Struggle for Justice
War and fight. Though these words may sound aggressive to some people, to others they are words of hope. It was not power or wealth these people wanted, but simple freedom and peace they desired to achieve out of this war. In contemporary Korean history, from the Japanese colonial period to the June struggle (1987), people fought to achieve their liberation. However, being unsuccessful, it was not until after the Gwangju Massacre (1980) that a new form of art movement enabled the Minjung (people) to fight and triumph against the authoritarian government. As it can be seen from two of the most influential artworks from the Minjungmisul (people’s art) movement, Bungsoo Choi’s Save Han-yeol and Minhwa Choi’s Lee Han-yeol Resurrection, the Minjung artworks, the use of strong imagery was powerful in representing the anger and sorrow of the Minjung who were deprived of freedom. In the 1980s, the democratisation movement influenced the emergence of a Korean activist art movement, Minjungmisul, which established the Minjung subjectivity that unified the nation through its Korean identity, visual effects, and reproducibility.
In the midst of the chaotic Korean society and bewildered Minjung after its liberation, the Korean artistic world remained secluded with their Western formalistic abstract art, as the Tate Museum described, a contemporary art movement that focused solely on its visual form, remaining aloof from the society. From the 1910 Japanese colonisation to the United States’ protection, as foreigners brought in new cultures to the country, the Korean culture that united the Minjung lost its colour. And even when Korea was liberated and democratised after World War II, the noble ideology of democracy remained nothing more than an ideal concept because, under the name of the Minjung, autocrats suppressed and exploited them. However, there still remained people who fought against injustice and this motivated young artists to promote democracy through a new form of art movement that would speak and unite the people, the Minjungmisul. This socio-political art movement that emerged in the 1980s after the Gwangju Massacre — where, according to the National Archives of Korea, 162 peaceful protesters were killed by the military-lead autocratic government — rejected Western influence and aimed to create a Korean form of modern art that was inspired by Korean traditional culture. Journalist Mark Clifford said, “Minjung art uses crude, powerful images to express struggles of farmers, workers, and students.” As it can be seen from Byungsoo Choi’s Save Han-yeol (1987) and Minhwa Choi’s Lee Han-yeol Resurrection (1987), these were completely different from the elegant formalism and instead focused on the people conveying the Korean sentiment. Minjungmsiul was not something to be curated in a gallery, but a symbolisation of the people that was meant for the streets and destroyed by the authoritarian government.
One aspect of Minjungmisul that was effective in establishing the Minjung subjectivity was its Koreanness. During the colonial period, to destroy the Korean identity, the Japanese implemented an ethnic cleansing policy by forbidding the practice of Korean culture. And after the liberation, the Western cultures substituted for our own, therefore weakening the Korean identity within the Minjung. So, during the autocracies, even when people rose against injustice, they were lacking a central idea, they easily crumpled down. However, in the 1980s the emergence of Minjungmisul with its foundation on 한 Han, a complex Korean emotion, unified the country as one. The Korean han is a combination of sorrow, regret, resentment, and anger that existed within the ordinary people from centuries ago. Korean studies professor Sebastian Kim notes, “If Minjung theologians developed the theoretical framework for the democratisation movement, Minjung artists made a significant impact on the movement by providing a platform for expressing people’s han and aspirations.” To the ordinary people, the idea of Minjung was difficult to understand, however, based on han, Minjungmisul became a platform in which everybody could relate to. An art critic Yeol Choi defined this characteristic of Minjung art as, “Not beginning from art, but from the people and society to spread out within the Minjung.” It was not its beauty, but the Korean han that spoke through these paintings, that aroused the people and therefore establishing the Minjung subjectivity.
To the Minjung, the Gwangju massacre turned into han and reminded them of the tragedy, which gave birth to the socio-political art movement. The emotion of han can be seen especially in Byungsoo Choi’s printmaking of Save Hanyeol. It is large scale woodcut artwork based off a picture taken by Reuters of Han-yeol Lee bleeding on the head, after being hit by a grenade shot by the police during a protest. Basing off the han towards the government that killed a young aspiring student, the crude image of death in this artwork symbolised the June revolt. Minhwa Choi’s Lee Han-yeol Resurrection also illustrated the people’s han into his artwork by portraying crude imagery of the protest, including images of struggles, determination, and death of the Minjung. Whilst Bungsoo Choi’s evoked the emotion of han, Minhwa Choi’s painting conveyed the direct emotion the Minjung was feeling. The Korean han was a central theme within the Minjungmisul, therefore, stimulating the people to unite under the Minjung subjectivity.
In addition to its Korean identity, the Minjungmisul’s visual effects, with its basis on extensive size and interactivity, were powerful in uniting the people under the subjectivity. According to Minjung activist artist Jintaek Lim, “On the date of Han-yeol Lee’s funeral, July 09, 1987, there was a gigantic hanging painting and millions of people gathered at the Yeonsei University campus.” As it can be seen from Minhwa Choi’s Lee Han-yeol Resurrection (22 ft x 8 ft) and Bungsoo Choi’s Save Hanyeol (24 ft x 32 ft), the large scale of the paintings was effective in empowering the Minjung to revolt against the autocracy. Even though a lot of people were fighting, there remained those who were not engaged. Therefore, to attract people the accessibility of its size was effective in promoting the cause. Minhwa Choi recalled his experience in the June Struggle by describing how his art was effective in helping the millions of people from the funeral to realise what this fight was about. Humans are somewhat like lambs, needing a shepherd to lead them and in this case, Han-yeol Resurrection and Save Han-yeol were the herders that lead the Minjung in their final combat.
