What Is, Was, and Will Never Be: Haegue Yang’s Leap Year at The Hayward Gallery

Words Eloise Hallo

Haegue Yang, born in South Korea in 1971, is the Hay­ward Gallery’s newest lead­ing autere and one of the most inter­est­ing artists I have encoun­tered in a long jour­ney of con­tex­tu­al­is­ing con­tem­po­rary art. Her works, as they are best termed — scratch­ing at the walls of dero­ga­tions like sculp­ture and paint­ing — can­not, to the dis­may of my read­er, be ‘loose­ly under­stood’ as I am so fond of say­ing. It is per­haps for that rea­son my sit-down with Yung Ma (Leap Year’s cura­tor) was so wel­come an accom­plice, help­ing to reck­on with notions of ‘leap­ing’ and the vary­ing acro­bats it takes on with­in Yang’s oeu­vre. So, I shall help my read­er out too.

Yang’s under­stand­ing of ‘Leap Year’ echoes Sol LeWitt’s 1969 essay Sen­tences on Con­cep­tu­al Art, and there are (at least in my hum­ble think­ing) two main claus­es to which her bat­ed breath can be seen most man­i­fest: ‘1) Con­cep­tu­al Artists are mys­tics rather than ratio­nal­ists. They leap to con­clu­sions that log­ic can­not reach’, and 12) — my per­son­al favourite — ‘for each work of art that becomes phys­i­cal there are many vari­a­tions that do not’. As Ma would tell me (the two are close friends), Yang is a kind of mys­tic — avid­ly mov­ing for­ward into what is both unknown to her and, quite poten­tial­ly, unknow­able — how can one begin to under­stand all the ghoul­ish cre­ations of their art they have in fact not cre­at­ed, nor will cre­ate? Sim­ply, she, as we all do, leaps between. She is con­stant­ly leap­ing between, and it is in this enchant­i­ng, teem­ing lim­i­nal­i­ty the exhi­bi­tion spends most of its time.

For me, it would be remiss to start any­where oth­er than Yang’s Venet­ian blinds (seen in instal­la­tions below), which are per­haps the medi­um, if ter­mi­nol­o­gy allows, she is best known for. What takes par­tic­u­lar fan­cy of mine is the gallery’s own account, that her blinds are a shared emblem of the domes­tic space and the self with­in it, for — as they note — the joint prop­er­ty of ‘travel[ling] through’. Their tilt­ed slats with ‘the abil­i­ty to divide space and lim­it vis­i­bil­i­ty’, are nev­er whol­ly potent over the sun, rain, or busy­ing noise that fer­vents out­side, as any­one with blinds of their own has cursed whilst hun­gover. Yet, this sim­ple anal­o­gy is any­thing but, rep­re­sent­ing a most whole­some descrip­tor of sep­a­ra­tion between the id and ego: for­ev­er dif­fus­ing into one anoth­er, but sel­dom dialoging. Yang’s grasp is par­tic­u­lar­ly height­ened by her expe­ri­ence as an immi­grant. As Ma would tell me, the expe­ri­ence of ‘always car­ry­ing alter­nat­ing iden­ti­ties’, some of which exist domes­ti­cal­ly, some intra­mu­ral­ly, and some, for­ev­er in-between.

As is, I’m sure, becom­ing increas­ing­ly appar­ent, ques­tions of pre-deter­mi­na­tion exist loud­ly in Yang’s work, and it is this that she amus­es her­self with in Lac­quer Paint­ings (aside). In a series she began as a stu­dent in Frank­furt, the young artist would exper­i­ment with lac­quered wood left-out; its dry­ing process would invite dust, soot, leaves, and insects, all a part of the art that would lat­er join mesh, yard, and wig seg­ments in its sticky sepul­chre. 

