국문
국문/ENG
While an artist, as a free subject, may be understood as an individual whose existence precedes all determinations, and whose creative choices thus rightfully stem from autonomous judgment, the historical consolidation of subjectivity through the logi of expertise complicates this autonomy. Artistic creation, in this context, exceeds the domain of private will and comes to require a publicly intelligible justification—one that gains its legitimacy through its relation to others and through its capacity to persuade within a shared social horizon. Within this context, the status of the artist may be understood as something open to reconfiguration—conceivable, for instance, as that of an aesthetic researcher. From this repositioning, art extends beyond the confines of self- referentiality toward an expanded horizon of interdisciplinary inquiry. Through cultural crossings between heterogeneous domains of knowledge—such as science, society, politics, and the economy—art acquires its legitimacy as a research-based practice: one that weaves together the relations between sensation and reason, subjectivity and objectivity, discourse and form. At this juncture, the question arises: what, then, is the aesthetic significance of research-based practice? It is precisely here that the artist is compelled to confront a fundamental bifurcation. One path lies in the refinement of one’s interests and sensibilities as an autonomous individual subject; the other points toward the domain of public responsibility. Ultimately, the unresolved task confronting all artistic subjects is the question of where—and on what grounds—art is to be situated within the terrain of objective consensus. The value ascribed to what is often termed “accelerated diversity” renders the very possibility of establishing shared contemporary norms far more complex, complicating any assumption of stable agreement as a foundation for artistic legitimacy. Even if such effects remain, at least initially, confined to a surface level, the pluralization of modes of value production through processes of mediation enables art—and our perception of it—to break free from a recursive, or partially self-enclosed, field. From this shift, art arrives at a paradoxical stance: it assumes forms that are open to explanation while simultaneously prompting doubt about the very claims it advances. Put differently, art appropriates the syntax of science without claiming scientificity, and assumes the framework of research without collapsing into its normative objectives. It operates instead within an ambivalent spectrum. In self-generative environments, art deliberately obscures the boundaries of authorial will and intention, assigning a pivotal role to those who partake in its reception as central actors within the economy of rights. From this juncture, contemporary discourse on media fully takes shape.
Accordingly, Han Suji self-identifies as a para-researcher—or as an artist who assumes the posture of research—and readily incorporates the concept of the “fake” into her practice. This gesture is rooted in the primary source of her artistic inquiry, wherein he collection of material is conducted at the level of mediated facticity, drawn from the surface of information circulated through the media.1) The scientific phenomena to which Han turns her attention were never, from the outset, invoked for the purpose of being tested or verified on the same epistemic plane. Rather, their necessity emerges a meta-level approach aimed at elucidating the modes of thought that sustain the contemporary moment; in this capacity, they play their part—alongside other elements— in the articulation and formation of a perspective unique to her. What is particularly distinctive is that the individual units of Han’s practice—that is, the enactment of works that Han herself assembles and organizes under specific titles—are constructed in the form of what she terms a media installation. Here, the term does not simply denote the literal installation of “(new) media.” Rather, it is used to describe the deliberate organization of a plural assemblage of heterogeneous media—such as planar images including design illustrations and drawings, three-dimensional objects and structural forms, as well as screen-based projections of live-action footage or computer-generated imagery—into a configuration oriented toward a single, unified mode of perception. In this way, the multilayered, media-based hybrid packages employed by Han do not merely present individual works as objects of contemplation. Rather, they are structured as a formula for inducing empathy through processes of verification, guiding subjects of reception toward a gradual acceptance of her worldview. Accordingly, in her work, the format of the media installation does not aim to deliver a self-contained private message. Instead, it functions as a representational model of an academic argumentative system: one that begins with the posing of a question, proceeds through a review of prior research, moves on to the design of a corresponding methodology, gathers and analyzes relevant data, and ultimately arrives at a conclusion. This mode of progression transforms those who were conventionally positioned as viewers—understood within the established category of visual art as spectators of aesthetic experience—into active readers. Moving beyond the role of passive recipients, they are invited to follow the proposed stages, to comprehend the significance of the research, to evaluate its value, and ultimately to participate in processes of knowledge production.
