NYCFC, by contrast, asks a different question. Designed from inception as part ofthe City Football Group, the club prioritizes possession, positional spacing, andbuild up stability. In this match, NYCFC’s defining sequences were not scoringchances but the moments immediately after losing the ball. The speed andprecision of their reorganization revealed a philosophy centered on spatialmanagement rather than momentum.In the same city, one team applies pressure through energy, the other throughstructure. From the press box, this distinction is clearer than any goal. Goalscontain randomness. Off ball movement reveals philosophy.These contrasts sharpened throughout the 2025 season, a year in which MLS as awhole recalibrated its direction ahead of the World Cup. After failing to reach theplayoffs, the Red Bulls initiated a structural reassessment based not on short termresults but on identity preservation. Should the club continue to prioritize pressingand transition, or pivot toward more controlled possession. Coaching selectionsand staff composition became answers to that question.NYCFC followed a parallel path. Periods of declining tactical efficiency weresubjected to data analysis, and both summer recruitment and tactical adjustmentsfocused on restoring build up stability. These were not moves aimed at immediateresults, but structural preparation for 2026. In a World Cup year, MLS does notmerely compete on performance. It establishes standards. Cities must demonstratewhat language their soccer speaks.Players become part of that language. For NYCFC, the most frequently referencedfigures during the 2025 season were not simply goal scorers but completers ofattacking sequences. Their value increases in a World Cup year, because thetournament extends beyond national teams. Cities themselves require recognizablefootball identities. The Red Bulls similarly shift emphasis away from individual starstoward midfield and wide players capable of sustaining pressing and transitiondemands. Short recovery cycles, frequent travel, and rapid adaptation mirrorprecisely the conditions of World Cup football.At this point, the connection to Formula One is not metaphorical. Red Bullmanages football and motorsport through the same operational language.Players and drivers may change, but pressing structures and developmentphilosophies remain. In Formula One, Red Bull’s competitive advantage lies not inoutright speed but in systemic adaptability to regulation changes. The sameprinciple applies at Red Bull Arena. The tactics are simple. The execution isrefined.This grammar aligns seamlessly with the requirements of a forty eight nationWorld Cup format. As a result, the 2026 World Cup does not begin on opening day.Its preparation is already underway through stadium design, league operations,coaching decisions, player role allocation, press logistics, and broadcastrhythm.The match witnessed at Red Bull Arena was not a preview of the future.It was the present already in motion.
Empowering BusinessThrough Technology
The Two Layers ofthe AI EcosystemInfrastructure, Embodied Intelligence, and theQuiet Entry of Robots into Daily LifeNVIDIA–RR structural relationship early experimental phase
THE FUTUREOF TECHNOLOGYLayer One: AI Has BecomeInfrastructureWHO ACTUALLYENTERS THE FIELD.Discussions about artificial intelligence androbotics often begin with the wrong question.We ask when robots will arrive, when AI willreplace human labor, when the future will finallyappear. But the more accurate question is alreadypresent tense. What structures have already beenbuilt, and what has begun to operate within them.From this perspective, the contemporary AIecosystem is no longer emerging as a singlewave.It is already stratified into two distinct layersone that defines the environment, and anotherthat enters it.NVIDIA is best understood not as asemiconductor manufacturer, but as aninfrastructure company for artificial intelligence.Modern AI systems do not exist as isolatedalgorithms.They require massive parallel computation, realtime inference, simulation, and continuouslearning.This computational foundation has consolidatedaround GPU-based architectures, and NVIDIA hasbecome the dominant provider of both thehardware and the software ecosystem thatenables them.What matters now is not the GPU alone, but theintegrated stack surrounding itCUDA as a programming standardIsaac as a robotics simulation and developmentplatformOmniverse as a physics-accurate digital twin ofthe real world. Together, these tools define theconditions under which intelligence is trained,tested, and deployed. At this stage, NVIDIA is nolonger a discretionary technology choice.It functions much like electricity, networking, orcloud infrastructure rarely visible, but decisive.Its presence determines what kinds of systemscan exist at all.Once such an environment is established, thecentral question inevitably shifts.
Richtech Robotics represents asecond, more fragile layer of theecosystemcompanies attempting to embodyintelligence inside physical, socialspace.Richtech Robotics does not frame itswork as speculation about the future.Instead, it deploys machines intoenvironments where uncertaintydominatesrestaurants, cafés, hotel lobbies,hospitals, large public venues.These are not controlled industrialsettings.They are places shaped by humanbehavior, impatience, inconsistency,and emotion.In such spaces, technicalimperfections immediately translateinto social friction.Yet Richtech Robotics places robotsthere deliberately.Its ADAM dual-arm robotic bartenderand beverage system has operated incommercial environments includinghigh-traffic sports arenas.Reports indicate hundreds of drinksprepared per day in real serviceconditionsnot demonstrations, not pilot labs,but live interaction with customers.The company does not claim atraditional partnership with NVIDIA.What exists instead is structural alignment.Richtech Robotics participates in NVIDIA’s Connect Program and develops withinNVIDIA’s AI and robotics ecosystem.The distinction matters.NVIDIA defines the environment.Richtech Robotics attempts to live inside it.LAYER TWO: ROBOTS THAT OPERATE INSIDETHE ENVIRONMENTAdam serves cocktails for baseball enthusiasts, https://richtechrobotics.com
WHY THE EXPERIMENTAL PHASEA PRECISEHISTORICAL PARALLELThe modern smartphone erabegan in 2007 with theintroduction of the iPhone, nowapproximately eighteen yearsago. In its early years, thedevice was slow, batterylimited, and questioned byskeptics. What mattered wasnot its technical maturity, butits entry into everyday spacepockets, tables, vehicles,bedsides. Robotics todayoccupies a similar momentroughly equivalent to the 2007–2009 period ofsmartphones.The technologyexists. The standards do not.The social contract is still beingnegotiated.THE IMPACT OF AI ON HUMAN LIFEIS NOT A WEAKNESSRichtech Robotics is not a mature company by conventional financial metrics. Itsdatasets are incomplete, its operating margins remain under pressure, and largescale behavioral analytics have not yet been publicly consolidated. But thisincompleteness is not a flaw. It is the defining characteristic of the phase we are in.We are not witnessing the optimization of robotics. We are witnessing its socialfeasibility testing.How long will people wait for a robot When does novelty become indifferenceWhere does convenience outweigh discomfort At what point does automation stopfeeling intrusive These questions cannot be answered in simulation. They can onlybe answered through repeated, imperfect operation in public space.HOW ROBOTS WILLACTUALLY ENTER OUR LIVESRobots will not arrive as dramatic replacements.They will arrive as conveniences, then efficiencies, and finallyassumptions. First they will be tolerated.Then expected. Eventually, their absence will feel inefficientrather than reassuring. This is how structural change occursnot through declarations, but through repetition
WHY RICHTECHROBOTICS IS NOT LIKEOTHER ROBOTICSCOMPANIESNOT ALL ROBOTICSFIRMS ARE ASKING THESAME QUESTION.HOW ROBOTS WILLACTUALLY ENTEROUR LIVESBoston Dynamics explores theupper bounds of mechanicalcapability, producing extraordinarydemonstrations of motion andbalance, but with limitedpenetration into daily serviceenvironments.Robots will not arrive as dramaticreplacements.They will arrive asconveniences, then efficiencies, andfinally assumptions. First they will betolerated. Then expected. Eventually,their absence will feel inefficientrather than reassuring. This is howstructural change occurs not throughdeclarations, but through repetition.Richtech Robotics is still small,still experimental, still exposed.But it is testing the right boundarythe moment where intelligenceceases to be abstract andbecomes social. The future is notfinished. But it is alreadyoperating.And we are closer to itthan most people realizeThe Environment Is Already BuiltThe computational environmentfor AI now exists.NVIDIA has established it.What remains unresolved is notwhether robots are possible, butwhich ones will endure theconditions of everyday lifeServe Robotics targets narrow urbandelivery scenarios, constrained heavilyby regulation and infrastructure.Richtech Robotics has chosen amore difficult path direct interactionwith people in shared spaces. Thischoice slows development,complicates deployment, andincreases failure risk. But it is alsowhere adoption is ultimately decided.Technologies that cannot survivesocial friction do not scaleAgility Robotics focuses primarily onlogistics and warehouse automation,environments optimized for efficiencyrather than human interaction.
