The prize aims to raise the profile of contemporary poetry and encourage a range of poets.
However, questions about selection criteria and operational transparency have continued to surface.
The announcement that poet Moon Hyun-mi won the 10th prize on November 30, 2025, has reignited those debates.
“Yun Dong-ju Award: a continuity of tradition or an institutional signal?”
Overview.
On November 30, 2025, the Yun Dong-ju Research Institute announced that poet Moon Hyun-mi had been selected as the winner of the 10th award.
The prize emphasizes poetic purity and collective memory (shared historical remembrance), while also encouraging contemporary creative work.
At the same time, discussion about how the award is run and how winners are chosen continues.
The award functions as a way to reaffirm Yun Dong-ju's symbolic place in national memory.
Through honoring an individual poet, it refocuses public and professional attention on poetry.
It can also be read as an attempt to link poetry's public role with private reflection. However, balancing poetry's cultural status with popular interest remains a persistent challenge.
History.
Administered by the Yun Dong-ju Research Institute, the award is part of an effort to fix Yun Dong-ju's life and work in public memory.
Yun Dong-ju (1917–1945) was born in what is now Yanji in Jilin Province, China, studied at Yonhui Professional School (a predecessor of Yonsei University), and died in prison in Japan at the end of the colonial period. His posthumous collection, The Sky, Wind, Stars and Poems, became a landmark text in modern Korean literature.
His poems combine national themes, human dignity, and introspective reflection while reflecting the pain of his era.
The Yun Dong-ju Award aims to translate that literary spirit into today’s poetry.
Being given annually in recent years, and reaching its 10th edition in 2025, signals institutional stability. Meanwhile, winner selection acts as an interpretive gesture that links past and present: which poet is chosen tells us which readings of Yun Dong-ju are being emphasized.
That cultural choice carries political and cultural implications because it reflects contemporary value judgments.
Arguments in favor.
Proponents first defend the award for preserving Yun Dong-ju's literary spirit.
They argue that Yun Dong-ju’s poetic stance—his focus on national conscience and human dignity—connects to a public-minded poetic ethic that remains relevant. Therefore, the award does more than commemorate; it offers direction to younger generations. Moreover, poetry is easily marginalized by pop culture’s fast pace, so institutional support and prizes can be practical means to sustain a creative ecosystem.
Specifically, the Yun Dong-ju Award offers not only prize money but also prestige and networks that help mid-career and emerging poets continue working.
Further, supporters say the award publicly affirms poetry's cultural standing.
Prizes guide readers toward notable work, point researchers to new lines of inquiry, and create agendas for publishers and critics. In particular, invoking Yun Dong-ju as a symbol helps keep his place in education and public discourse, which can prevent breaks in poetic tradition. Thus, the award is argued to be more than an internal literary event; it has cultural-policy significance as well.
Supporters also contend that improving governance would increase the award's positive effects.
They recommend transparent criteria and diverse juries to strengthen fairness and authority. In addition, some propose broadening Yun Dong-ju’s legacy into contemporary topics—environmental issues, human rights, and peace—so the prize can spur poets to address current social problems. From this perspective, the award could function as a living catalyst rather than a static memorial.
Arguments against.
A chief criticism is the vagueness of selection criteria.
The phrase "to inherit Yun Dong-ju's spirit" is abstract, and unless turned into concrete evaluation items, it leaves too much room for subjective judgment. If the jury roster, deliberation procedures, and evaluation rationales are not disclosed, award results are easily suspected of political or literary-network bias. Consequently, distrust can erode the award’s authority and make it harder for winners to be recognized on purely literary grounds. Thus, critics demand stronger public accountability so the prize does not become a tool of internal alliance-building.
On the other hand, some worry the symbol of Yun Dong-ju may be consumed in a one-dimensional frame.
