Thammasat University students who are interested in art, East Asian studies, Korea, sociology, economics, Japan, imperialism, and related subjects may find a new Open Access book available for free download useful.
The Emergence of the Korean Art Collector and the Korean Art Market is by Dr. Charlotte Horlyck, a lecturer in Korean Art History at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London, the United Kingdom.
The TU Library collection includes several books about different aspects of Korean art.
The book analyzes the rise of the modern Korean art market from the 1870s through to its peak and subsequent decline in the 1930s. It focuses on the collecting of Koryŏ celadon ceramics as Korean artefacts and how their acquisition formed part of the power relationships between the Koreans, Japanese, Americans, and Europeans.
The volume’s conclusion begins:
This book has demonstrated that the international market for Korean art emerged in the 1870s facilitated by the convergence of a unique set of local and global conditions. Over the following decades, the popularity of Korean antiques grew considerably, fuelled by the craze for ceramics from the Koryŏ dynasty spearheaded by collectors from Japan, North America, and Britain.
The demand for green-glazed celadon ceramics resulted in large numbers of tombs on the Korean peninsula being plundered and the loot dispersed by art dealers, most of them Japanese. Few, if any collectors, seemed deterred by this.
Rather, the belief that the objects were new finds from Korean archaeological sites only served to enhance their appeal. Once uncovered from tombs, technological advancements in transportation and telecommunications facilitated their dispersal in both domestic and international art markets.
Publications on Koryŏ ceramics and exhibitions of them held in Boston, New York, London, Tokyo, and Seoul underscored their aesthetic and historical value and confirmed their cultural uniqueness within the matrix of East Asian art.
The Koreans were not mere bystanders in this unfolding narrative; however, their involvement in these developments was complex and multifaceted. Some partook in grave robbery, while others acted as middlemen, selling on the loot to collectors and art dealers. The royal family also appeared to acquire tomb loot, often presenting such acquisitions as gifts to foreign diplomats.
Yet many Koreans were keen to preserve local antiques, not least to prevent them from falling into the hands of the Japanese. However, for economic and political reasons, it was challenging for them to compete against collectors and art dealers of Japanese, American, and European descent who were key players in the Korean art market.
It was these individuals who excavated, analysed, and commercialised Korean cultural heritage, ultimately determining which Korean artefacts were deemed worthy of collectors’ attention. Their approach was shaped by imperialist agendas and Social Darwinism, resulting in a biased interpretation of past and contemporary Korea.
In their quest to pinpoint distinctively local features of Korean culture, scholars compared Korea with Japan, which they were more familiar with. In the process, Japan became the standard against which the peninsula was judged.
Scholars argued that Japan was “better” than Korea due to its drive for progress and its embrace of Western values. In contrast to the so-called Land of the Rising Sun and its “fastest moving people on record,” many felt that Chosŏn was stuck in the past and unwilling to change.
The apparent stagnation of the Korean nation was portrayed as a national defect that could be traced back to Hideyoshi’s invasions of the peninsula.
As a result, Korea was understood to be weak and unable to progress without intervention from foreign powers. Japanese collectors played a pivotal role in shaping the art market, particularly regarding Koryŏ ceramics.
Their preference for these ceramics not only influenced the market but also served to validate such acquisitions in the eyes of American and British collectors. Given Japanese hegemony in Korea, the activities of Japanese collectors were deemed significant as they were seen as representative of local taste, even in the realm of Korean artefacts.
In the increasingly competitive art market, distinguished collectors in America and Britain set themselves apart from amateurs by aligning their aesthetic preferences with those of Japanese art experts.
Art dealers of Japanese descent, such as Matsuki Bunkyō and Yamanaka, capitalised on this desire for authentic “local” taste, establishing their dominance in the Korean art market in America and Britain.
The tumultuous international and domestic political situation offered little opportunity for Koreans to impact the interpretation of their national history and cultural heritage.
Few, if any, American and British collectors expressed their concerns over the ethics of acquiring loot, nor did they question the relative absence of Korean voices in the field of Korean art.
While they knew that desecration of grave sites was illegal during the Chosŏn dynasty as well as the colonial period, the possession of looted objects was not a widely debated issue.
The situation was further complicated by individuals with political influence in Korea who were actively involved in acquiring looted objects. They included diplomats and government employees from Japan, America, and Britain, whose privileged positions in Korea allowed them special access to newly unearthed finds.
Art collectors justified their right to own these antiques by arguing that Korea could not effectively govern itself, and they exaggerated the supposed disinterest of the Korean people in preserving and valuing local national treasures.
The narrative of Koreans’ apparent disregard for local heritage was a colonial trope deployed to highlight the perceived benefits of colonial rule. From the onset, the Government-General of Korea placed great emphasis on the research, collecting, and display of Korean archaeological remains in the belief that it would demonstrate Japan’s role as Korea’s benevolent protector.
As a result, large numbers of sites were excavated and surveyed by Japanese archaeologists, and the objects entered the newly established museums in Seoul and other metropolises on the peninsula. American and British collectors held Japanese interpretations of Korean artefacts in high regard and frequently quoted research published by the Government-General of Korea.
Moreover, to them, the objects displayed in the government-run museums in Korea set the standard for good quality art, and they strove to augment their own collections with comparable objects. They widely commended the work undertaken by Japanese curators and archaeologists in Korea, as suggested by Langdon Warner in 1944:
‘It will immediately be obvious that the Koreans themselves (unlike their Japanese conquerors) have no great interest in or knowledge of the relics of their own past and, for the last 25 years at least, the Japanese government has collected and preserved such objects and has brought fresh treasures to light through scientific excavation.’
Like many others, Warner was evidently unaware of the Korean dissent against the colonial regime and Japanese control over Korean heritage. In fact, few Westerners expressed concern about Japan’s domination of the peninsula.
In their mind, Korea was firmly part of the Japanese Empire. Yet Korean opposition to colonial rule persisted. From the late 1920s onward, Korean collectors, such as O Se-ch’ang and Chǒn Hyǒng-p’il, contested the Japanese dominance on the art market, albeit covertly to avoid persecution. […]
(All images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)