The process in cooperating with the protestors in creating the art piece, along with its large-scale, was a contributing factor to establishing the Minjung subjectivity as the ordinary people were able to convey their han. Both artists described their creation process to be interactive with the workers and students. Bungsoo Choi recalls, “Immediately I took the photo [of Han-yeol Lee bleeding by Reuters] to Yonsei University and spent the whole night with the student protesters, drawing and hanging the piece on the building wall.” Not simply focusing on its visual form like the formalism, the ordinary people’s thoughts and determination were put into this work, therefore, making the power something of their own. The art spoke, the art cried, the art screamed, the art wailed, the art raged, and the art fought. The paintings stood on the front line and excited the people to revolt against the autocracy in a democratic country, and it was interactivity and visual effects that influenced the Minjung subjectivity.
Alongside the Koreanness and the visual effects, the reproducible nature of Minjungmisul was powerful in spreading the idea throughout the nations, therefore, creating a unified Minjung subjectivity. After the Gwangju massacre, people felt the necessity to have a medium that could solely speak for them and in the 1980s it was Minjungmisul. Artists’ creativity was used as a means of communication to speak for the people and to inform them about human rights abuse by the military government. Because the ideology of Minjung itself was too complex for the ordinary people such as farmers and workers to understand, visual images, especially printmaking, were effective in having others participate and spreading ideas.
Therefore, representing the students and ordinary people who were campaigning against the military government, Minjung artists incorporated art techniques, such as printmaking, which could be easily duplicated to widely spread the ideas — asking for freedom and liberation — throughout the nation. According to Sebastian Kim, “They used woodcuts [printmaking] since they can be easily duplicated for flyers, leaflets, books and other printed media without a great cost, thereby ‘democratizing’ art.” One example of woodcut print is Bungsoo Choi’s Save Han-yeol. His usage of woodcut in depicting the brutal attack on Han-yeol Lee by the police was effective in inciting the people to revolt against the corrupt authorities, as the roughness of the woodcut worked well with the images in amplifying the crudeness. Because the media was being censored by the government, it was the Minjung’s job to advocate their cause and printmaking was most suitable in establishing Minjung subjectivity through propaganda. David Graber, an anarchist activist notes, “The matter is further complicated by the fact that journalists have a fairly idiosyncratic definition of “violence”: something like ‘damage to persons or property not authorised by properly constituted authorities’.” As it can be seen from the Gwangju incident, when the media was supposed to inform the people of the truth, they made a decision to stay silent and give in to the authorities. So instead of the media, Minjungmisul provided a platform in which the people’s voice could be expressed in visual forms. What the media and the government concealed, the crude woodcut images of Minjung spread around the country.
Whilst Minjungmisul was effective in promoting the people’s subjectivity, although the meaning has subtly changed over the course of time, the concept of Minjung had existed from decades ago, therefore, some could argue that the Korean art movement of the 1980s did not establish the Minjung subjectivity. According to historian Man’gil Kang, “The contemporary history of Korea can be divided roughly into three periods: capitalistic aggression at the close of nineteenth century; colonial rule in the first half of the twentieth century and national division in the latter half century.” The first period the Minjung formed around a common purpose to protect Korea from the Western powers. The second period was to recover Korean sovereignty from Japanese control, and the last period was the fight for freedom within liberated Korea. Throughout these years, the idea of Minjung had persisted, so it some perspectives it could be interpreted that it was rather the Minjung that influenced the emergence of the activist Korean art. However, even though the ideology of Minjung had existed before, during each period its subject has changed because the word Minjung does not simply refer to a certain class like the Western social classes. It is not a fixed class, but more fluid being a combination of different classes that vary depending on its socio-political context. So in this case, a new form of Minjung was created, mainly farmers, workers, and students, whose rights were abused by the autocratic government and it was the Minjungmisul that established the Minjung identity.
Also, there were some people who see the art movement separate from the democratisation movement of the 1980s. “Based on this logic, the culture movement aspires to create a new culture that will appeal widely to all members of the collective, classless community and be conducive to the spiritual unity of the people from both sides of the divided nation.” According to Chungmoo Choi, a Korean culture professor, the purpose of the Minjung art movement was rather an attempt to create a cultural unity and refusing the market oriented Western cultures. Whilst this is partially true, however, according to many of the Minjung artists, they claim their purpose was unifying the people not culturally but nationally to stand up against the corrupt government.
History repeats itself and our present leaves a trace that resembles those of the past. In Korea, we have a past of being colonised by numerous powerful nations and finally when we were liberated our presidents became autocrats. Only after the Gwangju Massacre in 1980, people began to realise the unjust power that dominated the Korean peninsula. Finally learning from our past, people used Minjungmisul as mean to unite people to fight against the military government, under the name of Minjung. Jintaek Lim described this movement as, paradoxically, Minjungmisul was not at its peak because it was dramatic, but because it was gruesome. And even when the democratisation flame has diminished after the June 29 Declaration (1987), the government’s submission to the Minjung, the art movement was no longer carried on, however, its power still remains within the people. To outsiders, Minjungmisul may seem like a painful reminder of our authoritarian past, but to us, it is our source of power that unites the Koreans as one.