From Soft PowertoStructural Power
When Trust Becomes the NewCompetitive AdvantageIn mature industries, the pace of innovation aloneno longer determines success.The core of competitive advantage has shiftedaway from performance and toward trust.It is at this point that Samsung traces a distinctivetrajectory. While many technology companiesremain narrowly focused on efficiency and scale,Samsung recognized early on that social trustextends the lifespan of technology andstrengthens the fundamental legitimacy of acorporation. This insight was not treated as anabstract ideal, but institutionalized over time. Froman academic perspective, this is not a matter ofbranding. The psychological mechanismsactivated when people trust a corporation are bothconcrete and measurable.First, trust lowers information costs. Themore consumers and markets believe that acompany will remain stable in times of crisis,the less anxiety they experience in makingchoices involving that firm.Second, trust does not function as a morallicense, but as a moral expectation.Companies that earn trust are subjected tohigher demands for responsibility, and when theyrespond to those demands, trust is reinforcedrather than diminished.Third, trust accumulates as memory.Affection generated by advertising dissipatesquickly, but consistent action in moments ofcrisis and sustained social contribution becomeembedded in collective memory.Viewed through this framework, Samsungrepresents a near archetypal case of atechnology company evolving into a social valueenterprise.And the most persuasive evidence of thisevolution is unfolding at this very moment inWashington, DC.
A B O U TTHE POWER OF QUIETCONSISTENCYOne of the defining virtues of truly greatcompanies lies in their ability to maximizeinfluence while minimizing self-display.Samsung’s pursuit of social value has drawnsustained attention precisely because it hasrarely appeared as an exaggerated campaign.Instead, it has been realized through institutions,long-term partnerships, and durable systems.This quiet consistency is particularly evident inthe realm of culture and the arts.When technology companies support the arts, afamiliar suspicion often follows: that such effortsamount to image laundering. In Samsung’s case,however, the pattern has been markedlydifferent. Rather than staging one-off events, thecompany has invested in long-terminfrastructure built around institutions,exhibitions, research, and documentation. Overtime, this approach has contributed meaningfullyto the international credibility of Korean culture.A representative example is the artist Park Daesung.Park has extended the language of traditionalink painting into a contemporary context, and hiswork continues to be discussed withininternational art institutions and critical discourse.His exhibition Virtuous Ink and ContemporaryBrush, held at the Los Angeles County Museumof Art, is officially listed as having receivedsupport from the Samsung Foundation ofCulture.In addition, accounts of Chairman Lee Kun-hee’srole in discovering and supporting Park Dae-sunghave been repeatedly documented in major Koreanmedia outlets.The critical point here is not the fact of support itself,but the manner in which that support is structured.Samsung’s cultural patronage has tended not tocommodify individual artists for promotionalpurposes. Instead, it is designed so that art remainsa public asset, sustained through exhibitions,scholarly research, and institutional partnerships.This approach reflects an understanding of culturenot as ornamentation for corporate image, but as aform of social capital.Park Saeng-kwang (1904–1985), Musok 3 (Shamanism 3), 1980.Acrylic on canvas.Selected for the international touring exhibition of the Lee Kun-hee Collection at theSmithsonian National Museum of Asian Art, Washington, DC.Courtesy of the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Korea..
INNOVATION AGES QUICKLY.Responsibility, by contrast, grows more luminousover time. The most advanced form of responsibilitylies in leaving behind culture, knowledge, andcollective memory for society. From thisperspective, the donation of the Lee Kun-heeCollection and its presentation at the Smithsoniandecisively reinforce Samsung’s narrative of socialvalue.The collection donated to South Korea in 2021 bythe family of Chairman Lee Kun-hee has been widelyrecognized as a transformation of private collectinginto a public asset for the nation and for society atlarge. As the result of more than seventy years ofsustained collecting, the donation carries globalsymbolic weight as a rare transition from privateownership to shared cultural heritage.Smithsonian Asian Art MuseumOVERVIEW OF THE LEE KUN-HEECOLLECTION EXHIBITION CURRENTLYON VIEW AT THE SMITHSONIANExhibition OverviewKorean Treasures: Collected, Cherished,SharedVenue : Smithsonian National Museum of Asian ArtWashington, DCDates : November 8, 2025 – February 1, 2026Overview: This landmark exhibition presents morethan 200 works from the Lee Kun-hee Collection,donated to the Korean state in 2021. Spanningapproximately fifteen centuries, the exhibition tracesthe depth and continuity of Korean artistic tradition,from ancient ceramics and Buddhist sculpture topaintings of the modern era.The exhibition includes objects designated as NationalTreasures of Korea and is organized in collaborationwith leading Korean cultural institutions. Through thispresentation, Korean art is positioned not as a regionaltradition, but as part of a shared global culturalheritage.Realized through cooperation between theSmithsonian and Samsung, the exhibition represents arare instance in which private collecting is transformedinto public memory on an international stage.At this juncture, the reaction elicited from globalaudiences is not mere admiration.The exhibition offers a compelling answer to adeeper question: how can a technology companybuild cultural trust.Technology delivers convenience.Culture delivers dignity and memory.When a corporation contributes to preservingcultural memory for society, its brand moves beyondusefulness and enters the realm of respect.WHY RESPONSIBILITYAGES BETTER THAN INNOVATIONThe Structural Significanceof the Lee Kun-heeCollection Donation
FROM THE PERSPECTIVES OF ECONOMIC HISTORY AND CULTURALECONOMICS, MOMENTS WHEN A NATION’S INFLUENCE REACHES ITS PEAKTEND TO DISPLAY A RECOGNIZABLE PATTERN. TECHNOLOGY FIRSTPERSUADES THE WORLD CULTURE FOLLOWS BY CAPTURING ITSEMOTIONS.Most distinctively, it defines therelationship between artist andaudience not as a transactionbetween producer and consumer,but as an ongoing relationshipwithin a community. What isparticularly striking is how closelythis structure resembles the waySamsung has operated itstechnology industries. Theemphasis on long-term investment,system design, global scalability,internal standards, and trust-basedrelationships mirrors the logicunderlying Korea’s culturalsuccess.Samsung does not produce K pop.Yet it has played a decisive role increating the conditions under whichK culture could expand globally.High-performance mobile devices,world-class display technologies,stable semiconductor supplychains, and the technologicalinfrastructure that enables contentconsumption at scale all form partof this environment. Beyondhardware and platforms, there issomething more fundamental: thecredibility of Korea itself as a nationcapable of sustaining excellence,reliability, and continuity. Culturedoes not spread in a vacuum. Itrequires technologicalinfrastructure, a trusted nationalimage, credible corporate actors,and social stability. Only whenthese elements operatesimultaneously can culture travelbeyond its place of origin.Today, Korea is entering theemotional architecture of the globalimagination through the languageof K pop and K culture.This phenomenon is not a passingtrend. It signals a nation’s transitionfrom functional trust to emotionaltrust. Functional trust is earnedwhen systems work, productsperform, and infrastructure deliversreliability. Emotional trust emergeswhen a society’s values, aesthetics,and ways of life begin to resonateacross borders.In this sense, K culture representsnot a sudden surge in popularity,but a structural shift in how Korea isperceived globally.K pop, in particular, is oftenmisunderstood by Westernaudiences as merely a genre or atrend. From an academicstandpoint, however, K pop is notsimply music. It is a highlysophisticated system of culturalproduction. t is built on long-termtalent development rather thanrapid discovery. It is designed fromthe outset for global audiences, notretrofitted for them. It integratestechnology and content seamlessly.It operates under internal standardsthat prioritize quality and ethics.The United States marked itsera through Hollywood.Britain did so throughliterature and music.Japan left its imprint throughdesign and animation.The Post-Technology Questionof Cultural PowerSUCH A SYSTEM DOES NOT EMERGE BY ACCIDENT.Jeong Seon (1676–1759), Inwangjesaekdo (Clearing After Rain on Mount Inwang), 1751.Ink on paper.Selected for the international touring exhibition of the Lee Kun-hee Collection at theSmithsonian National Museum of Asian Art, Washington, DC.Courtesy of the National Museum of Korea.
