金兑庭 ( 1938- ) 

1938  庆尚南道昌宁出生

1954  庆北高中毕业(韩国大邱)

1963  首尔大学国语国文系毕业(韩国首尔)

1985  台湾文化大学院绘画系毕业(台湾台北)

研究主题

2014  花鸟主题的东洋绘画技巧对比研究

2013  文图中的大小、厚薄、写实写意之结合对比研究

2013  中国黄山摩崖佛对比研究

2012  东洋美术的新方向与道路研究

2012  文图中的微风和强风研究

2010  墨描韩国传统画研究

2006  研讨会首席：寻找新艺术(New Art)方向

简历

2013  5.4纪念馆顾问(中国嘉兴)

2004-2011 北京大学客座教授(中国)

2008  第一届郑州展顾问及美术监督

2008  中国郑州名誉市民

1995-2003 大邱艺术大学教授

2000  纽约克里斯蒂拍卖

1991  KBS TV播出《金兑庭的艺术世界》

1989  韩国书法大展运营委员

1989  韩国书法协会理事长

1989  出演NHK TV《金兑庭的美术世界》

1988  墨友会评审委员

1988  被指定为现代美术馆代表画家(日本名古屋)

1984-1989 被指定为国立现代美术馆特邀画家(韩国首尔)

1977  获得国立现代美术馆主办第十三届韩国美术家协会金奖

1975  韩国文学史新人文学奖获奖

个展

2014  Suk Je艺术书法最高奖(韩国大邱)

2014  5.4纪念馆开幕展(中国嘉兴)

2008  水波画廊：庆古稀(韩国首尔)

2008  仁寺艺术中心：庆古稀(韩国首尔)

2002  韩国画廊(美国纽约)

2000  大邱文化艺术中心(韩国大邱)

1994  DEBEC广场画廊(韩国大邱)

1993  中国文化部绘画研究所(中国北京)

1993  南京博物馆(中国南京)

1992  首尔艺术中心渼画廊 (韩国首尔)

1990  首尔新闻中心渼画廊 (韩国首尔)

1989  东京螺旋画廊(日本东京)

1989   渼画廊 (韩国首尔)

1988   朝日报社纪念馆(日本东京)

1988   新世界百货商店艺术画廊(韩国首尔)

1981   西蒙森画廊(美国LA)

1980   东方艺术画廊(美国芝加哥)

1980   杜鲁门学院(美国芝加哥)

联展

2008  金兑庭与Ilryo(中国郑州)

2007  水波空间∶20位韩中日现代书法家(韩国首尔)(在中国西塘杂志连续16次刊登介绍)

1997  关西文化中心高木斯信双人秀(日本大阪)

1997  翰林大学博物馆∶文字的多样性(韩国大邱)

1997  ’97韩中交换展艺术大厅(韩国首尔)

1997  ’97国际书法展全北双年展(韩国全州)

1996  ’96文字与图像I展(韩国大邱)

1995  BESETO国际美术节(中国上海)

1995  获得国际书法展金奖(中国北京)

1993  南京博物馆韩中美术协会交流展(南京博物馆)

1992  画廊Sohwa开幕展(韩国首尔)

1992  韩中美术协会交流展(中国北京)

1991  韩国画廊艺术展

1990  画廊Somee开幕展(韩国首尔)

1990   德国技术及交通博物馆(德国柏林)

1990-1991 ’90-’91首尔艺术展(韩国首尔)

1990   ’90’92东京美术博览会(日本东京)

1989   大皇宫Figuration Critic邀请展(法国巴黎)

1988   国际美术展-韩中日阿拉伯画廊(韩国首尔)

1988   韩国书法百年展首尔艺术中心(韩国首尔)

1988   88首尔奥运会庆典-国际书法展(韩国首尔)

1988   亚洲艺术双年展(孟加拉国达卡)

1986   第二十届韩国美术协会展国立现代美术馆画廊(韩国首尔)

1984   ’84国立现代美术馆现代美术馆邀请展(韩国首尔)(截至1987年每年召开)

1984   韩中东洋美术交流节，国立历史博物馆(台湾台北)(1985)

1982   第一届韩国美术交流大展，国立现代美术馆(韩国首尔)(1983)

1974   第一届韩国图章刻印协会展，现代美术画廊(韩国首尔)(截至1979年每年召开)

