김태정 ( 1938 - )
1938 경남 창녕 출생
서울대학교 문리과 대학 국문학과 졸업
중국문학대학 예술대학원 미술과 졸업
2013 Advisor 5.4 문화박물관 가흥, 중국
2011-2004 객원교수, 베이징 대학교, 중국
2008 Advisor & Art director 제 1회 청주 비엔날레, 중국
2008 70년 회고전, 인사아트센터, 서울
2003-1995 대구 예술대학교 교수 역임
2000 NY Christie's Japanese & Korean Art 옥션 작품 2점 낙찰
1989 한국 서예협회 초대 이사장 역임
1989 일본 NHK 김태정의 예술세게 방영
1989-1984 제 13회 한국 미협전 금상수상, 국립현대미술관
1988 ICA (Institute of Contemporary Arts) 대표작가, 일본
1975 한국문학 신인상 수상, 한국문학사 주관
2014 가흥문화박물관 개관 초대전, 가흥, 중국
2014 개인 초대전, 대구 석재 서예 대상 수상, 대구문화예술회관, 대구
2008 For the age of seventy, 물파 갤러리, 서울
1994 대백화랑, 대구
1993 중국문화부 중국화 연구원 초대 개인전, 북경, 중국
1992, 1990, 1989 예술의 전당, 프레스 센터, 미화랑, 서울
1989 Tokyo Spiral Gallery, 동경, 일본
1988 아사히 신문, 아사히 신문기념관, 동경, 일본
1981 Simonson Gallery, LA, 미국
1980 Oriental Art's Gallery, 시카고, 미국
2008 김태정 & Ilryo 단체전, 정주, 중국
2007 한중일 현대 서예미술가 20인전, 물파 갤러리, 서울, 한국
1993 한중 미술협회 교류전, 중국 남경박물관, 남경, 중국
1992 한중 대표화가 교류전, 북경 중국화 연구원, 북경, 중국
1992-1990 ‘92 Tokyo Art Expo' 참가, 미화랑 기획, 도쿄, 일본
1991-1984 ‘84-91’ 현대미술 초대전 출품, 국립 현대미술관, 서울
1990 독일 국립 Verkehr and Technik 박물관, 독일
1989 파리 그랑빠레 비평 구상전 출품, 파리 그랑빠레, 프랑스
1988 한국 서예 100년전 초대 출품 및 논문 350매 수록, 예술의 전당, 서울
1988 아시아 비엔날레 출품, 방글라데시
1986 16인 현대 대표작가 초대전, 현대미술관, 서울
1985 한중 미술 교류전 출품, 국립 역사 박물관, 대만
Boehringer Ingelheim, Parmaceutical, 베를린, 독일
독일 Verkehav und Technik 국립 박물관, 독일
San Francisco Asian Art Museum
아사히 신문 본사, 일본 / 북해도 하꼬다데 미술관, 일본 / 국립현대미술관 / 경남도미술관 / 예술의 전당 / 갤러리 미
Tae Jung Kim ( 1938 - )
1938 Born in Changnyeong, Gyungsangnam-Do, Korea
1963 Graduated from Seoul National University,
BA in Korean Language and Literature, Seoul, Korea
1985 Graduated from Culture University, MFA in Fine Art, Taipei, Taiwan
2013 Advisor of 5.4 Culture Museum, Jiaxing, China
2011-2004 Guest Professor of Beijing University, China
2008 Advisor and Art Director of first Zheng Zhou Biennale
2003-1995 Professor of Daegu Arts University, Korea
2000 NY Christie's Japanese & Korean Art Auction, N.Y, U.S.A
1989 Member of the Steering Committee of the Grand Exhibition of Korean Calligraphy
1989 President of the Korean Association of Calligraphers
1989-1984 Appointed for invitational Artist by the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Nagoya, Japan
1988 Elected a Representative Artist by the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Nagoya, Japan
1977 Gold Prize, The 13th Korean Association of Artists, National Museum of Contemporary Art
1975 Received the Award of Literary Debutant by the Hanguk Munhaksa
Selected Solo Exhibition
2014 Suk Je Art Grand Prix of Calligraphy, Daegu, Korea
2014 5.4 Culture Museum Opening Exhibition, Jiaxing, China
2008 Mulpa Gallery: for the age of seventy, Seoul, Korea
1994 Daebaek Plaza Gallery, Daegu, Korea
1993 Chinese Institute of Painting, the Ministry of Culture, Beijing, China
1992, 1990, 1989 Gallery Mee, Seoul, Korea
1989 Tokyo Spiral Gallery, Tokyo, Japan
1988 The Ashai Newspaper at Memorial Hall, Tokyo, Japan
1981 Simonson Gallery, LA, U.S.A
1980 The Oriental Arts Gallery Chicago, Truman College Chicago, U.S.A
Selected Group Exhibition
2008 Kim Tae Jung & Ilryo, Zheng Zhou, China
2007 20 Modern Calligraphers from Korea, China, Japan, Mulpa Space Seoul, Korea
1997 Two-man Show with Takagi Seikag at Kansai Culture Center, Osaka, Japan
1995 Gold Prize Awarded from International Calligraphy Biennale, Beijing, China
1993 Korea and China Art Association Exchange Exhibition, Nanjing Museum, Nanjing, China
1992 Korea and China Art Association Exchange Exhibition, Beijing, China
1992-1990 Tokyo Art Expo, Tokyo, Japan
1990 Museum Verkhr und Technik, Berlin, Germany
1989 Figuration Critic Invitation Show at Grand Palais, Paris, France
1988 One Hundred Year of Korean Calligraphy Exhibition, Seoul Arts Center
1988 Asian Biennale, Dhaka, Bangladesh
1986 16 Representative Modern Artist Show at the National Museum of Contemporary Art
1985 Korea and China Show, Taipei, Taiwan
Boehringer Ingelheim Phamaceutical, Berlin, Germany
Verkehr und Technik Museum, Berlin, Germany
The Ashai Newspaper Company, Tokyo, Japan
Hakoda Museum, Hokaido, Japan
The National Museum of Contemporary Art, Seoul, Korea
Seoul Art Center, Seoul, Korea / Gallery Mee,
Kyung Nam Province Art Museum, Changwon, Korea
金兑庭 ( 1938- )
2006 研讨会首席：寻找新艺术(New Art)方向
1991 KBS TV播出《金兑庭的艺术世界》
1989 出演NHK TV《金兑庭的美术世界》
2014 Suk Je艺术书法最高奖(韩国大邱)
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 渼画廊 (韩国首尔)
1989 大皇宫Figuration Critic邀请展(法国巴黎)
* 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.
(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- )