• Christies auction house James Christie logo

    Sale 2707

    Asian Contemporary Art (Day Sale)

    25 May 2009, Hong Kong

  • Lot 1084

    KIM DONG YOO

    Price Realised  

    Estimate

    KIM DONG YOO
    (b. 1965)
    Grace Kelly VS Clark Gable
    signed 'KDY' in English; dated '2008' (lower left side of canvas)
    oil on canvas
    227 x 181.9 cm. (89 1/4 x 71 5/8 in.)
    Painted in 2008


    Contact Client Service
    • info@christies.com

    • New York +1 212 636 2000

    • London +44 (0)20 7839 9060

    • Hong Kong +852 2760 1766

    • Shanghai +86 21 6355 1766

    Contact the department

    Deeply engaged in materialistic culture, Kim formed a formula of constructing a diagrammatic format with multiple microscopic portrait of Clark Gable, harmonized with coy control of tonal gradient to emit a larger final portrait of Grace Kelly Executed in monotonic patches of pulsating red-scale; it exercises the spectator's eye to synchronize between concentration and convergence. As both Grace Kelly VS Clark Gable (Lot 1084) are strangled within this pressured grid, it generates an impression of media frenzy, where construction of their identity has been controlled and manipulated, furthermore consumed by society. Kim's portraitures arise as an acute critique, aimed at defining the result of globalization and reproduction; moreover as a deep contemplation and examination of the theory of icon, dissecting its emblem, or even dissecting its semiotic concept. Addressing analogy to be of great importance in comprehending the very notion of icon, thus where icons become a pictorial analogy, Kim knowingly consents to this belief in his painterly creation of multi-layered icons that are in heavy relevance to each other, crafting a visual idiom for the audience to decipher.
    Kim's suave riddle of contradiction between the physical fact and the psychological effect is what makes his painting variably unique to everyone's perceptual experience, also drawing critical attention to the construction of images. He demonstrates that illusion of sight has its interesting values by rejecting to confine vision as something singularly related to the mechanism of the eye, uttering that there are narratives that we cannot discern physiologically and psychologically.