1972   第21届国立美术展，国立现代美术馆(韩国首尔)

       (截至1981年每年召开，1973年和1980年除外)

作品收藏

勃林格殷格翰药品公司(德国柏林)

国立现代美术馆(韩国首尔)

朝日报社(日本东京)

函馆博物馆(日本北海道)

德国技术及交通博物馆(德国柏林)

首尔艺术中心(韩国首尔)

庆尚南道美术馆(韩国昌原)

渼画廊(韩国首尔)等

* Critique about Artist Tae Jung Kim 

Beyond Calligraphy ? Beyond Painting: The Art of Tea-Jung Kim

- Fumio Nanjo, Director of the Mori Art Museum, Art Critic

My position ? historically ? is in the rear-guard of the avant-garde. To be in the avant-garde is to have knowledge of what has died; to be in the rear-guard is to still love what is dead.

- Roland Barthes

It was in the calligraphy hall of the Seoul Arts Centre that I first saw the work of Tae-Jung Kim. Walking through the collection, I stopped at a spot in the midst of an overwhelming display of calligraphy, where I noticed some pieces quite different from the others; these were two works by Tea-Jung Kim. They had arrested my attention through their sense of a certain existential intensity ? a kind of magnetic force. Each piece certainly contained calligraphic characters, but seemed to be more of a picture than a piece of calligraphy: the whole surface was colored, and had various nuances of expression created by the materials and the layering of pigments. It was easy to imagine the controversy such work would provoke, not only in calligraphic circles, but in the art world as well. Nevertheless, it seemed that the efforts of the artist were sustained by an intrinsic mental and spiritual necessity.

I met Kim the following day through the introduction of Chul-Hee Lee, of the Seoul Arts Centre, and Kyung-Sung Lee, director of the National Museum of Contemporary Art, who overcame the language barrier, allowing me to communicate with Kim. After this brief meeting, I was convinced that Kim was a sort of “confident criminal” who perpetrated his work very consciously; and I resolved to introduce his work as widely as possible in the future.

The elements Kim employs in his work are mostly derived from the most primitive from of Chinese character: the ancient symbols know as Kin Seki Moji which survive only in the form of inscriptions on stone or tortoise-shell. Yet these are characters, and at the same time, not characters; due to their proximity to the images which from which they originated. We should remember that the Chinese character was originally a pictogram, and in many cases remains so to his day. In this sense, the Chinese character is significantly different from the Roman alphabet, which, although based on Phoenician symbols, now performs an exclusively phonetic function. What is a pictogram? It is a sign that developed from the repeated usage, in communication, of a visual image that could be accepted through its common meaning and content. This sign become the character, sophisticated into language through a fixed and limited usage. In turn, the character came to evoke an abstract, non-specific meaning, or symbolic concept, directly; gradually eclipsing the original image in the process. This character, born in China and used in Japan and Korea, took thousands of years to evolve into its present from.

This process of refinement can be traced clearly by reviewing changes in the form of the character. At its earliest stage, the character appears as a kind of pictographic sign, closely resembling the primary pictorial figure; and at this stage, we cannot confirm with certainty whether it is a character or an image. We may ask what correlations existed between character, sign, image and reality at this stage of generative development. The birth of the character cannot be considered as a phenomenon arising solely for functional reasons. At its origins, the act of writing the Chinese character must have been supported by a motivation close to that which produced the cave-paintings at Lascaux and Altamira. This desire reveals the instinctive desire for poetic expression which primitive people might have manifested when they responded to the external world.

An approach that searches for the radical force of expression in this most primitive desire, can be taken by anyone ? at least in the cultures using the Chinese character ? but it is also a method that no-one would have attempted seriously until now. In this sense, Kim`s attempt is unique, and, at the same time, of universal appeal in the expressions of calligraphy and painting.

This attempt to break down barrier between these two fields reminds the painter of the saying ? referred to so often ? which states the single origin of both writing and painting. This saying, whose original implication is ambiguous, has frequently been interpreted in the following manner, in Chinese ink-wash painting, it is usual to find an epigraphic addition praising the picture in the space above the image. As they are opposing forms of expression, the writing and the image confront each other and create a visual tension; but they must be sublated semantically to complete the poetic expression. 

It is possible to interpret this theory in a different way, viewing calligraphy and painting as having developed from the same origin: the former being the image made abstract, the latter, the image made concrete. What is important, is that this act is the desire for poetic expression through which man has been trying to recognize the universe, and correspond to it, via the media of calligraphy and painting.