Ma and I would agree that it was in this ear­ly peri­od Yang came to learn ideas of acci­den­tal and inten­tion­al, return­ing to LeWitt’s glow­ing take on artis­tic but­ter­fly effect. And, its intro­spec­tive chorale to the vary­ing degrees of our­selves we may well imag­ine nev­er com­ing to be, had the dust and soot set­tled dif­fer­ent­ly on our cos­mic artist’s table.

Yang’s com­pre­hen­sion of the fixed and unfixed can also be under­stood more lat­er­al­ly, relat­ing to the idea of con­ven­tion; that term which, more often that oth­er­wise, depicts a his­to­ry of ‘fixed-ness’. It’s here where Yang’s expe­ri­ence as both artist and ‘out­sider’ to the West­ern typol­o­gy she would encounter at Städelschule, Venn. And her thwart plays out in Leap Year’s repos­ses­sion of Yves Klein’s famous blue, a chim­ing reminder of west­ern art’s tra­di­tion to clam­orous­ly believe in it’s own supe­ri­or­i­ty. Klein, famed for his self-pro­fessed cre­ation of ‘Inter­na­tion­al Klein Blue’, exem­pli­fies the sin­is­ter nup­tials between art and cap­i­tal­ist impe­ri­al­ism. For me, Yang relates the stale state of see­ing in such imag­ined mono­chrome, artis­ti­cal­ly, to real-world repres­sion — harken­ing with­in the belief you may own some­thing ubiq­ui­tous — both of which find no foot­ing in Leap Year’s kalei­do­scope… for which we are per­haps safer leav­ing Klein off the guest list, lest he find oth­er colours to patent. 

In the hope my read­er will for­give the fol­low­ing to and fro on the West­ern Front, it’s Shakespeare’s notes on neg­a­tive capa­bil­i­ty that inspire much of my (admit­ted­ly occi­den­tal) under­stand­ing of what I will call Yang’s ‘twoness’; to say one thing and mean, or pos­si­bly mean, anoth­er. And it is Yang’s abil­i­ty for simul­ta­ne­ous ‘one­ness’ and ‘twoness’ that we see most­ly plain­ly, play­ful­ly humour­ing, in the work’s title. ‘Leap Year’ is, in one respect, an aca­d­e­m­ic note. In quote anoth­er, it is a fact of the year we find our­selves in. 

Yang’s pen­chant for mar­ried mul­ti­tudes per­fumes through­out, yet it is most tan­ta­mount in Star Crossed Ren­dezvous after Yun, the exhibition’s final com­po­si­tion — in all sens­es of its term — wed­ding sculp­ture and sound. The con­struc­tion of mul­ti­lay­ered blinds (pic­tured below) is accom­pa­nied by Isang Yun’s Dou­ble Con­cer­to (1977) — Kore­an com­pos­er and polit­i­cal dis­si­dent — who’s har­mon­ic tale of star-crossed lovers rep­re­sents a countryman’s hop­ing fate of Korea’s re-uni­fi­ca­tion. Just as Yun’s music is com­posed, so too are Yang’s blinds. Cor­po­re­al­ly dif­fer­ent, they are uni­fied by the shared artis­tic pur­pose they serve. Sim­i­lar­ly, the shut­ters exist in mono­chromes. Though of dif­fer­ing shades and lev­els, they ren­dezvous by design; as is true of Dou­ble Con­cer­to, apt­ly-titled and extra­or­di­nary for its two solo instru­ments, rather than the concerto’s typ­i­cal monodrame. 

In my under­stand­ing of Star Crossed Ren­dezvous after Yun, Yang’s flir­ta­tion with ‘one’ and ‘two’, com­ments on the notion that both pos­si­bil­i­ties must co-exist for even­tu­al uni­ty. As in the melody and struc­ture of the piece, that we can be sep­a­rate as indi­vid­u­als but uni­fied as a body. In the wider sense of her work, it cre­ates ‘hybrid attempts at lan­guage’, as Ma would note, ‘… and I sup­pose a new kind of rhetoric with­in that?’, as I would in fact sup­pose: par­le-ing in shared expe­ri­ence, or con­cept, rather than typ­i­cal conversation. 

