The notion that 'art museums' and 'museums' share a common root is a well-established fact. The term 'museum' originates from the Greek 'Mouseion,' a sanctuary dedicated to the muses, where poetry, music, history, philosophy, and the visual arts coexisted in an integrated space. The concept of a museum itself emerged without separating scholarship from art. Historically, the Louvre, the British Museum, and the Uffizi, which established the modern museum system, all began with collections of artworks, indicating that art museums are not merely derivatives of museums but rather closer to the original concept.
The International Council of Museums (ICOM) has a committee for modern art called the International Committee for Museums and Collections of Modern Art (CIMAM), and prestigious institutions like the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the British Museum all include 'Museum' in their names.
Ideally, 'museum' should encompass all types of institutions dealing with history, archaeology, anthropology, folklore, art, zoology, botany, mineralogy, science, and technology. However, the law's use of the conjunction 'and' has led to a perception where 'museum' no longer includes art museums, treating them as separate and mutually exclusive entities. This legal phrasing distorts linguistic practices.
This situation has been exacerbated by the prototype effect, where the National Museum of Korea is the first institution that comes to mind when people hear 'museum.' Due to its focus on archaeological and historical artifacts, the entire category has been narrowed to a place that deals solely with historical artifacts.
The administrative structure has solidified this separation. The National Museum of Korea and the National Museum of Modern Art exist as entirely separate national institutions, and the law's designation of 'museum and art museum promotion law' reinforces the perception of these as equal categories.
Consequently, the confusion surrounding the question 'Is an art museum a museum?' results from a threefold error: the loss of hierarchy during translation, the National Museum of Korea filling that void with a narrow image, and administrative separation institutionalizing this misunderstanding.
The seriousness of the issue extends beyond mere legal and administrative disparities; it lies in the collapse of the logic within the legal text itself. To clarify the hierarchy, 'museum' is a superordinate concept, while both the National Museum of Korea and the National Museum of Modern Art are subordinate concepts.
If the National Museum of Korea is a comprehensive history and culture museum encompassing archaeology, history, art, and anthropology, then the National Museum of Modern Art is a specialized art museum dealing with visual arts such as painting, sculpture, architecture, crafts, and calligraphy. While they are different types of institutions, they are equal subordinate concepts under the overarching category of 'museum.' However, this hierarchy collapses within the legal text.
First, the purpose clause in Article 1 and the definition clause in Article 2 contradict each other. Article 1 states that the law aims to 'nurture museums and art museums to contribute to the development of culture, arts, and scholarship,' explicitly including 'scholarship' as a common goal for both. Yet, the definition in Article 2 excludes 'scholarship' from the definition of art museums.
This discrepancy leads to a self-contradiction in the definitions of 'materials' and 'institutions.' Article 2 defines 'art museum materials' as 'materials related to art that are collected, managed, preserved, researched, exhibited, and educationally valued by art museums.' This definition implies that the materials must have academic value, while the institution handling these materials is legally defined as unrelated to scholarship.
Such contradictions have also created inconsistencies in the qualifications for curators. While both museum and art museum curators are managed under the same qualification system, the legal status of the institutions they belong to diverges significantly.
These 'inconsistencies' stem not from philosophical distinctions but rather from administrative and political compromises made during the 1991 overhaul of the 'Museum Law' into the 'Museum and Art Museum Promotion Law.'
The administrative framework for national museums and art museums is distinctly divided. The National Museum of Korea, the National Folk Museum, the Museum of Korean History, and public and private museums across the country fall under the Cultural Heritage Administration.
In contrast, the National Museum of Modern Art is overseen by the Visual Arts and Design Division under the Arts Policy Bureau. This difference is not merely a matter of administrative division; it highlights how the government’s perspective on the National Museum of Modern Art varies due to the absence of the term 'scholarship.' The Cultural Heritage Administration's work is clearly based on 'museum studies,' focusing on comprehensive planning, legal and institutional improvements, and professional training for museum staff.
On the other hand, the Visual Arts and Design Division emphasizes promotion, industry, and spatial policy. Its responsibilities include developing comprehensive plans for visual arts, enhancing marketing and industrialization, and training professionals in creative and management fields. The National Museum of Modern Art is treated as one of the agencies executing visual arts promotion, akin to a subcontractor.