Kim has been exploring the expressive force of calligraphy and has returned to the point where calligraphy and painting had yet to diverge. The significance of his efforts lies in his regainment of the power behind this instinctive expressive desire, which existed at the development of the primal character from cave-painting. What new world of expression has Kim opened up to us? We can see the emergence of an entirely new world of sign creation/painting, evolved from the application of the rules and fixity of the first Chinese characters. Kim`s work creates a new vision by sublating the essential qualities of both calligraphy and painting: uniting them and synthesizing new meaning on a higher level.

At such a level, the character no longer adheres to its primary meaning, instead is reduced to its own ambiguous origins, somewhere between character and picture; while intimating the genesis of a new sign system. If we speak according to Saussure, it could be said that there is a relativisation of meaning in language, and a premonition of the creation of a new sigh system. This calls to mind Kant`s notion that artistic creation is the production of a new Legal by the genius. Pierre Guiraud, also from the field of semiotics, expresses the following point of view: “everything is the sign, which even so, swells abundantly. Trees, clouds and coffee-mills…everything is wrapped round and round with diversified interpretations”. Due to its readily apparent traditional qualities, Kim`s work is rich in a classical beauty which all can share; while it also has a strong contemporaneity, in the sense that it acts as a metaphor of the view expressed by Guiraud.

It would be true to say that there is no difference between the role of artist and spectator in regard to Kim`s work: to appreciate and interpret art work is also to endow it with meaning-to create and recognize a new code. If appreciation comes to focus merely on one interpretation, developing into a convention, then it will become an established language, and the work will lose its impact as art. In opposition to this, it is the artist who dismantles a code and continuously presents a new usage of signs; and this based on the intrinsic will of man, structuralized in the act of expression. Thus, art always acquires and reveal s new poetic reality.

 Nevertheless, it is impossible to continually present truly new languages of art ? or a truly new vision ? without severe spiritual tension, profound thought of persistent exploration. Without these efforts, such a picture surface as Kim`s; which seems as solid and impassive as rock, yet whose lines quiver with nervous tension; would have been unable to come into existence. This is his own world of expression, unable to be categorized either as belonging to the field of calligraphy, or to painting. Kim has accomplished all of this through a regression to the earliest stages of painting and calligraphy; opening a way to the future through the past, and resolving the paradox facing so many non-Western cultures:

…how to become modern and to return to sources; how to revive an old, dormant civilization and take part in universal civilization.

________________________________________

NOTES

(1)  Roland Barthes: p.175 of the afterword to the Japanese 

translation of his L`Empire des Signes Hyocho no Teikoku, 

translated by So Sakon, Shinchosha, 1970.

(2)  Giambattista Vico: The New Science, 1968.

(3)  Genen Chou: Rekidai Meigaki, 1977.

(4)  Michael Sullivan: A Short History of Chinese Art, 1966.

(5)  Kato Shuichi: Nihon Sono Kokoro to Katachi No.4, Suiboku/Tenchi no Shinsho, Heibonsha, 1987.

(6)  Terence Hawkes: Structuralism and Semiotics, 1977.

(7)  Ferdinand de Saussure: Cours de Linguistique Generale, 1916.

(8)  Emmanuel Kant: Kritik der Urteilskraft.

(9)  Pierre Guiraud: La Semiologie, 1977.

(10)  Kato Shigeru and other: Geijutsu no Kigoron, Keisou shobou, 1983.

(11)  Susanne K.Langer: Problems of Art, 1957.

(12)  Paul Ricoeur: Universal Civilization and National Culture, 1961. P.276-7

* About Artist Tae Jung Kim  金 兌 庭 ( 1938- )

以书法家， 随笔家，画家自成一家的金兑庭作家

从古代甲骨文字中寻找艺术根源，将书法用现代造型加以置换，构思了创意独特的作品。

并且，他混合使用帆布， 硬纸板上丙烯酸塑料，媒体，墨和画笔等东西方材料。

这可以说其艺术造型做到东方精神和现代绘画技巧的绝妙融合。

他的强弱有秩的运笔是韩国的线美，实现凝练艺术语言，浓墨和淡墨，谐谑与游戏的绝妙协调。

2014年渼画廊出版包括152余个金兑庭作家作品图像的272页面画集。