세계 미술시장에 대해 판매의 견지에서 볼 때, 2008년은 처음에 낙관적이었고, 중간에 흔들리다, 11월 말에는 확실히 절망적이었다. 동시에 그 해는 한국계 갤러리들이 첼시 서쪽 25번가 거리에서 눈에 띄기 시작한 때이기도 했다. 한편 티나 김은 첼시 아트타워에 그녀의 중요한 새 갤러리를 이미 개관했었다. 몇 달 후 전시장의 면적으로 볼 때, 가장 큰 갤러리인 아라리오가 그 블록의 북쪽에 위치해서 넓게 펼쳐진 2층의 공간에 문을 열었다. 아라리오의 개관은 한때 파리 출신 딜러인 ‘이반 람버트’가 사용했던 11번 애브뉴와 25가의 동남쪽 모퉁이에 정착을 선택한, 또 다른 만만치 않은 현대 미술 갤러리인 가나아트와 거의 비슷한 시기에 이루어졌다. 얼마 가지 않아 한국에 기반을 둔 여러 신흥 갤러리들이 같은 블록을 따라 다양한 공간에 임대를 얻기 시작하였다. 2008년 서울에서 가장 진취적인 두 곳의 갤러리인 아라리오와 가나아트의 첼시 25번가 진출은 코리아타운으로 알려진 미드타운의 남쪽 32번가에서 멀리 떨어진 서쪽 전초 기지가 될 것으로 예정된 등장이었다, 이들 사이 다른 점은 한국의 바비큐나 비빔밥 대신에 관람객에게 그곳의 미술 작품을 보여주고 예측하자면 그것을 수집하도록 하는 것이었다. 그런데 이들 갤러리들은 모두 약 4년 좀 못되게 운영되다, 2011년 말에 문을 닫았다. 뉴욕에서 각각의 갤러리에 의해 이루어진 투자가 적절했는가에 대해서는 약간 회의적인 입장이 든다. 대체 무슨 일이 일어났었는가? 

혹자는 세계 금융 시장에서 갑작스런 하강이 수많은 다른 갤러리들과 마찬가지로 가나아트와 아라리오에게도 영향을 미쳤던 것으로 시기가 나빴다고 주장할 수 있다. 이것은 어느 정도 정확하고 가장 논리적인 답이다. 그러나 외부적인 경제적 원인은 많은 요인 중 하나의 양상으로 간주될 수 있다. 경영의 관점에서 볼 때, 그 밖의 무슨 일이 진행되었는가? 웨스트 첼시와 뉴욕 미술계의 나머지 지역에서 흔히 동시적으로 일어나는 일상 업무와 관련 없이, 어떤 결정이 서울에 있는 본사로부터 내려지고 있지는 않았는가? 문자 메시지 및 때때로 하는 전화를 통한 데이터의 전송이 뉴욕의 갤러리에서 일어나는 일들을 조절할 수 있지만, 뉴욕에서 미술 작품을 판매하는 사업은 결코 예측할 수 없고 다른 사업과 그리고 세계의 나머지 지역과 다른 방식으로 이루어진다. 혹자는 미술품을 사고 투자하도록 뉴욕커를 자극하며, 둘러싸고 있는 사회적인 면면이 대부분 다른 사업과 다르게 가시적으로 명백하지 않은 단계에서 작용하는 것에 대해 언급할 수 있다. 특히 갤러리 프로그램이 현대 미술의 방향에 영향을 미칠 미술 관련 미디어나 고객에 의해 명확하게 인지되지 않는다면, 아무것도 추측할 수 있는 것은 없다. 신진 아티스트의 섹시한 사실주의적인 유화 작품의 판매처럼 미술계의 유행을 따르는 관점은 거의 새로운 고객을 유치하거나 기존 고객들의 욕구를 충족시킬 방법이 못 된다. 