Samsung has played a critical role in at leastthree of these four domains.When K culture is viewed through this lens, itcompletes Samsung’s broader narrative.Throughout this analysis, we have seenSamsung extend beyond technology into thepublic stewardship of cultural assets, theexercise of social responsibility, and theaccumulation of global trust. The emergence ofK culture adds a final, integrating layer.K pop and K culture were not engineered bySamsung. Yet they are among the most organicoutcomes of the social trust ecosystemSamsung has helped build over decades. In thissense, K culture does not promote Samsung’ssuccess. Rather, it offers emotional validation ofthe environment Samsung has quietly cultivated.This dynamic helps explain a question that hasbegun to appear with increasing frequency ininternational management research: why haveKorean companies come to possess culturalpersuasiveness alongside technologicalstrength?The answer is complex, but one conclusion isclear. Nations that grow through technologyalone may achieve efficiency, but rarely earnlasting respect. Nations that attract attentionthrough culture alone often struggle to sustainmomentum.Korea stands out as one of the rare cases tohave built both technology and culturesimultaneously. Samsung has been one of thecentral pillars of that structure.As a result, global audiences encountering K pop often findthemselves reassessing Korea, and in doing so, reassessingSamsung.When Technology Meets Culture and Culture Completes TrustSamsung can no longer be explained solely as a technologycompany.It has connected the world through technology, supported societythrough responsibility, and created an environment in whichculture could travel freely and credibly.K pop and K culture serve as the most emotionally resonantevidence that this trajectory was not accidental.Technology changes the world.Culture enables people to accept that change.And trust endures longest when technology and culture advancetogether.Samsung has reached that point.Technology generates functional trustCulture generates emotional trust.Responsibility sustains both over timeKim Whanki (1913–1974), Echo of Mountains 19-II-73 #307, 1973.Oil on canvas.Selected for the international touring exhibition of the Lee Kun-hee Collection at theSmithsonian National Museum of Asian Art, Washington, DC.Courtesy of the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Korea.
What the World Now Expects fromIts Largest CompaniesFirst,The second level at whichSamsung responds is moreenduring.at the frontier of technological innovation, Samsung continuesto operate where global expectations are highest. Its recenttrajectory in semiconductors and on device artificialintelligence demonstrates a clear commitment to shaping theinfrastructure of the AI era. Memory and storage technologiesessential to this transition have been articulated not as shortterm products, but as long range systems. In mobilecomputing, the emergence of advanced process technologiessignals an effort not merely to compete, but to redefinetechnological leadership itself.Yet technological leadership, while necessary, is no longersufficient.Through sustained investment in education and research, long term support for culture and the arts, and collaborationwith global public institutions, Samsung has contributed to institutional frameworks that outlast individual product cycles.The Smithsonian exhibition of the Lee Kun hee Collection represents the apex of this approach. It opens a long horizonquestion rather than delivering a short term answer: how does a nation’s cultural heritage enter global public memorythrough the world’s most trusted institutions. This question matters because it reframes corporate contribution.The issue is no longer visibility, but continuity.Not sponsorship, but stewardship.The same logic is evident in Samsung’s long standing engagement with artists such as Park Dae sung. Here, culturalsupport is not episodic, nor promotional. It is structured to enable Korean art to enter international discourse asscholarship, exhibition, and shared knowledge. Taken together, these two dimensions clarify why Samsung isincreasingly perceived not only as a technology leader, but as a company that understands its role within a broadersocial system.Technology answers the question of what is possible.Culture answers the question of what is meaningful. Responsibility determines whether either will endure.The largest companies of this era will be judged not by the speed of their innovation, but by the depth of their legacy.They will be remembered not for what they introduced, but for what they made sustainable.In this light, Samsung’s trajectory suggests a model of corporate maturity that moves beyond performance towardpermanence.That, ultimately, is what the world now expects.The world no longer asks its largest companies only what they have built.It asks what they have left behind.This shift reflects a deeper transformation in global expectations.Scale alone no longer confers legitimacy.Innovation alone no longer guarantees respect.What matters now is whether power is accompanied by responsibility, and whether capability ismatched by stewardship.In this context, Samsung offers a particularly instructive case.The company responds on two distinct but interconnected levels.Smithsonian National Museum Washington, DC
A company that reaches global scale is no longermerely an economic actor.It begins to function as a quasi-public good. This isespecially true for firms like Samsung, whosebusinesses span semiconductors, mobile devices,displays, and consumer electronics sectors thatcollectively form the infrastructure of everyday life. Insuch cases, corporate stability becomes inseparablefrom societal stability.What the global community demands at this stage isnot philanthropy, but stewardship.Maintaining resilient supply chains, redirectingtechnology toward public purposes during times ofcrisis, and leaving behind enduring foundations foreducation and research all constitute core dimensionsof stewardship responsibility.Samsung has exercised this responsibility across boththe technological ecosystem and the public domain.In the context of the artificial intelligence era, thecompany has articulated clear and public roadmaps formemory and storage technologies that will shapefuture infrastructure, including HBM4, custom HBMsolutions, and next-generation memory class storage.Samsung Semiconductor GlobalMoreover, announcements that Samsung and NVIDIAare expanding their collaboration across highbandwidth memory, custom solutions, foundryservices, artificial intelligence, and robotics signify ashift beyond conventional technological competition.They indicate a joint effort to architect the nextgeneration of industrial infrastructure.NVIDIA Investor RelationsThese developments are not merely part of a corporategrowth narrative.At a time when global demand for artificial intelligencehas triggered memory supply constraints and pricevolatility, international reporting has confirmed that thecapacity expansion plans and technological roadmapsof companies like Samsung function as variables in theglobal macroeconomic equation.ReutersIn this sense, Samsung has moved beyond the domainof individual corporate capability and now occupies aposition defined by stewardship responsibility for thestability of the global economy itself.A R T & I N S T I T U T I O N SFROMGLOBAL SCALETOGLOBALSTEWARDSHIPExhibition view featuring Moon Jars,Smithsonian National Museum of Asian Art,Washington, DC
KOREANTREASURESColleCted Cher ished shared