As demands for reform in this unreasonable structure grow within the art community, the Cultural Heritage Administration attempted to integrate museum administration in September 2017 but reverted to the Visual Arts and Design Division in 2018, citing the need for the National Museum of Modern Art to respond effectively to the field.
Ultimately, the core issue is that the current National Museum of Modern Art is viewed as an institution primarily responsible for promoting visual arts rather than as a museum. To establish it as a true national museum, a reorganization transferring its operational support and management to the Cultural Heritage Administration or a separate line with museum studies expertise is essential.
Based on museum studies, it is necessary to transfer the National Museum of Modern Art to the Cultural Heritage Administration and establish separate institutions like 'Kunsthalle' or 'Institute of Contemporary Art' that operate without collections.
This proposal aims to distribute responsibilities according to the purpose and nature of each institution rather than burdening the National Museum of Modern Art with all art-related tasks. This is not merely about transferring the National Museum of Modern Art's administrative department but about restructuring the entire logic of art administration in Korea.
The current confusion arises from forcing the distinct entities of 'museum' and 'promotion agency' into one body, leading to a mismatch in their fundamental roles. Museums are inherently institutions based on long-term collection, preservation, and research, while promotion activities for emerging artists and experimental exhibitions require a more flexible institution that does not need to bear the weight of collections.
Therefore, establishing a separate institution that operates without collections, like the Kunsthalle or ICA, is a viable solution. This would alleviate the burden on local public museums that lack the budget and expertise to secure collections and support the creative activities of local artists.
However, such a framework does not currently exist in Korea. The 'Museum and Art Museum Promotion Law' only defines museums and art museums as facilities that collect, manage, preserve, research, exhibit, and educate, without providing a legal status for institutions that operate solely on exhibitions and promotion without collections.
This has resulted in the National Museum of Modern Art having to simultaneously fulfill the roles of a museum and a promotion agency, which aligns with the dual administrative structure of the Visual Arts and Design Division and the Cultural Heritage Administration. Thus, it is rational to reposition the National Museum of Modern Art under the Cultural Heritage Administration to focus on its core functions of collection, preservation, and research, while the Visual Arts and Design Division establishes and operates a separate non-collection promotion exhibition institution.
To achieve this, it is necessary to amend the 'Museum and Art Museum Promotion Law' to explicitly include institutions like Kunsthalle. Under the current legal framework, it is challenging for exhibition-focused institutions without collections to be recognized as 'art museums,' as the registration requirements and support systems are designed with the assumption of collection ownership.
By amending the law to establish definitions, registration requirements, and support bases for such institutions, experimental exhibition spaces can be integrated into the system without burdening national or local governments.
Of course, there are practical hurdles to overcome. Organizational restructuring involves budgetary and staffing issues intertwined with the interests of various departments, and establishing new institutions will require additional funding. However, separating the roles of museums and promotion agencies legally and institutionally is a topic worth serious consideration for Korea's art administration.
The conceptual contradictions between art museums and museums are also evident in the terminology used by the Cultural Heritage Administration and the Korean Museum Association. The Korean Museum Association, which includes all museums in Korea, often uses the term 'museum' as a loanword, 'museum,' instead of the Korean term for 'museum' when referring to both museums and art museums.
The Cultural Heritage Administration follows suit. This is not a mere stylistic choice; using 'museum' as a superordinate term implicitly grants art museums a status as institutions contributing to scholarly development, which the law does not recognize. Conversely, when art museums are grouped under the term 'museum,' they may feel their identity is diminished or absorbed into the lower category of museums.
Thus, when referring to both institutions equally, using 'museum' as a superordinate term risks undermining the concept of art museums, while using 'art museum' excludes institutions dealing with history, natural history, and science. Therefore, a neutral third expression is needed, but there is currently no established neutral term in Korean.
Consequently, using the loanword 'museum' without domestic legal or customary implications has become a safe option. This pattern of filling lexical gaps with loanwords is typical, but it also highlights the shameful reality that legal terminology has distorted scholarly and industry language practices.
