“When it comes to art, nationalism is a goodticket to ride with,”says the title of areport in the Indian Express (Mumbai, 29 Oct 2000). The newspaper report goes on to saythat since Indian art was kept “ethnic”by colonialism, national liberation meant openingup to the world on India’s own terms. Advocacy, at the tail end of the 20th century, wouldcontrast dramatically with the call by Rabindranath Tagore, the founder of the academy atSantiniketan in 1901, to guard against the fetish of nationalism.“The colourless vaguenessof cosmopolitanism,”Tagore pronounced, “nor thefierce self-idolatry of nation-worship, isthe goal of human history”(Nationalism, 1917). This contrast is significant on two counts. First is the positive aspect of “nation”as a frame in art production or circulation, atthe current point of globalization when massive expansion of cultural consumers may berealized through prevailing communication networks and technology. The organization ofthe information market, most vividly demonstrated through the recent FIFA World Cupwhen one out of every five living human beings on earth watched the finals, is predicatedon nations as categories. An extension of the Indian Express argument would be thattagging of artworks along the category of nation would help ensure greatest reception, andwould in turn open up the reified category of “art,”so as to consider new impetus fromaesthetic traditions from all parts of the world many of which heretofore regarded as“ethnic,”so as to liberate art from any hegemony of “international standards.” Secondly, the critique of nationalism points to a transnational civic sphere, be itTagore’s notion of people-not-nation, or the much more recent “transnationalconstellation”of Jurgen Habermas (2001), a vision for the European Union where civilsphere beyond confines of nation opens up new possibilities, and may serve as a modelfor a liberated sphere on global scale. There are other levels of collectivity which art mayaddress, for instance the Indonesian example of local communities headed by Ketua RukunTetangga, the neighbourhood headmen, in which community matters of culture and thearts are organically woven into the communal fabric. Art and collectivity at the national-transnational level yield a contrasting situation of,on the idealized end, the dual inputs of local culture and tradition through “nation”as necessary frame, and the concurrent development of a transnational, culturally andaesthetically vibrant civic sphere that will ensure a cosmopolitanism that is not a“colourless vagueness.”In art historical studies, this is seen, for instance, in the recentdiscussion on “cosmopolitan modernisms.” Conversely, we may see a dual tyranny of a nationalism that is a closure (sometimesstated as “ethno-nationalism”which is disputable), and an internationalism that is evolvedthrough restrictive understanding of historical development within privileged expressions.In art historical terms, where there is a lack of investigation into the reality of multiplemodernisms, the possibility of a democratic cosmopolitanism in art is severely curtailed.The advocacy of a liberal cosmopolitanism without a democratic foundation returns art todominance of historical privileged category. A local community with lack of transnationalinputs may sometimes place emphasis on neo-traditionalism which is also a double edgedsword, as rekindling with traditions is both liberating andrestrictive, which in turninterplays with the push and pull of the collective matrix.

This study examined dietary culture in Korea regarding collectivism through literature review. Based on the evidence from the origin of lineage and traditional customs, the Koreans' traditional collectivity appeared to have been grounded upon the northen nomadic culture emphasizing sentimental collectivity and harmonized with the characteristics of southern agrarian society related to mutual support and sociability. The inseparable relationship between collectivity and food was well revealed in the occasions such as rice-planting, kimchi and jang makings in which pooled labor was common as well as the gathering of mutual aid association. In these occasions, foods were offered and shared among members. Food sharing was a main activity and almost play a central role regarding the promotion of friendly relations among each other. In sacrificial memorials, food sharing was extended not only to the live persons but also to the passing spirits. Collectivity was also disclosed in the eating or table manners of Koreans. Koreans quite literally share food at every meal since the side dishes placed centrally on the table. The taste of Korean foods is completed inside the mouth by mixing foods with various combination, which let people create their own choice of taste. Therefore, the collectivity manners at the table appeared to be harmonized with individual freedom of creating his/her own taste of foods. The collectivity is still a very important concept in modem Korean dietary culture, as reflected by an increase of restaurants sewed shared dishes.