SupportSamsung is the Presenting Corporate Sponsor ofCherished, Shared.Additional support is provided by the Blakemore Foundation.This exhibition, drawn from the National Bequest of Lee Kun-Hee’sCollection, is organized by the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Asian Art,the Art Institute of Chicago, the National Museum of Korea, and theNational Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Korea. Thepresentation of the exhibition at the National Museum of Asian Art issupplemented by loans generously offered by the Leeum Museum of Art.The National Museum of Asian Art gratefully acknowledges its long-standingpartnership with the National Museum of Korea. This exhibition is made possibleby this special relationship and a generous multiyear grant awarded through themuseum’s Overseas Korean Galleries Support Program.SupportAcknowledgmentKorean Treasures: Collected,
2025-2026This exhibition is coorganized by the ArtInstitute of Chicago, theNational Museum ofKorea and the NationalMuseum of Modern andContemporary Art, Korea,and draws from theNationalBequest ofLee Kun-Hee’sCollection.Chaekgado: Scholar’s Accoutrements in aBookcaseJoseon dynasty, 19th century KoreaSix-panel folding screen; ink and color on paperOverall: 152.2 × 397.4 cm (59 15⁄16 × 160 15⁄16 in.)Image: 132.6 × 318 cm (52 3⁄16 × 125 3⁄16 in.)National Museum of Korea, LKH4123Credit: © National Museum of KoreaDonated to the Republic of Korea in 2021 by the family of thelate Samsung Chairman Lee Kun-Hee, the collection reflectsmore than 70 years of generational collecting and comprisesmore than 23,000 works, a testament to a decades-longcommitment to preserving and sharing Korea’s artistic legacyand cultural heritage. “Korean Treasures” presents aremarkable selection from the collection to Americanaudiences for the first time, alongside additional loans fromthe Leeum Museum of Art in Seoul, Korea, shown exclusivelyin Washington, D.C.On view Nov.8 through Feb. 1, 2026, “Korean Treasures” features over 200 works, including a dozenNational Treasures designated by the Korean government. The largest and most comprehensivepresentation of Korean art ever mounted at the National Museum of Asian Art, the exhibition spans 1,500years—from ancient Buddhist sculptures and ceramics to paintings, furnishings and modern masterpiecesof the 20th century.The Smithsonian’s Na7onal Museum of Asian Art will present “Korean Treasures:Collected, Cherished, Shared” this fall, the first U.S. exhibiton of significant worksfrom the renowned Lee Kun-Hee CollectionFirst U.S. Exhibition of MasterpiecesFrom the Lee Kun-Hee Collection“KoreanTreasures”Portrait of Jo HangjinArtist: Yi Myeonggi (1756‒before 1813)Joseon dynasty, late 18th–early 19th centuryKoreaHanging scroll; ink and color on silkOverall: 129.8 × 77 cm (51 1⁄8 × 30 5⁄16 in.)Image: 79 × 60.5 cm (31 1⁄8 × 23 13⁄16 in.)National Museum of Korea, LKH3724Credit: © National Museum of Korea
“‘Korean Treasures’ is a rare andextraordinary opportunity to share therichness and depth of Korean art withU.S. audiences,” said Chase F. Robinson,director of the National Museum ofAsian Art. “From Buddhistsculpture of the Three Kingdoms periodto Joseon dynasty furnishings created forthe studies of the scholargentry and bold 20th-century paintings,these works span centuries of innova7onand crea7vity. Lee Kun-Heewas a visionary collector, and the gikmade by his family to Korea stands asone of the most significant in thecountry’s history. As a museum foundedthrough a similar transformative act ofgenerosity, we are honored toshare this remarkable story of culturallegacy on the international stage.”C H A S E F . R O B I N S O ND I R E C T O R O F T H EN A T I O N A L M U S E U MO F A S I A N A R T“The Lee family’s generous contributionreflects a profound commitment tosharing Korea’s cultural heritagewith the world,\" said Yoonie Joung,president and CEO of SamsungElectronics North America. “We arehonored to present this exhibition, whichnot only showcases the richness andaccomplishments of Korean art,but also serves as a meaningful plasormto share Executive Chairman Jay Y. Leeand his family’s enduringphilosophy of social giving with theAmerican public.”Y O O N I E J O U N G ,P R E S I D E N T A N D C E OO F S A M S U N GE L E C T R O N I C S N O R T HA M E R I C A .
KoreanTreasuresGalleryViewImage credit: National Museum of Asian Art, Smithsonian Institution, Photo by Colleen Dugan
ther sections illuminate key subjectsin Korea’s cultural history, from thevalues of the Neo-Confucian elite andthe visual splendor of the royal court tothe enduring legacy of Buddhist art andbold experiments in modern painting.Highlights include:• Sarangbang: Scholars at Home: Spanningcenturies of cultural evolution, severalsections of the exhibition center on theJoseon Dynasty (1392‒1910). A key setting forNeo-Confucian practice during this periodwas the sarangbang, or scholar’s study.Modest yet meticulously crafted furnishingsare on view alongside writing tools, portraitsof accomplished scholar-officials andaccounts of virtuous men and women,reflecting the tastes and morals of Korea’sscholarly elites.• Art at the Joseon Court: The ideals,aesthetics and patronage systems of theJoseon court played a pivotal role in shapingKorean culture. Early royal palaces such asGyeongbokgung (built in 1395) andChangdeokgung (started in 1404) aredepicted in artworks featured in this gallery.Their refined courtly culture is evident in adisplay of furniture, ceramics, ceremonialobjects and paintings.• Buddhism and its legacy: Immersingvisitors in 1,500 years of Buddhist art, thisgallery explores how Buddhism endured inKorea after arriving from China.Transmitted Buddhist imagery inspiredearly artworks crafted for local preferences.Sacred texts and ritual objects on viewprovide a holistic understanding of Buddhistdevotional practice, while later Joseon-eraaltar paintings depict events inthe Buddha’s life and the array of Buddhistdeities worshipped in Korea.• Transcending tradition: By the 20thcentury, traditional modes of appreciatingart—once centered in intimate settings likethe scholar’s study—had begun to shift.Pioneering artists such as Lee Sangbeom(1897–1972), Park Saengkwang (1904–1985)and Lee Ungno (1904–1989) sought newvisual languages by merging Western andKorean concepts and subject matter. By the1950s, many artists’ radical approachesbegan to redefine Korean painting in amodernizing world.o
ABOUTTHESMITHSONIAN’SNATIONALMUSEUMOF ASIANARTThe Smithsonian’s National Museum ofAsian Art is commi0ed to preserving,exhibiting, researching and interpretingart in ways that deepen the public andscholarly understandings of Asia and theworld.The museum opened in 1923 as America’sfirst national art museum and the firstAsian art museum in the United States.It now stewards one of the world’s mostimportant collections of Asian art, withworks dating from antiquity to thepresent. The museum also stewards animportant collection of 19th- and early20th-century American art.Today, the National Museum of AsianArt is emerging as a leading national andglobal resource for understanding thearts, cultures and societies of Asia,especially at their intersection withAmerica. Guided by the belief that thefuture of art museums lies incollaboration, increased access, andtransparency, the museum is fosteringnew ways to engage with its audienceswhile enhancing its commitment toexcellence.Located on the National Mall inWashington, D.C.,the museum is free and open 364 days ayear (closed Dec. 25).The Smithsonian is the world’s largestmuseum, education and researchcomplex and welcomes 20–30 millionvisitors yearly.For more information about the NationalMuseum of Asian Art,visit asia.si.edu.
