A.
Not exactly. My inquiry starts from a fundamentally different set of “problem-settings” compared to Modernism.
If Modernism was the pursuit of “what a painting is” through formal purity, my focus is on the generative process of “how a painting comes into being”—specifically, the structure of the “Center,” a concept that Modernism never addressed as a primary issue.
Modernism purified painting by isolating and intensifying specific conditions. In contrast, I deal with “complex conditions”—the interplay of movement, judgment, breath, and deviation. The structure emerges a posteriori (after the fact) only at the moment these elements align.
My creative act is not driven by art-historical self-expression, but by the necessity of “resolving emotion” and “restoring breath” through the search for a place where the “Center” of a work can manifest.
As such, my stance exists at a point distinct from Modernism, Expressionism, and Postmodernism alike.
A.
Center, Generation, and Structure arise as one event in my work.
The “Center” I define is not a fixed or static point. It is the origin of generation that appears within the work. Placing a center immediately involves its surroundings, creating a reciprocal movement in which each shift returns to the center.
As the center and its periphery influence each other—wavering and shifting—this movement converges toward a point where the breath and equilibrium of the canvas settle. At that moment, an autonomous structure emerges.
What I work with is the center as a continuous act of generation, not a fixed position. It becomes the visual focus, the chromatic center of gravity, and the core that shapes the spiritual equilibrium of the work.
In art history, the “center” is something placed, determined, calculated, or composed. In contrast, my “center” is one that emerges through fluctuation and interaction.
Individual Comparisons
- Adolph Gottlieb: The center is placed as a symbol.
- Me: The center emerges as a structural necessity.
- Kenneth Noland: The center is decided at the outset.
- Me: The center rises out of a state of fluctuation.
- Josef Albers: The center is a calculated arrangement for the sake of color.
- Me: The center emerges through interaction with its surroundings.
- Piet Mondrian: The center is determined by compositional order.
- Me: The center is a field of emergence where multiple elements coexist.
In art history, emergence has taken the form of emergence through shape, movement, repetition, or even rejection. My “Emergence” is the Emergence in which the Center is born.
Joan Miró / Paul Klee:
Emergence in which form comes into being.
Robert Delaunay:
Emergence generated through circular motion.
Frank Stella:
The rejection of emergence and the fixation of structure.
My “Emergence”:
The Emergence in which the Center is born. When the Center begins to act, Structure rises.
Emergence (Phenomenon)
A state in which turbulent forces are in motion. Within the back-and-forth of action and judgment, the conditions for the Center to appear remain in continuous flux.
Center (Point of Origin)
Appearing from within Emergence, and the moment it appears, it begins to function as the origin point of the work’s mechanics.
Structure (Settling)
A state in which the mechanics, anchored by the Center, permeate the entire surface and rise as a unified whole.
A. My position belongs to neither Modernism nor Postmodernism.
Modernism sought formal purity, while Postmodernism questioned the very existence of a “center.” What I deal with is neither of these; my focus is on the very process through which structure is generated.
For me, a center is not a predetermined, fixed point, nor is it a mere illusion. It is something that emerges through the act of painting, as the center and its surroundings continually influence one another. My position is grounded in the “formation” of the structure that arises during the creative act. This is not a repetition of past theories, but a unique dynamic that treats the generation of the center as the core of artistic creation.
A. Will becomes a part of the work through the context of intentionally placing the center. However, the center itself is supported by an objective structure, meaning visual laws. Even if emotion itself differs from person to person, the structure supporting it is based on visual laws common to everyone. This is how the phrase ‘The Center is Structure and Will’ came to be.
A. I understand the argument that if everything is relative, universal truth cannot be established. However, I create not based on the accuracy of an external theory, but on the inner truth that emotion precedes language.
This Declaration is a response to the personal struggle I faced in the age of Postmodernism. The work is a form of self-healing, but it is bound to the structure by the device of the center and is opened to the world. This Declaration is a deeply felt necessity to protect both my past and future works.
A. I am not trying to achieve anything technically advanced. My attention is focused on connecting the will and the structure based on the conviction that directness startles people. While it is regrettable if viewers are not moved, I will simply continue to repeat the structure until I am satisfied.
A. Structure is not a matter of personal preference, but a visual law that operates for anyone. I use this law to place the center and make my intention visible. Taste is subjective, but structure is not; it is the objective foundation that supports the work.
A. The center is a term that represents visual laws. It is not for the sake of authority, but a device for reading based on visual laws.
A. I recognize that the nihilistic pathology brought about by Postmodernism is a pathology shared not only by me but by the entire era. I believe this is something that all of us living in the modern age share to a greater or lesser extent. This self-healing is the complete opposite of abandoning communication.
A. Before meaning.