type of unadorned white round Joseon vessel, though the evidence for this is anecdotal. During the Joseon period, these vessels were utilitarian objects and referred to as daeho (literally, “big jar”). Placing such a jar on a pedestal changes it into an object worthy of appreciation and depiction. The jar is the subject of the painting, but it is not an auspicious symbol or visual pun, thus setting this work apart from earlier forms of Korean still life painting.�� Yet there is also a poignant nostalgia in this depiction of porcelain. Much of Kim’s collection was lost or destroyed during the Korean War (1950–53). Later, while in Paris (1956–59) and New York (1963–74), Kim found comfort and inspiration in Joseon objects, which he continued to collect. Lee Seung- taek, like Kim Whanki, who was one of his teachers, invokes earlier art traditions in his work, but his engagement is less about memory or recuperation and more about, as he states, questioning “stereotypical notions of materials” and seeking to “transform the present into the past and the past into the present.”�� In Tied White Porcelain from 1979, the addition of a ceramic Fig. 16. Bowl with 昀氀oral and abstract motifs and hangeul “rope” to a white jar transforms a familiar object into a inscription, Joseon dynasty (1392–1910), dated 1847. Porcelain mysterious one (昀椀g. 19). The interior and exterior of a jar with underglaze cobalt- blue design, H. 45/16 in. (10.6 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Purchase, Friends are o昀琀en thought of as discrete spaces: the interior is a of Asian Art Gi昀琀s, 2010 (2010.174) receptacle, unadorned and invisible, while the visible exterior is ideal for decoration. Lee breaks this convention by having the rope emerge from inside and fall over the lip onto the outside. He entices us to look inside to 昀椀nd its source. Moreover, the jar and its adornment do not follow the centuries- long conventions of porcelain. By the twen- tieth century, porcelain was revered both for its elegance and for embodying Confucian aesthetics of simplicity, austerity, and solemnity. The rope confounds this reading. It is more nonsensical than elegant. For Lee, that seems to be the point: an object does not need to make sense as an artwork, as a sculpture, or as an ornament. In their postwar drive for reconstruction, the author itarian Korean governments of the 1960s and 1970s placed a premium on value—functional or symbolic— and all concepts and materials were required to align with nationalist agendas. Lee subverts these criteria of value. On the one hand, he revives “traditional” objects that were becoming obsolete and devalued in an indus- trialized society. On the other hand, he challenges the Fig. 17. Jar with 昀氀oral roundels and inscriptions, Joseon dynasty e昀昀orts to use traditional objects to form a nationalist (1392–1910), 19th century. Porcelain with underglaze cobalt-blue historical narrative that essentializes and rei昀椀es Korean design, H. 15 in. (38.1 cm). The Metropolitan Museum of Art, art and culture. New York, Purchase, Friends of Asian Art Gi昀琀s, 2021 (2021.127) Many other contemporary Korean artists have appropriated traditional decorative arts as a means through which to challenge norms and comment on the present moment. Through her 2000 series Cyborg, Lee Bul addresses patriarchal repression of women and highlights the ideals and fears associated with technology. 14