PARK DAE SUNGM A S T E R O F K O R E A I N K A R T Special Edition 2026
SPECIAL ARTISTPARK DAE SUNGMaster of Korean Ink ArtA Curated Special Editionby Brunch Magazine
Editor’s NoteWhy Park Dae Sung, NowWhy Brunch Magazine Created This Special EditionSome artists exist only through their works. Others exist through a convergence of life, discipline, silence, and themoral weight of how they have chosen to move through the world. Park Dae Sung belongs to the latter. His paintingsmay depict mountains, water, and architecture, but what ultimately fills the surface of his work is not landscape. It isa sustained inquiry into spirit, restraint, and the human capacity for depth. His ink does not merely describe nature; itcarries the residue of time, reflection, and a lifetime spent refining both hand and mind.Brunch Magazine felt compelled to address Park Dae Sung at this moment not simply because he is widely recognizedas a master, but because the word “master” regains its gravity in his presence. He has not inherited tradition bypreserving it as a static form. Instead, he has allowed tradition to remain alive by insisting that it speak in thepresent tense. Through his work, Korean ink painting is neither nostalgic nor ornamental. It becomes contemporarywithout abandoning its philosophical core, expansive without losing its ethical restraint.The international trajectory of his recent exhibitions underscores this reality. Beginning with major presentations atinstitutions such as the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and continuing through academic and museum spacesacross the United States, Park’s work has entered a global conversation not as an exotic artifact, but as a living visuallanguage. The exhibition Ink Reimagined marked a pivotal moment in which Korean ink painting was not merelydisplayed abroad, but examined, contextualized, and discussed within the framework of contemporary art history. Theforthcoming programs at Stanford further signal that this dialogue is ongoing rather than retrospective.Yet this Special Edition does not begin with institutional names or exhibition itineraries. What compelled us mostdeeply was the character of the artist himself. One episode, often recounted by those familiar with his life, revealsthis with particular clarity. When a child accidentally damaged one of his works by stepping on it, Park did notrespond with anger or reproach. Instead, he intervened to protect the child, remarking that such a child possessedthe spirit of a phoenix. In that moment, he chose compassion over possession, humanity over authorship. The incidenthas endured not because of its drama, but because it revealed an understanding that art can be remade, while ahuman heart must be safeguarded.This sensibility permeates Park Dae Sung’s entire practice. His belief that the discipline of art begins with thediscipline of the self is not rhetorical. It is lived. His oft-quoted reflections emphasize clarity, humility, and therefusal of excess, not only in painting but in life itself. Ink, in his hands, becomes an ethical medium. Each strokecarries intention, restraint, and accountability.Park Dae Sung also occupies a rare position in bridging generations. His work resonates not only with those steepedin the history of Korean art, but increasingly with younger audiences encountering tradition as something newlyrelevant. In this convergence, the false dichotomy between heritage and contemporaneity dissolves. Tradition doesnot oppose the present; it deepens it. Through Park’s work, Korean ink painting finds renewed visibility among globalaudiences while maintaining its philosophical integrity.For Brunch Magazine, this Special Edition represents more than a feature. It is a considered record. We intend it toserve multiple audiences at once: readers discovering Park Dae Sung for the first time, scholars and curators seekingcontextual clarity, and cultural partners engaging with his work as part of ongoing and future exhibitions. Thisedition is designed to be read, referenced, and returned to. It is a document of presence rather than summary. ParkDae Sung’s ink is not simply black. Within it resides breath, patience, and a lifelong commitment to refinement. Hislandscapes ask a quiet but enduring question: where does the human spirit return when excess is stripped away. Atthis moment, as his work continues to circulate internationally and speak across generations, we believe this questiondeserves sustained attention. This is why Brunch Magazine presents this Special Edition now.Brunch Magazine Editorial TeamSpecial Edition, 2025
Who Is Park Dae SungTo ask who Park Dae Sung is requires more than a biographical answer. His identity cannot beseparated from the discipline that shaped him, the landscape that raised him, or the moral rigorthat governs his work. He is not simply a painter of ink. He is a figure through whom Korean inkpainting has been compelled to confront the present, without relinquishing its past.Born in 1945 in Cheongdo, in the southeastern region of Korea, Park’s early life unfolded againstthe turbulence of war. He lost his parents at a young age and later lost the use of his right arm.These experiences did not become a subject of his art, nor did he allow them to define a narrativeof tragedy. Instead, they instilled a lifelong insistence on self discipline. For Park, painting wasnever a matter of expression alone. It was a means of ordering the self, of constructing balancewhere circumstances had denied it.He did not follow the conventional path of academic training. Without a formal master, he turnedto the natural world and classical texts as his teachers. Mountains, rivers, temple architecture,ancient calligraphy, and historical painting manuals formed the foundation of his education.Through relentless practice, he trained his remaining hand to execute strokes of extraordinarycontrol and force. Over time, his brushwork developed a quality that critics often describe as bothrestrained and expansive, capable of sustaining monumental scale without sacrificing precision.Park’s approach to ink painting is rooted in a belief that technique cannot be separated fromcharacter. He frequently emphasizes that the act of painting begins long before the brush touchespaper. It begins with the cultivation of the mind. In his view, clarity of intention, humility, andethical restraint are not philosophical abstractions, but prerequisites for meaningful work. Ink,when handled without discipline, becomes decorative. Only when governed by inner order does itacquire depth.This philosophy manifests clearly in the structure of his compositions. Park’s landscapes are vast,yet never theatrical. His mountains do not overwhelm the viewer; they invite contemplation. Spaceis not filled for effect, but calibrated to allow breath. Darkness is not used to dramatize, but toanchor. Even in his largest works, there is a sense of control that resists excess. Every strokeappears considered, yet never rigid. The tension between freedom and restraint is where his workfinds its authority.Park’s commitment to Korean identity has been equally unwavering. At various moments in hiscareer, particularly as his reputation expanded across East Asia, he was offered opportunities torelocate or affiliate elsewhere under terms of extraordinary generosity. These offers, includingproposals that promised unrestricted support in exchange for a change of national affiliation, weredeclined. Park has consistently stated that his work emerges from the Korean landscape andcultural memory, and that to separate the two would be to diminish both. His mountains are notgeneric forms. They are specific, lived terrains shaped by history and language.
Within Korea, Park’s standing has long been recognized by figures whose discernment extended beyondthe art world. Works by Park were collected by leading cultural patrons, including members of theSamsung founding family. Both Lee Byung chul and later Lee Kun hee were known to hold his paintings inhigh regard, recognizing in his work a synthesis of tradition, intellectual rigor, and national identity.These acts of recognition were not public endorsements, but private affirmations, reinforcing Park’sposition as a painter whose significance lay beyond trends or market cycles.Yet Park’s legacy is not defined by collectors or institutions alone. One of the most widely sharedepisodes associated with his name illustrates this with quiet clarity. When a child accidentally damagedone of his large scale works during a museum exhibition, public reaction focused on loss and liability.Park’s response was different. He insisted that the child be protected from blame, stating thatresponsibility belonged to adults, not to innocence. He later remarked that the incident had allowed morepeople to encounter the work, referring to the child metaphorically as a phoenix. The moment resonatedbecause it revealed a hierarchy of values. Art mattered deeply to him, but never more than humandignity.In recent years, Park Dae Sung’s work has begun to circulate among younger audiences with renewedintensity. Figures such as BTS RM, known for his engagement with Korean art and literature, havepublicly acknowledged his work, prompting a generational rediscovery. This attention did not alter Park’spractice, nor was it sought. It simply affirmed that tradition, when articulated with integrity, remainscapable of speaking across time.Internationally, Park’s exhibitions in China, Japan, and later the United States have reframed how Koreanink painting is perceived. Rather than being categorized as a regional or historical form, his work hasbeen engaged as a contemporary practice grounded in philosophy. Exhibitions at institutions such as theLos Angeles County Museum of Art and academic museums across the United States positioned his workwithin broader conversations about material, scale, and cultural continuity. His forthcoming presentationat Stanford University further extends this dialogue, situating his practice within an educational contextconcerned with ethics, history, and artistic responsibility.Perhaps the most definitive statement of Park Dae Sung’s values lies in his decision to donate the core ofhis life’s work to the public. The establishment of the Solgeo Art Museum in Gyeongju, made possiblethrough his donation of more than eight hundred works, was not an act of legacy building in theconventional sense. It was an extension of belief. Art, in his view, acquires meaning only when it isshared. To withhold it for private accumulation would be to misunderstand its purpose.To understand Park Dae Sung, then, is to understand a convergence of discipline, restraint, andgenerosity. His work stands at a rare intersection where tradition is neither preserved nor dismantled,but re inhabited with clarity. He does not seek to redefine ink painting. He allows it to reveal what it hasalways been capable of becoming.In an era increasingly driven by speed, spectacle, and self assertion, Park Dae Sung offers a differentproposition. That depth requires patience. That scale requires responsibility. And that true mastery isinseparable from the character of the person who holds the brush.
