Historian Eric J. Hobsbawm once said “the task that historians have is to analyze the meanings of the past within the context of society and to track the changes and implementation.” It would not be too far of a stretch to apply Hobsbawm's quote to art historian since art history, although quite specific, is still history. In addition, Hobsbaum also asserted that, “a mold called the past continuously forms the present or at least thought to be.” It is my recognition that the major westernization of the last century took place under the Japanese colonization which served as the channel to usher in western art; however, the current 20th- century Korean art history fails to recognize that the mold of the past, namely western art in this case, has formed the modern art of the present. Based on this recognition, attention was given to what lacked in the analysis of the current 20th-century Korean art history in terms of “Informel” which was identifed as the turning point towards “modern art” in the Korean art history as well as the following “experimental art.” My belief is that the art history of Korea has to be reassessed from , a socio-cultural perspective as well as adopting multi-level and diachronic understanding. However, the existing Korean art, especially the one between the end of 1950s to the 1970s was based on the perspective of “severance”; thus, raising the needs for the starting point of a new perspective. It is my conviction that meta perspective on writing is most essential in order to lay a solid basis for the Korean art scene to have a productive discussion. I feel the utmost necessity to reinterpret the typifed history analysis and criticism which stemmed from the trauma under the Japanese colonization. The most urgent task is to avoid academic closeness and to share the research. Painting is an individual expression of the artist, but the act of expression is not free from the cultural and societal infuence to which the artist belongs.

• 박춘호(김종영 미술관) | Park, Choon Ho