Neither ICOM nor museum studies distinguish between museums and art museums based on their scholarly contributions. Instead, art museums are treated as a subset of museums, which include history, archaeology, anthropology, folklore, zoology, botany, mineralogy, science, and technology. South Korea is the only country that has disrupted this established understanding in international discourse, leaving the situation unresolved for over 30 years.
Conceptually separating art museums from museums is not a common practice internationally. ICOM does not define art museums separately. The revised definition of museums by ICOM in 2022 states that museums are 'non-profit, permanent institutions serving society and its development, and are responsible for the research, collection, preservation, interpretation, and exhibition of tangible and intangible heritage,' without distinguishing based on the type of collections.
This unified definition is also reflected in the legislative practices of individual countries. Japan's Museum Law does not define art museums separately; it defines 'museum' as an institution that collects, preserves, and exhibits materials related to history, art, folklore, industry, and natural sciences, which includes art museums within this definition. The purpose clause also states that museums contribute to the 'education, scholarship, and cultural development' of the public, applying scholarly functions equally to art museums.
France has a national certification system called 'Musée de France' under its Code of Heritage, which regulates a single category of 'museum' encompassing art museums, natural history museums, and science museums without defining art museums separately.
In the United States, the Museum and Library Services Act defines 'museum' as a non-profit institution organized for educational, cultural heritage, and aesthetic purposes, which regularly exhibits tangible objects, listing art museums alongside aquariums, botanical gardens, history museums, and natural history museums. Thus, art museums are treated as one of several subtypes under a single definition rather than as a distinct category.
In the UK, museums are not legally defined. The Museum Accreditation Scheme operated by Arts Council England adopts ICOM's definition, regulating 'museums and galleries' under a single accreditation standard without conceptually separating art museums.
Germany follows a similar pattern, where the term 'museum' is not legally protected or defined, and the German Museums Association and ICOM Germany apply ICOM's definition as the de facto standard for all types of museums, including art museums.
China formally regulates museums and art museums under different administrative laws, but the criteria for distinction are based on the era of collections or the differences in overseeing departments, not the presence of the term 'scholarship.' Moreover, the regulations related to art museums explicitly state that they 'organize scholarly research,' thus not excluding scholarly functions conceptually. South Korea's legislative approach, which defines museums and art museums side by side while differentiating based on the inclusion of 'scholarship,' is nearly unique internationally.
As discussed, revising the 'Museum and Art Museum Promotion Law' is imperative. The amendment should begin with restoring the coherence of the definition clauses. To maintain the current system that categorizes art museums as a subtype of museums, it is essential to explicitly include 'the development of scholarship' in the purpose definition of art museums, ensuring alignment between the purpose clause (Article 1), the definition clause (Article 2), and the definition of art museum materials (Article 2, Clause 4).
This is a straightforward yet urgent measure that can be corrected through reasonable judgment by the National Assembly. Furthermore, it should be redesigned to align with international standards and the concept system of 'museum studies.' As seen in the legislative practices of ICOM, Japan, and France, the dual definition approach that treats art museums as fundamentally different facilities must be fundamentally revised. Following international norms that require research functions for all museums and art museums, efforts should be made to quickly integrate into a unified definition system. Additionally, this revision should extend to organizational laws and personnel systems.
If art museums are legally recognized as scholarly institutions contributing to the development of scholarship, the autonomy of the director of the National Museum of Modern Art regarding personnel and budget, as well as the job security and rank system for curatorial staff, should be redesigned accordingly. While changing a single phrase in the definition clause will not resolve all issues, it should serve as a starting point for a fundamental reassessment of the historically low institutional status of art museums. Laws are institutions made of language. As long as the law defines art museums as facilities unrelated to scholarship, that language will directly translate into organizational structures, budgets, and personnel treatment. We must not allow a single term, hastily created amid inter-departmental conflicts and disputes with the art community over 30 years ago, to continue justifying the low status of Korean art museums. The fact that we must reargue established knowledge in the international community speaks volumes about how far behind Korean cultural administration and legislation are from international standards.
In discussions about the comprehensive revision of the 'Museum and Art Museum Promotion Law,' the issue of the term 'scholarship' must be addressed first and foremost. While constitutional amendments are important, aligning the differing purpose and definition clauses of the 'Museum and Art Museum Promotion Law' is a matter of significant importance related to the national dignity of South Korea. We must not delay any longer.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.