confront the Korean art world with forms of contemporary art it had largely avoided. At stake was not merely the question of “what is art,” but whether Korean institutions were prepared to engage with contemporary art as it was unfolding globally.

 
 
What Paik Brought Was Not ‘Achievement’, but ‘Risk’
 
The driving force behind bringing the Whitney Biennial to Seoul was Nam June Paik himself, who even contributed personally to the transportation of artworks. What he introduced was not the established achievements of American art, but contemporary art at its most uncertain and contested.
 
The Whitney Biennial was never meant to present finished results. It functioned as a platform for testing emerging practices whose outcomes were far from guaranteed. Paik believed that Korean art needed to think within the same temporal and risk-laden conditions as global contemporary art.
 
In a newspaper column written in August 1993, Paik made this intention explicit. The exhibition was not meant to provide pleasure, but to narrow the information gap and confront uncertainty directly. He famously stated that the exhibition was not meant to offer young artists “delicious food,” but to give them “strong teeth” capable of breaking any food. It was a call for judgment, not protection.
 

 
Choice as Cultural Structure
 
In the early 1990s, Korean society was undergoing a major cultural transition. Popular music, following the emergence of Seo Taiji and Boys, moved beyond imitation of Western pop and toward a self-sustaining creative ecosystem.

This transformation was not the result of safe choices, but of accumulated risk and controversy. Cultural leadership does not emerge from avoiding failure.
 
 

What Choices Is Korean Contemporary Art Making Today?
 
Today, Korean contemporary art operates under far more favorable conditions than in the past. Korean artists are regularly invited to major biennials and international museums, and institutional infrastructures have improved significantly. Yet favorable conditions alone do not guarantee contemporaneity.
 
Repeatedly importing already canonized artists and completed narratives may offer stability, but it also limits the institutional space available for emerging questions and experiments. This is not simply a programming issue; it concerns how Korean art participates in global art history as a present-tense practice.
 
 

Paik’s Enduring Legacy

When Paik brought the Whitney Biennial to Seoul in 1993, it was difficult, uncomfortable, and controversial. Yet it was precisely through this discomfort that the exhibition fulfilled the conditions of contemporaneity. Paik did not present a finished world; he demanded judgment amid uncertainty.

Recently, public art museums have been busy importing renowned international artists and exhibitions. While it's certainly important for the general public to enjoy culture and visit art galleries, it's even more crucial to support and produce indigenous Korean art and share it with the world.
 
Museums are not spaces for simply displaying objects. They are interpretive arenas that define which questions are allowed to occupy the center of contemporary art. What is chosen and what is excluded ultimately shapes the art history of a society.
 
Twenty years after his passing, the question Paik posed through the Whitney Biennial Seoul remains urgent. Are we still seeking comfort in completed narratives, or are we prepared to confront the unresolved issues of our time?
 

“There is uncertainty without creation, but there is no creation without uncertainty.”

References

• Nam June Paik, Newspaper column on the Whitney Biennial Seoul, Chosun Ilbo, August 3, 1993. “Bridging the Gap in Advanced Art Information”
• YouTube video