In this blog post, I’d like to share my experiences and reflections on visiting a contemporary art exhibition and interpreting the works.

First Impressions of Contemporary Art and Its Differences from Traditional Painting

Everyone has probably asked themselves at least once, “What does this painting mean?” When people compare two paintings, Renaissance or Realist works usually have content that’s easy to grasp and interpret, whereas abstract or conceptual works—like those by artist Lee Ufan—are often difficult to understand.
People may also be puzzled by the prices of contemporary artworks. Some people even find it hard to accept the value of such works, thinking, “I could probably paint something like that myself.” Looking at the history of art, from antiquity through the Middle Ages and into the 14th to 19th centuries, concrete and realistic expression was the mainstream; however, since the 20th century, works in which the subject is difficult to recognize at first glance have begun to increase. Generally, this art from the 20th century onward is referred to as contemporary art.
Personally, when it came to the arts and physical education, I preferred physical education and music, and I had never really given much thought to art. If I hadn’t had the experience of visiting an exhibition in person, I might have viewed the countless works of contemporary art with a negative outlook, without feeling any real inspiration. The experience of having my perspective shift and my horizons broadened through visiting the exhibition was a valuable opportunity for me, and I decided to write this article to share that experience with others who feel the same way.

Exhibition Structure and Interpretation of Works at the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art

Unlike realistic Renaissance works such as the Mona Lisa, many of the works I saw at the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art might seem difficult to understand to the general viewer. Contemporary art from the 1960s onward declared the end of the narrative traditions of earlier art and presented the possibility that anything could be art. Consequently, some works, when viewed superficially, made me think, “I could make something like that,” while others sometimes appeared to be “nothing at all.”
However, profound meanings are often hidden beneath the surface of such works. Just like the exhibition title, “Noisy, Hot, Overflowing,” the entire exhibition was divided into three parts, each designed to reflect the characteristics and atmosphere of its respective era. Understanding the context of the exhibition space made it much easier to grasp the meaning of the works.
Part 1, “Noisy,” dealt with postwar life—including division caused by war and longing for families separated from their hometowns—so the entire exhibition space had a dark and heavy atmosphere. Artist Kim Chang-ryeol’s “Ancestral Rite” is an abstract painting in black and brown, and when considering both the title and the atmosphere of the space, it allowed for multiple interpretations. One interpretation was that the two black figures at the top represent eyes from which tears are flowing downward, while the reclining black figure below resembles a mouth, expressing the sorrow of the ancestral rite. Another interpretation was that the black figure at the bottom resembles a coffin, and the work could be seen as depicting a scene in which a soul is escaping from it. While there is no single correct answer, it is highly likely that the artist sought to convey feelings of negativity, despair, and sorrow.
Part 2, “Hot,” focused on the rapid industrialization and urbanization of the 1960s–1980s, as well as the democratization movements aimed at overcoming a distorted modernity. In contrast to the improvisational, irregular, and dark atmosphere of Part 1, the portraits in this section featured a regular arrangement of lines and gave an overall bright impression.
Part 3, “Overflowing,” depicted the diverse and ever-changing lives of our globalized contemporary world. While the first two parts reflected on the past, Part 3 featured many works that expressed the present through experimental media. Paint on canvas was not the only artistic medium; various formats, including TV footage, sculptures, and performances, were on display.
Artist Kim Beom’s “Drawing ‘Yellow Scream’” was an example of a work that incorporated not only the final product but also the drawing process itself as part of the artwork. A video showed the artist placing his brush on the canvas and screaming every time he applied yellow paint; I interpreted this as an attempt to imbue each stroke with a distinct quality. In other words, I sensed a performative significance in which sound was used to give each stroke—even within the same shade of yellow—its own unique “texture.”
In the realm of sculptural art, Park I-so’s “Your Bright Future” was particularly impressive. The artist projected light onto a wall, transforming the wall itself—as it reflected the light—into a work of art; when I considered the work’s surface visual characteristics in relation to its title, the meaning came across naturally.
The entire exhibition was arranged to reflect the passage of time, progressing from dark colors to gradually brighter and more vibrant ones. If I had viewed the works individually, detached from this context, it would have been much more difficult to grasp their meaning. I felt that organizing the exhibition thematically helped with interpreting the works.
Additionally, most of the works were large in scale. Even if the expressions themselves appeared simple, their overwhelming size evoked a sense of grandeur and created a space for tension and communication between the artwork and the viewer. A common thread among many of the works was the artist’s focus on the process of sharing a story with the viewer through the artwork—that is, on the act of viewing and communication itself.

Conclusions and Recommendations from Viewing Contemporary Art

We now live in an era where works created with a mop or broom—rather than a paintbrush—are recognized as art. Even works created using the same technique may be accepted as art or receive differing evaluations depending on the meaning the artist has imbued them with.
What struck me while viewing this exhibition was that, just like other fields such as music and fashion, preferences and trends in the art world have shifted over time. Contemporary art can no longer be reduced to mere technique (techne) as in the past; it has moved in a direction distinct from the tradition where imitation was the primary focus. Therefore, to properly create or understand contemporary art, relevant background knowledge is helpful, and it can be seen as having evolved alongside aesthetic discourse.
I also learned that the experience of seeing an exhibition in person is crucial. When you encounter a work in person—rather than just seeing it on a screen or in a photograph—various elements such as size, texture, sound, and light come into play, creating a completely different impression. Knowing art history was a great help in understanding the works, and the information provided by docents and in the exhibition brochure was also useful in forming my own interpretation.
Although I visited the exhibition without specific knowledge of contemporary art, I was able to attempt my own interpretation by referring to the explanatory materials and grasp the artist’s intent to some extent. Through this experience, I concluded that anyone—even those with no prior exhibition experience—can appreciate contemporary art and fully enjoy it by approaching it with an open mind and seeking to understand its context.