많은 뉴욕 갤러리에서도 관리 및 홍보 문제가 있듯이, 가나아트나 아라리오도 예외는 없었다. 예를 들어 전시에 있어 새로운 갤러리의 개막전은 중요한데 여기서 가나아트는 한 수 앞질렀다. 그들은 잘 알려진 배병우 작가의 한국 소나무의 대형 흑백 사진작품으로 훌륭하고 일류급 전시를 개최했다. 이 대단한 전시에 이어 세 전시가 이어졌는데, 서울에서 가나아트의 명성이 성숙한 예술가의 좋은 작품을 전시하면서 주어졌듯이, 뉴욕에서도 그러한 접근이 계속되리라 짐작했었다. 특히 뉴욕 시민들은 배병우를 포함하여 뛰어난 한국작가가 많다는 것에 대해 잘 모른다. 나는 이것이 전환을 만들 수 있는 좋은 기회가 될 것이라고 생각했다. 그러나 그런 식으로 가지 않았다. 주요 전시가 실수라 할 수 있게 거의 경험이 없는 젊은 신진 작가들에게 강조되었다. 뉴욕 시민들이 한국의 흥미롭고 새로운 작품을 보기를 원할 거라는 가정이 있었지만, 불행하게도 이 작품은 뉴욕 미디어의 기질이나 취향에 부응하지 못했다. 아라리오의 문제는 달랐다. 그들은 중국 정치적인 팝과 지난 10년 동안 뉴욕에서 자주 보여 주었던 작가의 냉소적 리얼리즘을 선택하여 갤러리 개막을 하였다. 그리고 보다 높은 차원의 홍보가 빈약한 채 한국의 대표적인 단색 화가인 박서보의 전시가 이어졌다. 말할 필요도 없이, 판매의 관점에서 본 결과는 심각하게 한계가 있었다. 아라리오가 관심을 갖고자 했던 관객은 이 작가의 지위나 중요성에 대해 잘 알지 못했다. 이를 위해 교육적인 방안이 거의 없었던 것으로 그런 충분치 못한 것 때문에 또 한 번 중요한 기회가 상실되었다.

아라리오나 가나아트, 두 경우 모두 서울에서의 재정적인 감독을 벗어나 결정을 할 수 있는 능력이 허용된 리더십을 갖고 있지 않았다. 긍정적이고 지적인 관리 정책 대신에 각 갤러리는 가상의 단계에서 존재하는 자체 상하체제를 가지고 있었다. 이것은 뉴욕 나머지 부분과 연결되지 못하게 하는 이상한 분위기를 조장했다. 이들 갤러리에서 절실하게 필요한 것은 다른 어떤 것보다 짐작컨대 진정한 리더십이었다. 그리고 각 갤러리에 요구되는 것은 다른 갤러스트, 언론인, 수집가, 큐레이터, 비평가, 뛰어난 예술가, 미술관 직원들을 포함하여, 한국의 현대미술과 뉴욕 미술계를 잘 알고 있는 맡길만한 어떤 사람이었다. 

내 희망은 뉴욕에서 다시 시작하기에 너무 늦지 않고, 처음 존재했던 적절하지 못한 관료주의적인 방식이 아니기를 바란다. 지난 15년 넘게 주요하고 대단한 한국인에 대해 광범위하게 강의 되어져 왔고 저술되어져 왔지만, 불행히도 백남준만이 뉴욕에서 가장 널리 알려져 있다. 이우환과 김수자의 이름은 뉴욕 비평가의 글과 강의 그리고 전시를 통해 점차 알려져 가고 있지만 충분하지 않다. 이들 단계로 알려져야 할 더 많은 한국 작가들이 있다. 이것은 국제 사회로부터 혹은 첼시 서쪽 지역의 갤러리로부터 이들 작가를 분리시켜서는 성사될 수 없다. 한국은 최근 세계적 담론 내에 그들의 위대한 문화를 통합하기 위해 더 많은 노력이 필요하다. 그 과정에서 조잡한 기술이나 상투적인 유행을 넘어 진정으로 깊이 있는 미술 작품, 그리고 우리가 미술에 대해 보고 생각하는 방식을 바꿀 수 있는 미술작품을 보여줘야 한다는 것이 나의 주장이다.

- 로버트 C. 모건(Robert C. MORGAN, 1947- ) 뉴욕대(NYU) 현대미술사 및 미학박사. 예술가, 미술평론가, 큐레이터, 현재 뉴욕 프랫인스티튜트와 스쿨오브비주얼아트(SVA) 출강.

* 번역: Dr. 현수정

Letter to My Korean Friends:A Comment on What Went Wrong in West Chelsea

In terms of sales in the international art market, the year 2008 was buoyant at the beginning, vacillating in the middle, and clearly desperate by the end of November.  Coincidentally, it was the year that Korean Galleries started to become prominent on West 25th Street in West Chelsea.  Tina Kim had opened her important new gallery in the Chelsea Art Tower. Within a few months, Arario - the largest gallery to appear in terms of square footage–inaugurated its sprawling second floor spaces on the north side of the block.  The opening of Arario was accompanied around the same time by Gana Art Center, another formidable contemporary art institution that chose to settle on the southeast corner of 11th Avenue and 25th, once occupied by the Parisian dealer, Yvon Lambert.  Soon after, several emerging Korean-based galleries began taking leases on various spaces along the same block.

