Skip to main content

Minso Kim

Title: Visiting Assistant Professor

Department: IADS - Interdisciplinary Art and Design Studies

College: College of Visual Arts and Design

Curriculum Vitae

Curriculum Vitae Link

Education

  • PhD, University of Colorado, 2024
    Major: Emergent Technology and Media Art Practice
  • MFA, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, 2013
    Major: Studio Arts

Current Scheduled Teaching

ART 3030.421Digital Communication for Art and Creative EntrepreneurshipSpring 2026 Syllabus
ART 2020.005Digital Tools and Technologies for Creative PracticeSpring 2026 Syllabus
ART 2020.006Digital Tools and Technologies for Creative PracticeSpring 2026 Syllabus
Texas Education Code 51.974 (HB 2504) requires each institution of higher education to make available to the public, a syllabus for undergraduate lecture courses offered for credit by the institution.

Previous Scheduled Teaching

ART 2020.004Digital Tools and Technologies for Creative PracticeFall 2025 Syllabus SPOT
ART 2020.010Digital Tools and Technologies for Creative PracticeFall 2025 Syllabus SPOT
ART 4660.423Seminar in Design ManagementFall 2025 Syllabus SPOT
ART 3030.422Digital Communication for Art and Creative EntrepreneurshipSpring 2025 Syllabus SPOT
ART 2020.005Digital Tools and Technologies for Creative PracticeSpring 2025 Syllabus SPOT
ART 2020.006Digital Tools and Technologies for Creative PracticeSpring 2025 Syllabus SPOT
ART 3030.422Digital Communication for Art and Creative EntrepreneurshipFall 2024 Syllabus SPOT
ART 2020.002Digital Tools and Technologies for Creative PracticeFall 2024 Syllabus SPOT
ART 2020.009Digital Tools and Technologies for Creative PracticeFall 2024 Syllabus SPOT
Texas Education Code 51.974 (HB 2504) requires each institution of higher education to make available to the public, a syllabus for undergraduate lecture courses offered for credit by the institution.

Published Intellectual Contributions

    Conference Proceeding

  • Kim, M. (2025). Hybrid design approach: Expanding the concept of Naturoid to contemporary arts.
  • Kim, M. (2024). When the past technology comes to the future wearable technology: Speculative art project Lock at first sight (2020). https://www.isea-archives.org/isea-2024/
  • Kim, M. (2022). Biophilic prototypes: Sensory experiences of the speculative interior architecture.
  • Kim, M. (2021). Ivy Curtain: An Alternative-plant Robot.
  • Kim, M. (2019). Being close to nature while in indoor spaces.
  • Kim, M. (2019). Blurring Borders Between the Real and Digital Worlds.
  • Kim, M. (2017). Does Ritual Disappear as Walter Benjamin Describes in ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ in the Age of Digital Technology?.

    • Journal Article

  • Kim, M., Jeon, J. (2025). A Medical Error of Saints Cosmas and Damian: Reflections on Fallibility and Medical Education From a Medieval Miracle. Journal of Korean Medical Science. 40 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e229
  • Kim, M. (2018). Newly generated ritual in the age of digital technology.

    • Poster

  • Kim, M. (2019). Aura of daylight.

Contracts, Grants and Sponsored Research

    Fellowship

  • Kim, M., "Playa Winter/Spring 2014 Fellowship Residency," sponsored by Playa Artist Residency, Other, Funded. (2014 - 2014).

    • Grant - Research

  • Kim, M., "Cornerstone," sponsored by College of Visual Arts and Design, University of North Texas, $608 Funded. (2025 - 2026).
  • Kim, M., "Beverly Sears Grant," sponsored by University of Colorado Boulder, Other, $1000 Funded. (2019 - 2020).
,
Overall
Summative Rating		 Challenge and
Engagement Index		 Response Rate

out of 5
out of 7		 %
of
students responded
  • Overall Summative Rating (median):
    This rating represents the combined responses of students to the four global summative items and is presented to provide an overall index of the class’s quality. Overall summative statements include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 5 = Excellent, 3 = Good, and 1= Very poor):
    • The course as a whole was
    • The course content was
    • The instructor’s contribution to the course was
    • The instructor’s effectiveness in teaching the subject matter was
  • Challenge and Engagement Index:
    This rating combines student responses to several SPOT items relating to how academically challenging students found the course to be and how engaged they were. Challenge and Engagement Index items include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 7 = Much higher, 4 = Average, and 1 = Much lower):
    • Do you expect your grade in this course to be
    • The intellectual challenge presented was
    • The amount of effort you put into this course was
    • The amount of effort to succeed in this course was
    • Your involvement in course (doing assignments, attending classes, etc.) was
CLOSE