And it is this sur­vey in com­mu­ni­ca­tion that Yang tus­sles with too in Car­sick and Cove; ‘The Space Between’ as sub­heads the scrib­bles of my note­book. In the for­mer, a series (two rel­a­tives of which are pic­tured below), Yang traces the para­graphs of local news­pa­pers encoun­tered along her trav­els. Unable to under­stand the lan­guage of its writ­ing, she high­lights only the paper’s chasms — cre­at­ing scrib­bles of her own that attempt to find mean­ing anew in the chron­i­cles’ oth­er­wise vast unknowa­bil­i­ty to her. In the lat­ter (below), the first in her Non-Fold­ings series, origa­mi sculp­tures were videoed on a paper reel; the can­vas Cove would ulti­mate­ly become. Met with black spray paint, Yang was inter­est­ed in the kind of phys­i­cal shad­ow their obstruc­tion would leave. As the gallery-plaque reads, ‘how [the] process reduced the three-dimen­sion­al, fold­ed objects into an image that evoked the origami’s absence as well as its ori­gin as a flat sheet of paper.’ 

What chimed with me in con­ver­sa­tion with Ma was a remark on Yang’s abil­i­ty for ‘dimen­sion in flat­ness’, and it’s in these two works I see it most true. Yang is con­cerned with gaps — in pos­si­bil­i­ty, in iden­ti­ty, and in what is ‘known’— three things that tend to teth­er us to our real­i­ties. Real­i­ty, how­ev­er, is untrust­wor­thy — par­tic­u­lar­ly to mys­tics like the con­cep­tu­al artist in ques­tion — for whom the flat can be three-dimen­sion­al, or four-dimen­sion­al, or per­haps five, and who finds in one­ness’ the pos­si­bil­i­ty for ‘two’. Yang’s want to seek mean­ing in absent nar­ra­tives rebels against a long and, for lack of bet­ter-term, bor­ing his­to­ry of see­ing only a thing’s even­tu­al, its land­ing point rather than its leap, or the leaps that could have been.

By the exhibit’s crescen­do, Star Crossed Ren­dezvous after Yun, we too have been moved. As the light traces in a spot­light across the piece’s Venet­ian blinds, I find myself look­ing not only at, but around, its beam; seek­ing sto­ry from both where I’m led and where I’m not, from what is illu­mi­nat­ed and what is hidden. 

I’ll be the first to admit I’m no foe to the over­com­plex, so it may be wit­ting­ly best advised by our inside man, Yung Ma: 

E: What would you say to OVERDUE read­ers who’ve not yet seen Yang’s ‘Leap Year’?
Y: Come, see for yourselves. 

Haegue Yang: Leap Year will show at the Hay­ward Gallery, Lon­don, until the 5th of Jan­u­ary 2025. 

All imagery unless oth­er­wise cit­ed: ‘Instal­la­tion view of Haegue Yang: Leap Year, 2024. Pho­to: Mark Blow­er. Cour­tesy the artist and the Hay­ward Gallery’. 

Pro­file image of artist Haegue Yang, 2024. Pho­to: Cheongjin Keem, Cour­tesy of Kuk­je Gallery. 

Sol LeWitt, ‘Sen­tences on Con­cep­tu­al Art’, 0–9 (Jan­u­ary, 1969) Accessed Online 

‘Lac­quer Paint­ings’, Haegue Yang: Leap Year, 2024. Own image. Cour­tesy the artist and the Hay­ward Gallery’. 

‘Haegue Yang, Car­sick Draw­ing – Toward Huu Nghi and Youyiguan #1 and #2, 2016 Instal­la­tion view at the South Lon­don Gallery, 2019. Pho­to: Andy Stagg. Cour­tesy the artist and South Lon­don Gallery