With the arrival of Arario and Gana in 2008– two of Seoul’s most enterprising galleries – West 25th Street appeared destined to become the far western outpost of the 32nd Street enclave south of midtown, known as “Korea town.” The difference was that instead of having Korean barbeque and be-bim-bop, visitors were there to see art and presumably to collect it. There is little doubt that the investment made by each of these galleries in New York was considerable. Both were in business for less than four years. By the end of 2011 they had departed. So what happened?  

One could argue that the timing was wrong – that the sudden drop in the world financial market affected Gana and Arario along with numerous other galleries. This is the most logical answer and, to some extent, accurate. However, external economic factors only account for one aspect of the deluge. What else was going on from the point of view of management? What decisions were being made from the power stations in Seoul, far removed from the day-to-day affairs that occur – often spontaneously – in West Chelsea and in the rest of the New York art world?  While it may appear that the transmission of data through text messages and occasional phone calls can maintain control, the business of selling art in New York is never predictable and happens in ways that are different from other businesses and from other places in the world. One could say that the social dimension that provokes New Yorkers to buy and invest in art functions on a level not visibly apparent in most other businesses.  Not everything depends on speculation, particularly if the gallery program is not perceived clearly by clients or by art media that influence the direction of contemporary art.  The notion of trends in art –like selling sexy realist oil paintings by emerging artists – is hardly the way to capture a new audience or to satisfy the desires of an existing clientele.

While management and promotional problems exist in many New York galleries, Gana and Arario were no exception. For example, the opening exhibition of a new gallery on the scene is important, and here Gana had the upper hand.  They opened with a superb, first-rate exhibition of large black and white photographs of Korean pine trees by the well-known artist Bae Bien U. Upon seeing this magnificent show on three occasions, and given Gana’s reputation in Seoul for representing quality work by mature artists, I assumed this approach would continue in New York. In that most New Yorkers are not familiar with many of the most significant Korean artists, including Bae Bien U, I thought this would be a great opportunity to turn things around.  However, the program did not go that way. The emphasis was mistakenly given to younger emerging artists with very little experience. The assumption was that New Yorkers wanted to see the hot new work in Korea, but unfortunately this work did not correspond to either the taste or the temperament of New York media.

Arario’s problem was different: they opened the gallery with a selection of Chinese Political Pop and Cynical Realism by artists that had frequently been shown in New York over the preceding decade.  This was followed by an important exhibition of recent work by the Korean monochrome painter Park Seo Bo with very little advanced publicity. Needless to say, the results in terms of sales were severely limited in that the audience Arario was trying to attract did not have a clear idea of the status or importance of the artist. The educational component was simply not there; and because of this, another important opportunity was lost.

Neither Arario nor Gana appeared to have leadership on the premises capable of making decisions apart from their financial overseers in Seoul.  Instead of an affirmative and knowledgeable managerial policy, each gallery had its own bureaucracy that existed on some kind of virtual level. This suggested a strange aura of disconnect with the rest of the New York. What each of these galleries desperately needed was leadership in the gallery, not elsewhere. What each gallery required was someone in charge with a clear knowledge of Korean contemporary art and an unhesitant profile of the New York art world, including other gallerists, journalists, collectors, curators, critics, significant artists, and museum personnel.

My hope is that it is not too late to begin again in New York, but not in the unfocused bureaucratic manner that existed the first time around.  Having lectured and written extensively on the work of both major and emerging Korean over the past fifteen years, I find it unfortunate that only Paik, Nam June is a household name in New York.  Slowly the names of Lee Ufan and Kimsooja are being acculturated through exhibitions, and the writings and lectures of New York critics; but this is not enough. There are many more Korean artists that should be known on this level. This will not occur by isolating these artists from the international community or from the neighborhood of West Chelsea. It is my contention that Koreans need to make a greater effort to integrate – rather than isolate -- their remarkable culture within the current global discourse.  In the process, they need to show truly profound works of art that exceed the limitations of craft and the superficiality of trends, works that transform the way we see and think about art.

- Robert C. Morgan is a Professor Emeritus in Art History at the Rochester Institute of Technology, and currently teaches at the School of Visual Arts in New York City.  In 1999, he received the first Arcale award for international art criticism in Salamanca (Spain), and in 2011 he was inducted into the prestigious European Academy of Sciences and Arts in Salzburg, Austria. In 2005, Professor Morgan lectured as a Fulbright Senior Scholar in Korea.