Again, I have to write. Writing is a natural duty of a person working as a critic. But I am writing the complicated thoughts of mine here at the beginning of the essay because the stagnant writer’s fee of 170~250 dollars has continued to lower my motivation, making me establish a new determination. Just like all other writings, it takes quite some time to complete a critique. To construct a structure and to analyze a work of art elaborately, while noting the subject of the exhibition and its references, instead of a mere description of artwork, a mental distress of a similar degree to the will of creation is inevitably accompanied with this dedication. For these reasons I tend to accept fewer commissions for writing, however, the deadlines that I occasionally write down always feel strict. In this text written as a researcher who is participating in the SeMA Nanji Residency, I intend to review the trajectory of the path that I have taken as a critic as if I wrote an autobiographical letter to myself - composed and exceptional, escaping the pressure of deadlines.

In my critique titled Cut the Critic’s Hand: A Record of Five Years on Art Writings that I contributed to the art magazine Misul Segye two years ago together with the conference forum sourcebook held at SeMA, I discussed the distinct characteristics of critique and the effort needed in order to finally stand out from a temporary position placed in-between journalists, reporters and professional scholars. The thoughts I mentioned at that time as a critic are still valid. However, it is necessary to ask the question again of what writing means in this harsh reality and skepticism, which make it difficult to continue to critique. Then the fact that there are certainly limitations of time and efforts a person can afford is also brought up. As quite a few critics already indicated and to add one more complaint, compensation of 170~250 dollars for critics who entirely devote themselves to write a critique for almost a month and a half to two months, is the structural ill that keeps them from sustained working in good conditions. Increasing skepticism and damaged self-esteem due to the unfair treatment with regard to the manuscript fees which are less than the minimum wage of employees working in convenience stores make them lose their pride in their work at times. Those who need to hone thoughts and senses sharply are in a predominant situation where they are discarded when they reach their limits and the baton is passed to the next player, spinning like gears on a conveyor belt. Although maintaining this work refers to cases in which they need to find another way of creating a profit structure or need to find a stable teaching position, talking about professionalism of the critics is still packed with romantic notions.

The comment that is made, that ‘they can just get more work if they need to’ is invalidated because in order to provide a proper analytical framework for an original review cannot merely be repeated. I often see that unethical behaviors among critics, who are too eager to write reviews even under conditions of low wage with higher outputs, that they merely repeat their own research and critical perspectives onto an artist. The profession of criticism is exhausted by higher mental and physical demands and is faced with a range of difficult problems in many ways: even if there are many commissioned writing, one does not have the high level of energy and enthusiasm to produce writing. In addition, when one works less, gossip goes around and people say that the critic has been forgotten. In my essay that was contributed to the conference forum, I discussed the circumstances of critics that were similar to bats. In the economic aspect as well, critics are confronted with this contradictory state and forced to be into a very challenging position.

For example, the process of publishing a catalogue is comparable. Following the fees for photographing artworks, designing catalogues and pamphlets and translating, the lowest fee is set for critics. The fact that a translation fee for the text is much higher than the original text that analyzes the work may need to be dealt with as a topic of public argument, despite the understanding of the work of translators as an important creative work. To say it again, a symptom wherein the structural ills in which the portion and position of criticism are placed at the lowest level, taking a backseat to the fees for graphic designers and translators, is very counter-productive to a healthy art scene, where the emphasis is on the work of criticism.

Of course, the fact that anyone involved in the scene of art, music, and physical education suffers from longtime obscurity and poverty is a matter of common knowledge. Even if one’s name becomes well known, it does not instantly lead to the creation of a profit structure. But the positions of critics who write are not much different until the moment of saying goodbye to the world. Unlike novelists who can gain economic profits by selling millions of books, the last bastion or resort to sell writings is not given to critics, either. In other words, it is almost the only type of work with no money to bet on. In fact, I often encounter a series of writings that just list trivial gossip or chats in the catalogues published annually by artist-in-residency programs’ critic programs that match critics with artists. I am confused if this is sad thing or something to be relieved, but I no longer feel angry with this for these reasons.

Sometimes, funny ideas occur to my mind. For instance, I have a delusion that it might be reasonable to give a 1 to 3 percent commission of the profit to the writer who wrote a critique of a work when the work is presented and sold at the art auction market. It may not have realistic validity because the nature of qualitative evaluation makes it difficult to examine precisely from legal perspective what should be the share of critics as well as to measure the number of times and amounts of critiques in detail. Nevertheless, I think this could be a request that a member of the art world could make boldly one time. Like the circumstance in which the pay for a critique is set at the lowest level in the process of publishing a catalogue, critics, who have shared the aesthetic journey persistently and solitarily with the artists more than anyone else, are thoroughly and contradictorily excluded from the profit structure, whereas the galleries, auction market and arts professionals all share profits even though the value of work rises and the work is sold at a higher price.

After waking up from such a delusion, when meeting people working in the same field that is full of jealousies, checks and intrigues, sometimes it is necessary to throw a rotten prey to their mouths that cannot be hidden, enjoying the misfortunes of others while still saying that they are having a hard time and pretending to be solemn. In such needy circumstances, I definitely have to study and research hard. I need to keep a steady eye on how the situation of the current art scene is currently going, to understand recent theoretical tendencies and to read major books carefully in order to maintain my own critical thoughts, even if they are not dissolved in my research right away. Of course, it requires a lot of time and effort and is no better than the price for unpaid labor. Some may say I am just studying what I like. But such a sarcastic remark is not a valid criticism in my opinion because I have to buy all the books at my own expense without any particular income. And the writer’s fee amounting to approximately 170~250 dollars causes an infinite vicious circle. Different from companies paying salaries, which include overtime pay and counting some free days without much work, this is the only subtractive kind of work in which intangible value is not calculated in the account book at all.

With this in mind, I may not be the only person who has a job search site in the corner of the screen of my laptop while writing a critique. After realizing that I am getting older every year as the pendulum swings back and forth impatiently while I am studying and writing at the same time, I have no choice but to accept the fact that it has been a long time since the door of employment was already shut. This consistent dilemma similar to the question, which came first, the chicken or the egg, is depressing and lowers my motivation to write.

The way I look is just like that of a bad son as well as a criminal resting his foot on a gradually sinking wreck. Critics who are left behind in the devastating loop and confused gradually about what object that they have devoted their young energy and time to serve, may be staring at somewhere with the face of a devil with horns. As I lift my head and look up excessively as if there remains a shiny mirage scattered along the naked ridge, my back pain seems to aggravate more. Nevertheless, for critics, who have to bark like an angry abandoned dog, the temperature as high as almost 30 degrees Celsius in the middle of the day with rolling clouds in the blue sky discourages a desire once again very unpleasantly.

※ This content was first published in 『2021 SeMA Nanji Residency Program Catalogue』, and re-published here with the consent of SeMA Nanji Residency.

Moon Junghyun

Art critic. MOON was awarded the 2nd SeMA-HANA Art Criticism Award for 2017, with his ‘Analysis of Sulki & Min’s Ephemera: This is not a Poster.’ He was one of three shortlisted candidates for the 2014 New Vision Art Critic Award by the ‘Art in Culture’ magazine. He worked as a reporter for ‘Kyunghyang Article’ and was an appointed researcher at the Korea Culture & Tourism Institute.