In this way, the system structuring Han’s work generates a field of intersection between art and technology, while at the same time making it possible to examine the notion of the “real” within the context of the simulacrum as theorized by Jean Baudrillard(1929–2007).2) Particularly noteworthy is the new body of work presented in the exhibition The Breath of Fresh: Transits of Senses (Art Center White Block, 2025–2026). This package not only further refines, at a technical level, the para-scientific methodology examined above in Han’s practice, but also stands out as a new case that appropriates the formal credibility of the research’s claims and analytical structures enacted by her. In this compositional framework, works such as Folded Skin, Twin Pulses (2025) and Unfolded Seven Strata (2025) exemplify the former case: they assume the role of visual outcomes that stand in for individual case studies within an extended chain of the whole. By contrast, Xenon Skin—Ribbit! Ribbit! (2025) gestures toward the latter. Conceived as an element that performs the function of an abstract—one that writes the overarching narrative of her worldview—the work operates through a transversal of the real and the surreal: it juxtaposes biological arguments surrounding xenon skin with citations from the legend of the Frog Rock of Mount Geumgang, while staging a private narration of public concepts. Its narrative voice unfolds as though an earlier generation were recounting a story to those who follow, suggesting a mode of transmission that is at once intimate and generational. From Generating Membrane (2025), which forms the entry threshold into the space, to Exoskin Mapping (2025), installed in the form of seating for viewing the video work, these pieces mobilize actual use—that is, the frameworks of everyday life— as a mode for handling objective data. In doing so, they establish within the exhibition a structurally mediated buffer zone that bridges the two preceding layers. Grounded in scientific research and media installation, Han’s practice thus operates as both an argued demonstration and a demonstrated argument. As viewers and readers encounter heterogeneous media categories within the exhibition hall, they are able—through the pathways of verification proposed by Han—to experience the entire arc of aesthetic practice, from the posing of a problem to the derivation of a conclusion, apprehended through intertwined modes of perception and thought. Ultimately, the endpoint of this laborious experimentation is nothing less than a declaration: that the quasi-scientific stance she adopts can move beyond the realm of superficial imitation and, from both within and without, activate art as an autonomous methodology of cognition (one that is intrinsically interdisciplinary). In this way, Han’s practice no longer remains within the domain of quasi-scientific art that merely imitates science. Instead, it repositions the authority of art and science, critically juxtaposing their relations, and decisively transitions into the realm of what may be called “para-scientific aesthetics.” By suspending the logics of particular institutional frameworks, this stance proves effective precisely insofar as it converts the contemporary conditions under which perception is produced and circulated into the very subject of aesthetic inquiry.
1) Han Suji and Jang Jintaeg, "Artist Interview," MMCA Residency Goyang, September 18, 2025.
2) In his book Simulacres et Simulation (1981), Jean Baudrillard defines simulacra as reproduced or fabricated images that can exist without an original and are, paradoxically, experienced as more real than the original itself. He further defines simulation as the condition in which such simulacra come to replace and dominate reality, dissolving the boundary between the real and the virtual. Baudrillard argues that under conditions of simulation, the very distinction between “true” and “false,” as well as between “the real” and the “imaginary,” is put at risk, and that simulation is capable of producing signs of the “real” itself. Jean Baudrillard, "The Precession of Simulacra," in Simulations, translated by Ha Taehwan, Minumsa, 2001, pp. 9-90.
국문/ENG
Para-Scientific Aesthetics:
on the Use of Pseudo-Scientific Forms in Art
Jintaeg Jang(Art Critic)
While an artist, as a free subject, may be understood as an individual whose existence precedes all determinations, and whose creative choices thus rightfully stem from autonomous judgment, the historical consolidation of subjectivity through the logi of expertise complicates this autonomy. Artistic creation, in this context, exceeds the domain of private will and comes to require a publicly intelligible justification—one that gains its legitimacy through its relation to others and through its capacity to persuade within a shared social horizon. Within this context, the status of the artist may be understood as something open to reconfiguration—conceivable, for instance, as that of an aesthetic researcher. From this repositioning, art extends beyond the confines of self- referentiality toward an expanded horizon of interdisciplinary inquiry. Through cultural crossings between heterogeneous domains of knowledge—such as science, society, politics, and the economy—art acquires its legitimacy as a research-based practice: one that weaves together the relations between sensation and reason, subjectivity and objectivity, discourse and form. At this juncture, the question arises: what, then, is the aesthetic significance of research-based practice? It is precisely here that the artist is compelled to confront a fundamental bifurcation. One path lies in the refinement of one’s interests and sensibilities as an autonomous individual subject; the other points toward the domain of public responsibility. Ultimately, the unresolved task confronting all artistic subjects is the question of where—and on what grounds—art is to be situated within the terrain of objective consensus. The value ascribed to what is often termed “accelerated diversity” renders the very possibility of establishing shared contemporary norms far more complex, complicating any assumption of stable agreement as a foundation for artistic legitimacy. Even if such effects remain, at least initially, confined to a surface level, the pluralization of modes of value production through processes of mediation enables art—and our perception of it—to break free from a recursive, or partially self-enclosed, field. From this shift, art arrives at a paradoxical stance: it assumes forms that are open to explanation while simultaneously prompting doubt about the very claims it advances. Put differently, art appropriates the syntax of science without claiming scientificity, and assumes the framework of research without collapsing into its normative objectives. It operates instead within an ambivalent spectrum. In self-generative environments, art deliberately obscures the boundaries of authorial will and intention, assigning a pivotal role to those who partake in its reception as central actors within the economy of rights. From this juncture, contemporary discourse on media fully takes shape.
