The National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Korea (MMCA), in partnership with the SBS Foundation, has announced the shortlisted artists for the “Korea Artist Prize 2026”

It is undeniable that the selected artists have sustained meaningful practices within their respective fields. However, the issue at hand does not concern the individual competence of the artists. Rather, it concerns whether the “Korea Artist Prize”, as a national institutional platform, sufficiently secures procedural legitimacy and public accountability appropriate to its title.

The current structure of the prize raises several fundamental questions.
 
 
 
The Discrepancy Between the Title “Artist of the Year” and Its Selection Criteria
 
For the designation “Artist of the Year” to hold institutional validity, at least two conditions must be satisfied. First, the artistic achievements of the selected artists in recent years should demonstrate representational significance within the context of contemporary Korean art. Second, the process through which such recognition is granted should be based on transparent and publicly comprehensible criteria.
 
At present, however, the principles governing jury composition, nomination procedures, and evaluation standards are not sufficiently disclosed. As a result, the selection risks appearing less as an objectively grounded public judgment and more as a decision emerging from a limited institutional network.
 
Furthermore, it remains unclear whether the prize is intended to recognize artists whose accumulated achievements and influence have already been consolidated, or whether it functions primarily as a platform for artists still in development. If the former is the case, the presentation of artists with substantial trajectories and demonstrable impact would more clearly correspond to the symbolic authority implied by the title.
 
 
 
Procedural Transparency and Institutional Trust
 
In awards administered by a national museum, trust constitutes the most essential institutional asset. Such trust is not generated by the authority of outcomes alone, but by the transparency of process.
 
When the criteria for appointing jurors are not clearly articulated, when evaluation standards are not structurally organized and publicly available, and when the formation of the candidate pool lacks explicit explanation, the legitimacy of the final decision becomes difficult to substantiate.
 
This concern does not pertain merely to administrative procedure. It directly relates to how institutional authority is exercised and justified within a contemporary public framework.
 
 
 
Exhibition Duration and the Issue of Public Resource Allocation
 
The《Korea Artist Prize 2026》exhibition is scheduled to run for approximately four and a half to six months at MMCA Seoul. This extended duration necessitates structural consideration.
 
As a national public institution operating within finite spatial and financial resources, MMCA carries responsibility for equitable allocation. Concentrating major exhibition space over a prolonged period on four artists inevitably restricts opportunities for others within the same timeframe. While extended exhibitions may enable concentrated production and sustained audience engagement, the scale and maturity of Korea’s contemporary art ecosystem require that such concentration be evaluated in relation to broader principles of distribution and access.
 
In a context where numerous artists demonstrate comparable capability and achievement, prolonged allocation of institutional resources demands clear public justification.
 
 
 
Institutional Circulation and Structural Inertia
 
The central concern does not lie in the worthiness of the selected artists. Rather, it concerns the structural circulation of institutional authority.
 
When nomination, selection, exhibition, and discourse production repeatedly operate within a relatively contained institutional framework, the prize risks functioning less as an open public platform and more as a mechanism of internal reinforcement.
 
As the highest-ranking public institution representing Korean contemporary art, MMCA’s operational framework must remain responsive to changing conditions. When external circumstances evolve rapidly while institutional procedures remain largely unchanged, the resulting structure may appear increasingly disconnected from contemporary demands.
 
 
 
International Responsibility and Strategic Positioning
 
The global context surrounding Korean contemporary art has shifted significantly. The reorientation of the international art market toward Asia, increased institutional attention to Korean practices, and the acceleration of digital circulation have collectively generated a historically significant opportunity.
 
In this situation, internationalization cannot be reduced to the importation of established foreign exhibitions. The responsibility of a national museum lies in strategically presenting artistic value produced within Korea to the global art field, and in embedding that value within international curatorial and discursive networks.
 
If the “Korea Artist Prize” remains primarily a domestically circulating institutional event, it risks underutilizing this moment of expanded visibility. A national prize must operate not only as recognition, but as a mechanism for long-term international positioning.
 
 
 
Necessary Structural Measures
 
For the "Korea Artist Prize" to function at the level implied by its title, selection must constitute the beginning of an extended trajectory rather than its conclusion.
 
This requires formalized partnerships with overseas museums and biennials, structured engagement with international curators and critics, systematic production and dissemination of English-language scholarship, and the establishment of medium-term international development tracks for selected artists.
 
In addition, exhibition duration and spatial allocation should be assessed in relation to public efficiency and international strategy. Extended presentations, if maintained, should be integrated into broader institutional collaborations capable of generating sustained global engagement.
 
 
 
Conclusion

The issue is not whether the selected artists are deserving. The issue is whether the institutional framework that authorizes and amplifies their work corresponds to the scale of responsibility currently facing Korean contemporary art.
 
MMCA stands as the foremost public institution in the field. Its role extends beyond the administration of exhibitions; it shapes the narrative and positioning of Korean contemporary art both domestically and internationally.
 
The essential question is therefore not who has been selected, but how selection is governed, how authority is articulated, and how institutional recognition is translated into sustained international presence. Only when these dimensions are addressed in structural and strategic terms can the “Korea Artist Prize” fully align with the implications of its own name.

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.