Yun's poems are multilayered: they blend national resistance with inward reflection and existential questioning. Reducing his image to only "resistance" or a single ideological stance can damage the artistic complexity of his work. If the award becomes an instrument to reinforce a narrow ideological interpretation, artistic freedom and creativity will be constrained, and contemporary poetry might lose its thematic and formal diversity.
Finally, opponents note prize proliferation and redundancy in the literary world.
South Korea already has many literary awards, each with its own history and governance. An oversupply of prizes—especially new or regionally based ones without sustained readership or expertise—risks fragmenting the literary ecosystem. From this standpoint, the Yun Dong-ju Award must clarify its distinct identity and operational principles to demonstrate genuine public value rather than merely joining a crowded field.
Causes examined.
Several structural drivers explain why the award exists and persists.
First, Yun Dong-ju’s symbolic capital has been reinforced repeatedly through education and media. His poems appear in school curricula and popular culture, helping to transmit memory across generations. This symbolic capital easily converts into an institutional commemorative mechanism like a prize.
Second, poetry as a genre gets relatively less economic and social support, so awards act as compensatory structures that support creative sustainability.
Third, a social desire to institutionalize cultural memory plays a role. Yun Dong-ju’s image, tied to colonial history and independence, meshes with cultural policy aims to renew public memory. Sometimes those memory projects link with political discourse, which can change an award's character. In short, the Yun Dong-ju Award sits at the intersection of literary value, public memory, and institutional needs.
Public reaction.
Online and cultural responses divided.
Some welcomed the award as a way to continue Yun Dong-ju's spirit and hoped it would bring renewed attention to poetry. Meanwhile, others posted critiques about opaque selection procedures and questions about the award’s identity. Some scholars and critics noted that Moon Hyun-mi's win can be read as a literary achievement, but they questioned whether it represents a canonical example of Yun Dong-ju’s spirit.
These reactions show that a literary prize is not only an act of evaluation but also a process of cultural signification.
How tensions between the public, critics, administrators, and creators are resolved will shape the award’s future standing. Transparency and broad communication are commonly proposed remedies. For example, public forums that connect online and offline audiences, publication of jurors’ reports, and a pluralistic jury can be effective ways to restore trust.
Practical reforms.
First, formalize and publish detailed selection criteria.
Clarifying which aspects of Yun Dong-ju’s spirit—such as moral seriousness, formal rigor, or historical awareness—are prioritized gives both academics and practitioners a shared standard. Second, ensure diversity among jurors in terms of generation, region, and gender. A broader jury can widen evaluative perspectives and increase confidence in fairness. Third, build post-award support so winners have physical and institutional means to continue creating; this shifts the award from a one-time honor to sustained contribution to the literary ecosystem.
Additionally, pair the prize with scholarly and public projects that reinterpret Yun Dong-ju for contemporary issues.
For instance, public forums, educational materials, and touring lectures that connect his poems to environmental concerns, human rights, or peace work can expand the award’s public function. Using online platforms to publish winning works and jurors' commentary will also enhance transparency and public engagement.
Conclusion.
However, it must prove its value through transparent and inclusive practices.
In short, the Yun Dong-ju Award is a meaningful mechanism to bring Yun Dong-ju’s literary spirit into the present.
Supporters see the prize as having potential to elevate poetry’s status and improve conditions for poets. Critics point to vague selection criteria and institutional limitations and demand greater openness and inclusion. Going forward, whether the award can balance public memory with artistic plurality will determine its lasting cultural role. Readers are invited to reflect: by what standards should we judge a prize that claims to inherit a poet’s spirit?
This essay narratively summarizes the award's historical origins, social meanings, and proposals for institutional improvement.
It highlights the public functions and internal tensions of literary prizes and offers practical suggestions for balancing commemoration with contemporary relevance.
Ultimately, a literary prize is more than a plaque and money; it is a bridge between cultural memory and the creative ecosystem. Therefore, we are led to reconsider poetry's public role and to protect its value through deliberate institutional design.