Ink ReimaginedFrom Dartmouth to LACMA, and Toward StanfordPark Dae Sung’s international trajectory did not emerge as a sudden breakthrough. It unfolded asthe natural consequence of decades of disciplined practice, sustained philosophical inquiry, and thegradual realization that Korean ink painting was ready to be read beyond its geographic andhistorical boundaries. The phrase Ink Reimagined did not simply title a sequence of exhibitions. Itarticulated the core of Park’s artistic position. He did not seek to reinvent ink as a medium.Instead, he revealed what ink had always been capable of becoming when approached withpatience, rigor, and ethical restraint.This shift became visible in 2022 with the exhibition Park Dae Sung: Ink Reimagined at the HoodMuseum of Art, Dartmouth College. Presented over the course of 2022 and 2023, the exhibitionmarked Park’s most comprehensive and academically grounded presentation in the United States.Rather than functioning as a retrospective or cultural introduction, the exhibition was structuredas a critical inquiry into how Korean ink painting operates as a contemporary visual language.Works drawn from Park’s major series—monumental landscapes of Mount Geumgang, expansivelunar compositions, and densely layered depictions of waterfalls and forests—were installed toemphasize spatial immersion rather than illustrative narrative.What distinguished the Dartmouth exhibition was its curatorial approach. Park’s work was notframed as an example of East Asian tradition positioned in contrast to Western modernism. Instead,it was examined through shared concerns of material, scale, rhythm, and spatial construction. Inkwas treated not as a historical medium, but as a living system capable of sustaining contemporarythought. The exhibition invited viewers to move physically through the works, experiencinglandscape not as representation but as an environment calibrated by breath and restraint.Running parallel to this East Coast presentation, another pivotal moment unfolded on the WestCoast. At the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Park Dae Sung: Virtuous Ink and ContemporaryBrush introduced Park’s work to a public museum context known for its commitment to global arthistories and cross cultural dialogue. LACMA’s curatorial framework placed Park’s paintings inconversation with broader questions of continuity and transformation, rather than isolating themwithin a regional category.The LACMA exhibition foregrounded the physical and conceptual scale of Park’s practice. His largeformat works asserted presence without spectacle. Mountains and water appeared neitherromanticized nor dramatic. Instead, they were anchored by a sustained internal rhythm that heldthe viewer’s attention through quiet authority. The exhibition exceeded its initial run and drewsustained engagement from audiences encountering ink painting as a contemporary practice ratherthan a historical artifact. LACMA described Park as an artist who extends the tradition of Koreanink painting through a distinctly modern sensibility, situating his work at the intersection ofEastern philosophy and contemporary form.
L A C M AINK REIMAGINED
the Dartmouth and LACMA exhibitions articulated a shared proposition.Tradition does not enter the present by being revised or discarded. It enters by being inhabited withclarity. Park’s work did not attempt to modernize ink through stylistic innovation. Instead, itdemonstrated that ink, when approached with discipline and ethical coherence, remains structurallycapable of addressing the present.Following these exhibitions, Park’s work continued to circulate through academic institutions across theUnited States, including Harvard University’s Korea Institute, the Charles B. Wang Center at Stony BrookUniversity, and the University of Mary Washington Galleries. In these contexts, his paintings were engagednot only as objects of aesthetic appreciation, but as catalysts for broader discussions on East Asianaesthetics, landscape philosophy, and the relationship between artistic form and moral practice. Studentsand scholars encountered Park’s work as a case study in cultural continuity rather than stylistic revival.This trajectory now extends toward Stanford University, where a forthcoming program in 2026 willfurther examine Park Dae Sung’s practice within an interdisciplinary framework. Rather than positioninghis work as a historical culmination, the Stanford presentation approaches it as an ongoing inquiry—onethat intersects art, ethics, history, and education. Park’s ink enters the university not merely as visualmaterial, but as a mode of thinking.These exhibitions do not function as a checklist of international success. They constitute a sustainedprocess through which Korean ink painting has been permitted to speak in a global public sphere. InkReimagined names this process precisely. Park Dae Sung did not reconfigure ink to suit contemporarytaste. He allowed it to unfold according to its own internal logic, trusting that its depth would eventuallyfind resonance beyond borders.While his work remains grounded in ink and paper, its implications have traveled far beyond both. Fromthe quiet galleries of Dartmouth to the expansive halls of LACMA, and soon to the academic spaces ofStanford, Park’s paintings continue to ask the same enduring question: how does tradition remain alivewithout surrendering its integrity.Together
HOOD MUSEUM OF ARTJohn Stomberg, Director
T H E C H A R L E S B . W A N G C E N T E RA T S T O N Y B R O O K U N I V E R S I T YA L L T H E W A Y T O H A R V A R D U N I V E R S I T Y
The Collectors and the EyeLee Byung chul, Lee Kun hee, and the QuietAuthority of RecognitionThere are many ways to measure the standing of an artist. One may look to critical discourse,institutional validation, or the visibility of exhibitions. Yet there exists another measure, less publicand often more exacting: the question of whose eyes recognized the work before consensusformed. In the case of Park Dae Sung, this question carries particular weight. Long before his workentered sustained international circulation, it had already been acknowledged by individuals whosediscernment extended beyond art into the broader realm of cultural responsibility.Lee Byung chul, the founder of the Samsung Group, was not known as a collector in theconventional sense. His engagement with art was neither decorative nor speculative. Rather, itreflected a deeper concern with what a society chooses to preserve as an expression of its innerorder. Lee approached art with the same seriousness that governed his view of history, discipline,and national continuity. When he encountered Park Dae Sung’s work, what drew his attention wasnot stylistic novelty, but the unmistakable presence of concentration and restraint embedded in thepaintings.Park’s landscapes offered no indulgence. There was no excess, no theatrical gesture, no attempt topersuade through immediacy. Instead, his ink revealed a compositional rigor that suggested longcultivation. Each stroke appeared governed by intention rather than impulse. This internalcoherence resonated with Lee Byung chul’s belief that true value emerges through sustaineddiscipline rather than display. His decision to acquire Park’s work was never announced. It did notrequire affirmation. It functioned as a private acknowledgment rooted in confidence rather thanpromotion.Chairman Lee Kun hee and Master Artist Park Dae sung
Ilchulbong” (1988, 151 × 157 cm), donated to the Jeonbuk Museum of Art as part of the Lee Kun Hee Collection. Anotherwork from the artist’s Seongsan Ilchulbong series in Jeju was displayed in the summit reception room at Panmunjomduring the 2018 inter Korean Summit. Photo courtesy of the Jeonbuk Museum of Art. Source JoongAng Ilbo.
