Lee Ufan's ambivalent otherness and art historiography

This article aims to reexamine the relationship between the artist Lee Ufan and nationalist art history through his idea of ambivalent otherness, which he defined as both suffering and power. Traditional art history is established upon a nationalist framework that emphasizes the artists' nationality, leading to the marginalization of national others at the border. As a zainichi Korean, Lee has undergone the suffering of being excluded by the art world and art historiography. However, he transformed it into his source of power to challenge art historiography based on nationality. This study analyzes the art criticism of Japanese Contemporary Art History written by Minemura Toshiaki and Chiba Shigeo in the 1970s and 1980s and highlights the ruptures that the artist's in-between identity wrought on nationalist art history. This shows how both the Mono-ha movement and the artist were marginalized in the construction of Japanese Contemporary Art History. Furthermore, this study scrutinizes how Lee attempted to rewrite art history using Mono-ha art theory and a perspective committed to overcoming coloniality from the postcolonial in-between position, by reinterpreting Lee's article on Choson minhwa, written amidst an aesthetic controversy across the border between Japan and Korea.

Automated summary

This article reexamines the relationship between artist Lee Ufan and nationalist art history by exploring his concept of ambivalent otherness. As a zainichi Korean, Lee has experienced exclusion and marginalization in the art world and art historiography, but he transformed it into a source of power to challenge nationalist art history. The study also analyzes the art criticism of Japanese Contemporary Art History in the 1970s and 1980s and highlights the ruptures caused by Lee's in-between identity on nationalist art history. It examines how Lee attempted to rewrite art history using Mono-ha art theory and a postcolonial perspective.