Ju Tae Seok’s Paintings and the Problem of Representation

Ju, Tae Seok’s paintings mainly have been talked of in the category of hyperrealism. The categorization, I think, is not wrong but we need more discussions on the common features and differences between the essence of hyperrealism and that of Ju’s works. Ju started his artistic career with series in the late ’70s and has steadily been doing series based on realistic expression since the ’80s.

the painting has a kind of extended status as a ‘watching device’ not simply as an ‘object to be seen’ or the result of representation. The ‘watching device’ includes both the object (that is, represented rail tracks) and the subject watching it in an unbreakable structure of relatum. The painting as a visual representation is revealed as a “temporal and invisible process which works just now, in the positive physical participation of the subject.” Therefore, the purpose of painting is not in the rail tracks, trees, or natural landscapes. It shows a feature of self-reflection questioning the process of representation and its propriety. In Ju’s notes, he wrote a proposition, “painting should open our eyes by capturing the ordinary things in a new way of seeing,” – a featureless one which could naturally be applied to any kinds of art and to all times and places. Its meaning also could be read in a new way in this context.

what about series that the artist has been working on since the late ‘80s? The features found in the series are totally different from the ordinary styles of hyperrealism. First of all, let’s talk about the separated paintings on the canvas. Each of them is painted with different styles and from different points of view. On a space, they are neither completely interconnected nor totally disconnected. Instead, they are making an ambiguous combination. Settings up the different scenes behind, a couple of trees are standing on the front part of the painting. Here, the trees are described in a pretty realistic way while its background shows a dreamlike landscape filled with shadows. It is hard to tell if the setting makes the background of the trees on the front or if the shadows are actually those of these trees. In this sense, the series rather can be read as a kind of ‘disrupted representation’ rather than a painting of ‘a single landscape.’ In this case, also, the confrontation and difference exist inside the painting like in series. However, the different kinds of representations in series show the disrupted figure in the way of coexisting and confronting with each other. This disrupted structure means the division of vision. Through the structure, the paintings show the pictorial representation itself as a fantastic makeshift stage of disruption and confusion.

Natural subject matters such as ‘tree’ and ‘shadow’ are used not for the expression of so-called ‘natural mood and personal romanticism,’ but as a means to criticize the ‘function of truth’ of the painting. “Painting should open our eyes by capturing the ordinary things in a new way of seeing,” the proposition implies his thought on the inevitability that any object transferred into the world of pictorial representation cannot but become another thing, the moment it came out of its original context.

– Kim, Won Bang (Hongik University, Professor of Art History Department)