A.
No. My inquiry begins from a fundamentally different formulation of the problem than that of Modernism.
If Modernism pursued the purity of form—asking “What is a painting?”— my focus is on the generative process that asks “How does a painting emerge?” I work with the movement of the “center” that arises within the mechanics of vision itself: the initial wavering of the eyes, the moment the gaze is drawn somewhere, the subtle shifts that occur before anything is fixed. This is precisely the domain that Modernism could not grasp, and that Postmodernism never regarded as a problem to begin with.
Modernism sharpened its conditions and purified painting to its limit. In contrast, what I engage with is the very movement through which structure comes into being.
My practice is not for the sake of self‑expression within art history; it is an act of seeking the place where the “center” of a work is generated— for the resolution of emotion and the restoration of breath.
In this sense, my position stands apart from Modernism, Expressionism, and Postmodernism alike.
A.
In my practice, “center,” “generation,” and “structure” form an inseparable whole.
The “center” I speak of is not a predetermined or fixed point. It is a generative point of emergence that arises within the workings of vision itself— in the initial trembling of the eyes, in the moment the gaze is drawn somewhere, in the subtle movements that occur before anything is settled.
The act of placing a center immediately draws the surrounding elements into motion, creating a reciprocal movement in which changes in the surroundings return to the center again. As the center and its surroundings influence one another—shifting, wavering, and adjusting their balance—there comes a moment when the entire surface settles into a point of “rightness.” It is at that moment that an autonomous structure emerges.
What I work with is the center as this ongoing generative process itself. It becomes the focus of vision, the gravitational weight of color, and the quiet core that supports the 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.