Accordingly, Han Suji self-identifies as a para-researcher—or as an artist who assumes the posture of research—and readily incorporates the concept of the “fake” into her practice. This gesture is rooted in the primary source of her artistic inquiry, wherein he collection of material is conducted at the level of mediated facticity, drawn from the surface of information circulated through the media.1) The scientific phenomena to which Han turns her attention were never, from the outset, invoked for the purpose of being tested or verified on the same epistemic plane. Rather, their necessity emerges a meta-level approach aimed at elucidating the modes of thought that sustain the contemporary moment; in this capacity, they play their part—alongside other elements— in the articulation and formation of a perspective unique to her. What is particularly distinctive is that the individual units of Han’s practice—that is, the enactment of works that Han herself assembles and organizes under specific titles—are constructed in the form of what she terms a media installation. Here, the term does not simply denote the literal installation of “(new) media.” Rather, it is used to describe the deliberate organization of a plural assemblage of heterogeneous media—such as planar images including design illustrations and drawings, three-dimensional objects and structural forms, as well as screen-based projections of live-action footage or computer-generated imagery—into a configuration oriented toward a single, unified mode of perception. In this way, the multilayered, media-based hybrid packages employed by Han do not merely present individual works as objects of contemplation. Rather, they are structured as a formula for inducing empathy through processes of verification, guiding subjects of reception toward a gradual acceptance of her worldview. Accordingly, in her work, the format of the media installation does not aim to deliver a self-contained private message. Instead, it functions as a representational model of an academic argumentative system: one that begins with the posing of a question, proceeds through a review of prior research, moves on to the design of a corresponding methodology, gathers and analyzes relevant data, and ultimately arrives at a conclusion. This mode of progression transforms those who were conventionally positioned as viewers—understood within the established category of visual art as spectators of aesthetic experience—into active readers. Moving beyond the role of passive recipients, they are invited to follow the proposed stages, to comprehend the significance of the research, to evaluate its value, and ultimately to participate in processes of knowledge production.
In this way, the system structuring Han’s work generates a field of intersection between art and technology, while at the same time making it possible to examine the notion of the “real” within the context of the simulacrum as theorized by Jean Baudrillard(1929–2007).2) Particularly noteworthy is the new body of work presented in the exhibition The Breath of Fresh: Transits of Senses (Art Center White Block, 2025–2026). This package not only further refines, at a technical level, the para-scientific methodology examined above in Han’s practice, but also stands out as a new case that appropriates the formal credibility of the research’s claims and analytical structures enacted by her. In this compositional framework, works such as Folded Skin, Twin Pulses (2025) and Unfolded Seven Strata (2025) exemplify the former case: they assume the role of visual outcomes that stand in for individual case studies within an extended chain of the whole. By contrast, Xenon Skin—Ribbit! Ribbit! (2025) gestures toward the latter. Conceived as an element that performs the function of an abstract—one that writes the overarching narrative of her worldview—the work operates through a transversal of the real and the surreal: it juxtaposes biological arguments surrounding xenon skin with citations from the legend of the Frog Rock of Mount Geumgang, while staging a private narration of public concepts. Its narrative voice unfolds as though an earlier generation were recounting a story to those who follow, suggesting a mode of transmission that is at once intimate and generational. From Generating Membrane (2025), which forms the entry threshold into the space, to Exoskin Mapping (2025), installed in the form of seating for viewing the video work, these pieces mobilize actual use—that is, the frameworks of everyday life— as a mode for handling objective data. In doing so, they establish within the exhibition a structurally mediated buffer zone that bridges the two preceding layers. Grounded in scientific research and media installation, Han’s practice thus operates as both an argued demonstration and a demonstrated argument. As viewers and readers encounter heterogeneous media categories within the exhibition hall, they are able—through the pathways of verification proposed by Han—to experience the entire arc of aesthetic practice, from the posing of a problem to the derivation of a conclusion, apprehended through intertwined modes of perception and thought. Ultimately, the endpoint of this laborious experimentation is nothing less than a declaration: that the quasi-scientific stance she adopts can move beyond the realm of superficial imitation and, from both within and without, activate art as an autonomous methodology of cognition (one that is intrinsically interdisciplinary). In this way, Han’s practice no longer remains within the domain of quasi-scientific art that merely imitates science. Instead, it repositions the authority of art and science, critically juxtaposing their relations, and decisively transitions into the realm of what may be called “para-scientific aesthetics.” By suspending the logics of particular institutional frameworks, this stance proves effective precisely insofar as it converts the contemporary conditions under which perception is produced and circulated into the very subject of aesthetic inquiry.
1) Han Suji and Jang Jintaeg, "Artist Interview," MMCA Residency Goyang, September 18, 2025.
2) In his book Simulacres et Simulation (1981), Jean Baudrillard defines simulacra as reproduced or fabricated images that can exist without an original and are, paradoxically, experienced as more real than the original itself. He further defines simulation as the condition in which such simulacra come to replace and dominate reality, dissolving the boundary between the real and the virtual. Baudrillard argues that under conditions of simulation, the very distinction between “true” and “false,” as well as between “the real” and the “imaginary,” is put at risk, and that simulation is capable of producing signs of the “real” itself. Jean Baudrillard, "The Precession of Simulacra," in Simulations, translated by Ha Taehwan, Minumsa, 2001, pp. 9-90.