That recognition later found continuity in Lee Kun hee, whose engagement with art extended acrossglobal traditions while remaining acutely attentive to Korean cultural identity. Lee Kun hee’s philosophyof collecting was shaped by the conviction that culture constitutes the foundation of national stature.His interest lay not in accumulation for its own sake, but in identifying works that could endure beyondthe circumstances of their moment. Within this framework, Park Dae Sung’s paintings occupied a naturalplace.When works by Park were identified among Lee Kun hee’s collection after his passing, the discovery wasmet less with surprise than with affirmation. It confirmed what many within the Korean art world hadlong understood: that Park’s practice possessed a gravity independent of trend, market, or criticalfashion. That two figures, separated by generation yet united by discernment, arrived at the samejudgment reinforced the sense that Park’s work operates on a temporal register resistant to fluctuation.What connects these acts of recognition is not patronage in the conventional sense, but a sharedunderstanding of cultural continuity. Neither Lee Byung chul nor Lee Kun hee approached Park as anartist to be elevated through association. Rather, they encountered his work as something alreadycomplete in its ethical and formal structure. Their attention did not confer legitimacy; it acknowledgedit. In this sense, their role was not to shape Park Dae Sung’s legacy, but to confirm its inevitability.It is essential to note that Park’s work was never produced in response to such recognition. His practiceremained deliberately insulated from expectation. He neither sought endorsement nor adjusted histrajectory to align with institutional taste. That these collectors nonetheless gravitated toward his workunderscores a critical distinction: Park’s authority was not constructed through visibility, but throughconsistency. His paintings did not adapt to the gaze of power; they endured it.The significance of this recognition extends beyond individual biographies. It signals a moment in whichKorean ink painting, long perceived as bound to tradition, was quietly affirmed as a site ofcontemporary relevance by those most invested in the future of Korean culture. In choosing Park DaeSung, these collectors identified not only an artist of exceptional discipline, but a visual languagecapable of carrying national memory forward without dilution.This chapter of Park’s story does not conclude with ownership or provenance. It concludes with aprinciple. The most enduring recognition often occurs without announcement. It is measured not byscale, but by alignment between the values embedded in the work and the values held by those whorecognize it. In Park Dae Sung’s case, that alignment was unmistakable.His ink required no advocacy. It was already complete.
Across BordersChina, Japan, and the Refusal of the Blank CheckAs Park Dae Sung’s reputation expanded beyond Korea, it did so most visibly across East Asia. Hiswork entered China and Japan not as an imported curiosity, but as a practice already grounded in ashared history of ink, calligraphy, and philosophical engagement with landscape. Yet whatdistinguished Park’s reception abroad was not merely admiration for his technique. It was theseriousness with which his work was approached as a living tradition capable of renewal.In China, where ink painting occupies a foundational position within cultural identity, Park’s workwas met with particular intensity. Exhibitions and exchanges introduced his paintings to audiencesdeeply familiar with brush tradition, yet struck by the distinctive restraint and structure of hiscompositions. His landscapes were recognized as neither derivative nor oppositional. They wereunmistakably Korean, yet conversant with the broader East Asian canon. This balance drewsustained attention from institutions and cultural figures alike.It was in this context that proposals emerged, later widely recounted by those close to the artist,offering Park Dae Sung extraordinary conditions should he choose to relocate or formally affiliatehis practice elsewhere. These proposals were not framed as conventional invitations. They promisedunrestricted resources, institutional backing, and complete artistic freedom—terms oftendescribed, in retrospect, as a “blank check.” What they sought in return was symbolic alignment: ashift in national association that would allow Park’s work to be claimed as part of another culturallineage.Park declined. He did so without public comment or confrontation. His refusal was neither politicalnor rhetorical. It was consistent with a position he had maintained throughout his life. His work, hestated repeatedly, was inseparable from the Korean land, language, and historical memory thatshaped it. To relocate the practice without its origins would not elevate it, but hollow it. Ink, in hisunderstanding, carries more than technique. It carries place.Japan presented a different but equally significant encounter. There, Park’s work entered a contextmarked by deep respect for discipline, craftsmanship, and continuity. Japanese audiencesresponded to the precision of his brushwork and the measured authority of his compositions. Hispaintings were read through the lens of restraint rather than spectacle, a sensibility that resonatedstrongly within Japanese aesthetic traditions. Yet again, Park’s work resisted absorption. Itremained distinct, neither assimilated nor exoticized.Across these exchanges, what became increasingly clear was that Park Dae Sung did not moveacross borders in search of validation. Borders came to him because his work had already achievedinternal coherence. The attention he received in China and Japan was not the result of strategicpositioning, but of recognition—recognition that his practice had reached a level where it couldengage peers without compromise.
The refusal of relocation offers stands as one of the most defining moments in Park’sinternational story. In an era when global mobility is often equated with artistic success, hisdecision articulated an alternative ethic. He demonstrated that international presence does notrequire displacement, and that fidelity to origin can coexist with global relevance. His choiceaffirmed that cultural specificity, when grounded in depth, does not limit reach. It clarifies it.Park’s exhibitions across East Asia thus form a critical prelude to his later engagements in theUnited States and Europe. They established him not as an artist in transit, but as one anchoredfirmly enough to be understood elsewhere without translation. By remaining where he was, heallowed his work to travel honestly.In this sense, Park Dae Sung’s internationalism is not defined by movement, but by steadiness.His ink crossed borders because it did not attempt to escape them. And in refusing the blankcheck, he preserved the one thing no institution could offer him: the integrity of a practiceshaped by place, sustained by discipline, and accountable only to itself.Park Dae sung’s Korea Fantasy. Courtesy of the Solgeo Museum of Art.
Across GenerationsBTS RM and the Concrete Return of Traditionto the PresentFor much of his career, Park Dae Sung’s work wasdiscussed primarily within the language of lineage andcontinuity. His position as a master of Korean ink paintinghad long been established among scholars, collectors, andinstitutions deeply familiar with the tradition. In recentyears, however, a perceptible shift occurred. This shiftwas not initiated by a change in the artist’s practice, butby a change in who began to encounter it and how.That shift became visible through the actions of BTS RM.His engagement with Park Dae Sung’s work was notincidental or symbolic. By his own account, RM wasimmediately struck upon first encountering Park’spaintings. What followed was not a single gesture ofinterest, but a sustained pattern of attention. He visitedPark Dae Sung’s exhibitions repeatedly, often returning tothe same works, spending extended time in front of them.The exhibition space became, for him, a site of reflectionrather than consumption.Importantly, RM’s engagement moved beyond viewing. Heacquired works by Park Dae Sung, making a deliberatedecision to live with them as part of his personalenvironment. This act carried particular significance. As aglobal cultural figure shaped by the most contemporaryconditions of visibility and speed, RM’s choice to collecttraditional ink painting represented neither nostalgia norobligation. It was a present-tense decision, grounded inconviction rather than symbolism.What distinguishes this moment is not celebrity attention,but consistency. Park Dae Sung did not adjust hispractice in response to this interest, nor did he seek toamplify it. His work remained unchanged in method andphilosophy. Yet RM continued to seek it out. Therelationship formed not through mediation orreinterpretation, but through the work’s internalauthority. Depth recognized depth.
This encounter marked a tangible generational crossing. On one side stood an artist who had spent decades refining adiscipline rooted in restraint, repetition, and ethical responsibility. On the other stood a figure operating at theforefront of contemporary global culture. What connected them was not style or trend, but a shared seriousnesstoward craft and meaning. Park Dae Sung’s paintings were not approached as historical artifacts, but as works capableof sustained engagement in the present.RM’s repeated visits and acquisitions had a natural ripple effect. Younger audiences, many encountering Korean inkpainting for the first time, followed this trajectory of attention. What they discovered often defied expectation. Ratherthan finding something distant or inaccessible, they encountered clarity, stillness, and space. Park’s landscapes did notrequire specialized knowledge. They invited pause. In an environment defined by acceleration and saturation, his workoffered an alternative tempo.The significance of this moment lies in what it did not involve. Tradition was not repackaged or translated to suitcontemporary taste. Park Dae Sung did not reposition himself, and RM did not frame his engagement as advocacy. Theconvergence occurred because the work itself was sufficient. Tradition did not become relevant by changing form; itbecame relevant by being encountered honestly.Through this exchange, Park Dae Sung’s work crossed another boundary. Having already moved beyond geographicborders, it now moved across temporal ones. The paintings remained as they had always been, but the audienceexpanded. What had once been assumed as continuity became newly visible as connection.Park Dae Sung occupies a rare position in this regard. He does not bridge generations through adaptation, but throughdepth. His work reaches across time precisely because it resists immediacy. RM’s engagement did not alter the meaningof Park’s work; it revealed it to a broader present.This chapter records a moment in which Korean ink painting, through Park Dae Sung, reentered contemporary life notby reinvention, but by recognition. The work remained still. The audience moved toward it. And in that movement,tradition found itself unmistakably present once again.
