Chung Hye Ryung's works are a kind of performance. Is performance leaving traces of space with body and act? Is it right that the composition of a picture by formativeness would be replaced as a body at the performance, and the worth which is made and left is something disappeared by the action at the performance? Is it all passage what art can show us that all art pieces are made for being showed newness, and it is sold with formative worth and being a collection of art museum?
 
The first scene to watch her work was that the broken briquette from mine was ready to be a flying bird on the rooftop of rough building which is around one hundred year old. There was no guide board, and the scattered planks, the scene of briquette place and her work were just be there likewise others around there rather than it is divided and showed from surroundings.
 
Kasper Koenich said like this some day. "The art is not the problem about that the piece is art or not, but about that where the piece is". I think that the airy sound of the art and the pieces to say about their position has no more way to express their existence without a commercial viability and an institutional strategy. And it also will be a story of past to tell about metaphysical esthetics. So how should we expose the work there? In my opinion, there is only a relationship between the piece and the space. When the art piece re-shows its hidden story about the space as the piece which stands in the middle of the space's time, culture, particularity, sensitivity, etc, the work will get the meaning with the space.
 
Chung Hye Ryung's works are not a work to show its formative worth, but it acts like a shaman as a medium to sing a requiem for something gone from the space. This is on the same line with Nam June Paik or Joseph Beuys, but the difference is that their works are directed in the space of institution but her work will keep doing her act to make something gone with her own action at anywhere she works.

Yun Jea-Pocheon - Art Valley Executive Director