Kim Hee-Jung's "Family" and "Pink & White"

Park Chan-Kyong
Artist

I thought that there was hardly any mention of representation in the photo sector of Korea as I watched Kim Hee-Jung's recent artwork, "Family". Since appropriation has been the trend in the contemporary art since "Untitled Film Stills" by Cindy Sherman, represented works have been significantly produced being quite popular in Korea. One classic example might be artworks of Bang Byeong-sang or Jo Seop. Despite various motifs behind represented photos, they share a similar aesthetical goal.

 First of all, scenes have been recoded as in "Family" by Kim Hee-Jung. In Roland Barthes' term of mystification, it is to re-mythify the existing mythologies. By doing so, Barthes judged that naturalization of history, a facet of mythologies can be put into a new history. Photos represent a structure of meanings, including historically imposed meanings and ideologies into an irresistibly natural one, playing an ideological function even before their recipient recognizes it. Therefore, it is critical to return mythologies into their own form, and a form of de-mystification (that is, semioclasm) is required whereby the natural-looking forms are exposed in an "artificial" form with new artificial meanings attached.

 Recent debates have boiled down to raising questions on the utility of re-mystification and re-encoding against the backdrop of endless diffused reflection of images and mystification of re-mystification. In other words, one may ask a question on the validity of Barthes' story of the 60's at a time when the audience themselves are already aware that films and advertisements have been encoded to sell products amid a culture in which actors convey realtime messages on the entertainment industry. Likewise, one may even ask on the method of representation which seemed fresh at first can maintain the same level of freshness even up to date. However, I believe that the system of mythologies is still dominant and a culture that consumes mythologies as such is prevailing under the premise that Kim's works are still going on. In particular, it is extremely rate for the life of those around us or the history of individuals to be represented beyond the boundaries of cheap humanism.

 Kim's works do not seem to de-mythify the family ideology with an intention to criticise from the beginning. As the message in her work reveals, she wanted to raise a question on what has formed her in a specific environment of family, which resulted in de-mystification of family using representation and acting. While her previous work, "Pink & White" was about cultural prejudices in color symbols, "Family" intends to start from the realistic facet of low quality even by giving up on the visual sophistication which a broad aspect of abstract approaches is to reveal. In the same aspect, I believe that an artist of her generations seeks to explore a structure where a personal history and social history are intermingled through father (acting) is an courageous and meaningful act.

 It is somewhat rude to ask the occupation of one's father upon the first encounter. And yet, given the influence of a father's occupation on his children in Korean society, this kind of rudeness would efficiently lead to significant accuracy in the overall assessment of the respondent. As Jo Hae-jun's "Wonderful Father" reveals a deep story, the social history of a father in Kim's work is closely linked to the violent Korean modern history spearheaded by the government. The father in Kim's "Family", he is described as a "nominalistic" being not belonging to the scope of family that has been stereotyped even to the point of not having to be Kim's father. The father or the one acted by Kim is related to the nation instead of his family when he stood up against the national anthem or watches TV. The family, neighborhood and occupation are sub-groups of a nation, which are like autonomous organizations which are absurdly linked to it.

 Unlike the "Father" series in "Family", "Kim-Chi" and "Little Princess" take the form of a psychodrama instead of describing the social image. While the work on her self is in the form of a bizarre comedy revealing comic craziness, the father's circumstances tilt towards a comparatively objective description of them. In other words, she herself is deeply into the relationships with women within a family including her self, description of the father is rather obscure and unfamiliar without any leeway for her to naturally intervene. Therefore, the artist acting as the father, and acting as the mother are not limited to role changes: attitudes and motifs towards acting seem different. As such. the former is a passive substitution and the other an active one. What is most interesting in the work is when differences are compared in not only the overall outlay of the photos but also in presenting the father, mother, nation and family.

 If Kim's works are observed in some generalized aesthetic angle, "Pink & White" seems to have a more sophisticated and strong impression than "Family" which was created at the similar period. In particular, her works like "Ultra Super Powerful Father" an obvious low-tech video seem like another artist's work compared to her sophisticated code manipulation and skills to deal with objects found in "Pink & White". However, she does not easily fall prey to mannerism, and goes for regression planned to research on her self-identity, and it in itself is regarded as some virtue. In fact, this thing described as regression is a type of feed-back structure. It is because the artist deals with cultural forcing even embedded in simple subjects and the subjective gender bias automatically involved in while using the duality of masculinity and femininity

 The ice cream, biscuits, eggs and milk in "Pink & White" are symbols of purity, leniency, sacredness and desire. Series of wits of sexual disruption and blasphemy easily found in surrealism repeat themselves. The jewel of the series if White #8. The Cinderella paper doll that pops up in a Cinderella pop-up storybook is poured with the white paint. The photographic excess of the white paint means not only the stoppage of the narrative leading to a happy ending but also frustrated story form. Just like the statue of Mary in "Pink #8" has been substituted by the male genital, the story of Cinderella is a type of blasphemy, while instantly overturning the politics of the beautiful and lyrical surface. Therefore, "White #8" seems to be linked to somewhat comical and absurd facets in "Family". Here, sudden insults and hatred to what is sacred, happy and sweet pop up.

 Though not clear whether the artist had clear intention or not, there is a relationship of overlaps and overturns in the quiet and yet with-turn-and-twist series of "Pink & White" and those of "Family". The interest and focus in the work is very much so—with instinctive attitudes, let alone in obvious forms and differences. Both works have the confusion on the gender and age (in "Family", I playing the father, the man-like mother and the child's sexual fantasy). While the confusion is obscure in "Pink & White" as allegory, it is represented as a specific experience in "Family". As in the event ("Family") and its abstractness ("Pink & White"), or as in the relationship between substitution ("Family") and condensation ("Pink & White"), the two works structurally support each other. Therefore, Kim's two works are totally different in form but are even more interesting when juxtaposed.

 Kim Hee-Jung seems to have overcome abstractness of "Pink & White" by diverting attention towards the self, family and the relationship between family and the society through "Family". Though with consistency in the subject, various methods can be tried, and even conflict with one another by the brazenly bold attitudes of an artist, which I believe is essential for young contemporary artists. Moreover, this would be more so if we witness the repetition of stereotypes styles in many of the contemporary counterparts of Kim Hee-Jung.