The fact that they discussed the social existence, reality perception and alternative qualities of an artist, the coexistence of traditional formalities with advanced matters, and ways of communication were of much significance in terms that they had brought up serious questions in the art of Korea for the first time. But in terms of distribution and diverse art expressions, their extreme critical standpoint ended up restricting most of their artistic activities. Unlike military or economical aspects, it is quite difficult to grasp the relation between domination and subordination in cultural aspects. For most cases, the objection and perception against cultural attack are restricted to a small number of elites and politicians. Though they are not imitators of the ideological messages and values of imperialism, a large number of Koreans are in fact enthusiastic about the cultural products of the West.
Domination exists where it is perceived.
The elites who regard cultural imperialism as a threat, have a longing to become cultural representatives by making the public believe that they have the misconception of everything. Oftentimes it is said that in the case of a country that has been invaded, it is rather hard to regulate a united, ethnic cultural-identity. The political view and discourse of ethnic culture and identity allow us to imagine this process to be a terminated one, and that imagination is achieved through the concepts of our ethnical properties or cultural traditions. Any period that we regard as our culture is a synthesization of cultural memories up to that very moment. Moreover, this synthesization has a quality of selecting specific ones, and among them are political, cultural systems such as the government or the media, which carry out privileged roles.