The Living LegacySolgeo Art Museum, the Donation of 830 Works, and theShape of a Life in ArtTo understand Park Dae Sung’s artistic philosophy in its fullest form, one need only look to his final and most decisive act.After decades of sustained practice, international recognition, and scholarly engagement, he chose to determine for himselfwhere his work would ultimately reside. That place was neither a private collection nor the center of the global art market.It was Gyeongju, and the Solgeo Art Museum.The Solgeo Art Museum is not simply a space bearing the name of a single artist. It was established through Park DaeSung’s donation of more than 830 works, representing the core of his life’s production. This was not a retrospectivegesture made at the end of a career, nor an attempt to secure legacy through monument. The donation occurred while hispractice remained active, deliberate, and forward-looking. It was a conscious decision to return his work to the public whileit was still alive with inquiry.This choice reflects Park’s understanding of art as something fundamentally incompatible with possession. Once a paintingis completed, he has long maintained, it no longer belongs to the artist alone. Ink on paper, shaped through years ofdiscipline, acquires meaning only when it enters shared space. For Park, art confined to private accumulation risks losing itsethical foundation. Art must remain accessible to time, to return, and to reconsideration.The selection of Gyeongju was neither symbolic nor incidental. As a city shaped by centuries of accumulated history,spirituality, and landscape, Gyeongju embodies the conditions that have long informed Park’s work. Here, nature and historycoexist without hierarchy, and contemplation is embedded in daily life. Within this environment, the Solgeo Art Museumfunctions not as a neutral exhibition site, but as a setting in which Park’s work can be encountered in its most coherentcontext.The works housed at Solgeo do not represent a single period or aesthetic conclusion. They span early explorations, largescale ink paintings, and experimental phases that reveal the evolution of his thinking. Together, they form an archive ofprocess rather than a display of achievement. Visitors are invited not merely to view individual works, but to trace how adiscipline was sustained, refined, and tested across time.The donation stands as a declaration of values. Park chose duration over immediacy, public memory over privateownership, and continuity over market circulation. At a moment when his work was increasingly sought after internationally,he turned deliberately toward rootedness. This was not a retreat from the global stage, but the completion of a trajectory.His work had already crossed borders. It no longer needed to move.The Solgeo Art Museum thus represents neither an endpoint nor a conclusion. It is an open structure, one that allows ParkDae Sung’s work to remain in active dialogue with successive generations. Here, his paintings exist not as resolvedstatements, but as questions that continue to unfold. How does restraint generate strength. How does repetition cultivateclarity. When does art cease to belong to an individual and become a shared responsibility.In this final chapter, Park Dae Sung’s life in art reveals its most consistent form. His legacy is not defined by accumulationor acclaim, but by the precision of his choices. By returning his work to a place shaped by time, he ensured that it would beencountered not as artifact, but as presence.Park Dae Sung’s ink now rests in a public landscape, open to memory and future interpretation. This is not anending. It is the most enduring beginning.
International Recognition and theExpansion of ScaleCollections, Philosophy, and the Contemporary Rewriting ofKorean Ink PaintingPark Dae Sung’s position within contemporary art is not sustained by rhetoric or reputation alone. It is grounded ininstitutional validation that spans continents. His works are held in the permanent collections of major museums andcultural institutions, both in Korea and abroad, including the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Hood Museum ofArt at Dartmouth College, the Stanford Center for East Asian Studies official collection, the Asian Art Museum of SanFrancisco, and the Museum of Fine Arts Houston. In Korea, his works are preserved by the National Museum ofModern and Contemporary Art, the Daejeon Museum of Art, the Busan Museum of Art, and within the Blue House artcollection. Taken together, these collections present a clear picture. Park Dae Sung is not regarded simply as aKorean artist of national importance, but as a figure whose work has been rigorously evaluated and affirmed withininternational institutional frameworks. His paintings circulate not as representatives of a regional tradition, but asworks capable of sustaining global art historical dialogue. This recognition is inseparable from the philosophy thatgoverns his practice. Writing on Park Dae Sung, Square Art Magazine invoked the classical Chinese conceptHwayeogi-in (畵如其人), a principle that holds that a painting is inseparable from the character of its maker. “Thepainting is the person,” the phrase suggests, collapsing the distinction between artistic output and moral life. InPark’s case, this notion is not metaphorical. It functions as a practical ethic.Park himself has articulated this belief with clarity and restraint. “One must first discipline and refine the mind,” he has said. “Onlywhen one lives a bright life, without shame, and practices that attitude fully, does the brush fall into its rightful place.” For him,technique follows conduct. Brushwork is not a display of skill, but the visible consequence of internal order. This ethicalfoundation underlies the evolution of his artistic language. Leeahn Gallery, which has closely followed Park Dae Sung’s practice,describes his work as a coexistence of restrained color and forceful brushwork. Traditional compositional structures form thegroundwork of his paintings, yet upon this foundation he constructs vast pictorial fields. His use of multiview perspectivesgenerates a simultaneous sense of space, allowing different vantage points to coexist within a single composition. Rather thansubmitting to linear perspective, his landscapes unfold as lived terrain. Crucially, Park approaches scale with conviction. Hisconfidence in large format painting places Korean ink on equal footing with Western monumental form. Works such as the ninemeter installation Waterfall, the seven by three meter Korea Fantasy (2022), and the eleven meter wide Myo-yu-do-won-do (2011)demonstrate an unambiguous assertion: Korean ink painting is fully capable of operating at the architectural scale ofcontemporary art. These works do not merely occupy space. They structure it.Since 2024, this trajectory has continued through his Willow Tree series, which brings together the vitality of brushwork with theaesthetics of traditional Korean garden culture. In these works, the movement of ink evokes growth, resilience, and seasonalrhythm. The willow, long associated with flexibility and endurance, becomes both motif and method. Life force is rendered notthrough ornament, but through sustained motion and breath.Park’s practice has never been solitary. His life and work are closely intertwined with fellow artist Jung Mi Yeon, whose presenceforms a quiet but essential counterpart to his own. Often described as a lifelong partner in both art and life, Jung’s work andsensibility have developed alongside Park’s, creating a shared environment of discipline, mutual respect, and continuity. Theirrelationship is not framed as narrative, but as structure. It is another form of balance that sustains the work. Through theseelements—international collections, ethical philosophy, formal innovation, and unwavering commitment to scale—Park Dae Sunghas rewritten the terms through which Korean ink painting is understood. His work does not modernize tradition by abandoning it.It expands tradition by insisting on its full potential. Ink, in his hands, becomes a medium capable of holding history, morality, andcontemporary ambition within the same stroke. What emerges is not a synthesis designed for acceptance, but a body of workgrounded firmly enough to stand without translation. Park Dae Sung’s paintings do not ask to be recognized as equal. Theydemonstrate that equality through presence.
PUBLISHERSang Hee GilCREATIVE DIRECTORSang Hee GilLEGAL ADVISERKate Shin You HurART DIRECTORJa Young KimCASTING DIRECTORSTae Jong BaeTae Gon KimGRAPHIC DESIGNERSHeather KimSisun KimJieun YounEDITORYoonjung ChoiHeeho RyuPublished in New Jersey, USAInstagram @brunchmagazine_Facebook @hello.brunchmagazine? [email protected]? [email protected] (editorial)? [email protected] (campaigns & events)? [email protected] Magazine is published quarterlyby Brunch Magazine LLC.All content is protected under copyright law.Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.© 2026 Brunch Magazine LLC. All rights reserved.THE PEOPLE OF BRUNCHVol. 24