"Criticism Develops More Slowly Than the Market... And That's a Good Thing" [How the Global Art World Views Korean Art] ②

Emily Watlington, Senior Editor of Art in America, Interview
"Korean Art Goes Beyond Technological and Traditional Stereotypes, Revealing a More Complex History and Future"
"Change Across Bodies of Work Matters More Than One Big Hit... Artists N

"Critical discourse always develops more slowly than the market’s frenzied pace. But that is a good thing."

Emily Watlington, senior editor of the American art magazine Art in America, is conducting an interview after visiting the studio of Korean artist Kim Mooyoung as part of the 2026 Dive Into Korean Art program. Watlington emphasized the importance of support that sustains periods of failure and experimentation, noting that she focuses on the evolving mindset of artists through various projects rather than a single success. Arts Management Support Center

Last week, driven by Frieze Seoul and Kiaf Seoul, Korean art once again attracted attention in the international art market. We asked Emily Watlington, senior editor of the American art magazine Art in America, whether Seoul’s increased visibility is also leading to deeper critical engagement with Korean art. Her answer was clear: don't rush. While art fairs often prompt art institutions to show their best exhibitions, criticism does not need to keep up with the speed of the market.

"Criticism is about engaging with deeper questions at the best moments. I want to see what kinds of questions will arise as the current excitement calms down and something more sustainable takes hold."

The market records the moment an artwork is sold. Criticism asks why a piece was created, what it changed, and why it remains worth revisiting even as time passes. The clocks in these two realms can never truly align. What stands out in Watlington’s response is her attitude—not undermining the market success of Korean art, but refusing to conflate it with critical achievement. Being widely visible and being truly understood are two different things.

On her first visit to Korea, Watlington participated in the ‘2026 Dive Into Korean Art’ program, exploring the studios of local artists and visiting art institutions from August 30 to September 6. We met her on-site and asked how international art media view Korean art and what standards are used to assess artists.

Overseas art industry professionals participating in ‘2026 Dive into Korean Art’ are receiving explanations about the artwork and creative process at artist Muyeong Kim’s studio. Emily Watlington, senior editor of the American art magazine Art in America, seated on the right, emphasized in an interview with The Asia Business Daily that rather than a single success, attention should be paid to the artist’s evolving thinking through various projects, highlighting the importance of support that sustains periods of failure and experimentation. Arts Management Support Center

Technology or Tradition? The Two Shortcuts in Explaining Korean Art

How is Korean art perceived by international art media? Watlington said that stereotypes about Korean art can flow toward two polar extremes. One is ‘techno-orientalism,’ which views the East through an exoticized lens via technology; the other is interpreting Korean art strictly as an extension of tradition.

"Stereotypes about Korean art tend toward either techno-orientalism or traditionalism. Much of the most interesting art from Korea, just like elsewhere, exists in a far more complex relationship with both history and the future."

When introducing Korean art abroad, it is common to describe it as "art from a nation adept at advanced technology" or "art that modernizes long-standing tradition." It is an easy narrative and useful for promotion. The problem arises when such explanations become conclusions rather than starting points. An artist using technology does not necessarily celebrate the future of technology, nor does referencing tradition always aim to inherit that tradition. Watlington suggests that, rather than categorizing Korean art into either camp, we should first examine how each work handles the complex interplay between history and what’s to come.

This is not about establishing a new representative image for Korean art. While questions like "What comes after Dansaekhwa?" or "What is technological art in the era after Nam June Paik?" may be helpful, we fall into the same trap if the answers become another convenient marker. Watlington is less interested in which trends will represent Korean art, and more in which questions individual artists are raising with their work.

What Critics Wait For Is Not "The Next Big Hit"

When does the international art media find an artist worth covering? Somewhat unexpectedly, Watlington spoke not of a single powerful success, but of time spent traversing multiple bodies of work. "When introducing an artist, it is helpful if they have at least three different, though generally related, bodies of work. Readers are interested in seeing how the artist’s thinking and approach change over time."

This is not to say the number three is a strict formula for evaluating artists. The point is whether an artist moves beyond repeating a single successful form, instead using different projects to rethink and expand their ideas. What interests critics is not only the finished image, but also the transformation that led to it.

She went on to describe the uncomfortable reality of creative work: it is actually difficult and rare for a person to repeatedly display creative genius. In between successes, there is always a mix of failures, experiments, or ordinary outcomes. "That’s why it’s important to support artists through their periods of experimentation. Between one big hit and the next, there are almost always many failures or mundane moments."

At this point, the interview shifts focus from the art market to the artist’s studio. It is easy for the market to put a price on works that have already achieved success. But evaluating and waiting for new works—especially those that might fail—is much harder. Yet if artists are to try new questions without falling back on previous successes, they need exactly that kind of time. The ongoing critical attention that Watlington calls for is ultimately about enabling the conditions for artists to change and evolve.

Emily Watlington, senior editor of the American art magazine Art in America, expresses her views on Korean contemporary art at the '2026 Dive Into Korean Art' program. In the interview, she emphasized the importance of sustained critical interest beyond the temporary hype, stating, "Critical discourse develops more slowly than the market’s frenzied pace, but that is a good thing." Arts Management Support Center

"If a City Doesn't Support Its Artists, the Art Scene Can't Survive"

When asked, after her visit, what the international art world should focus on regarding Korea, Watlington did not single out a particular artist or work, but rather the support systems offered by cities.

"If a city doesn’t support its artists, its art scene cannot sustain itself. Astonishingly, this fact is often forgotten. Seoul appears to have robust residency programs for emerging artists, and that seems to be a core factor in the city’s success."

Her positive assessment of Seoul’s residencies should not be overgeneralized as a verdict on the entirety of local artist support policies. This was simply one of her impressions from this visit. Still, her response connects directly to the earlier points: if criticism forms more slowly than the market and if artists must change by moving through several bodies of work, there must be systems and spaces that allow them to endure those in-between times.

What Watlington asked for in Korean art was neither faster success nor the discovery of a new trend. She asked for criticism that can revisit a work even after the market’s attention has passed; for complex work that resists being reduced to familiar national imagery; for artists to have the time to move past failure toward what comes next. Now that Korean art enjoys a greater international presence, all of her questions converge on one: Are we supporting not only artists who already sell well, but also those whose future is still unknowable?

This article was produced with support from the Arts Management Support Center.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.