Here are a few examples:
- New Media art: simply art created using new technologies
- Installation art: where a sculpture doesn't necessary have fixed dimensions, can inhabit an entire room or building, often a person is able to walk through it as though it were an environment unto itself rather than an object you merely circle around.
- Textile Art or Material Art: fine art (as opposed to craft) made of fabric, thread, fibers…
- Found Art: an object or assemblage of objects found by the artist and deemed aesthetically viable as an independent work of art.
- Performance Art: where a visual artist performs an act that is intended to be a work of art
Back to the point, what really caught my attention was the author's interpretation of the problem. He proposed that people expect to "read" a painting as though it were a short story. Considering centuries of historical precedent, this is a perfectly logical assumption, There's a baby on straw with a halo, some animals, a chick dressed in blue… This seems familiar… I recognize that the artist is recounting the new Testament story of the nativity. Genius!" In fact, a wealth of historic artwork from Europe and Asia include multiple depictions of the same protagonist(s) in a single landscape; these pieces are trying to show that character at different points in the story, the protagonist is featured multiple times to show him moving through time and space as the narrative unfolds. Their literal approach is similar to today's graphic novel, but lacking any dividers or frames.
But that formula for visually citing a recognizable narrative has slipped into the past, and today it's often more challenging to access the story — if there is one — and the meaning of the work. Perhaps the key to unlocking contemporary art is understanding its temperament. It insists that you approach it was a modicum of respect and plenty of curiosity. Let's explore how art shifted from an accessibly story to its more aloof present day iteration: contemporary art was born in the age of globalism. It wasn't all created for one Church, one State, one culture, or even for one oligarchic elite. It lacks both a cohesive language of symbols and a constant index of reference points.
Now more than ever, the definition of art contains multitudes.
Today, an artist can transmogrify any object into a work of art by intention alone (Found Object). Sometimes art is an ephemeral performance, or mere documentation of a performance that no one witnessed. Sometimes the documentation of that performance no one saw is by a photographer, but the performer claims credit in spite of never having touched the camera. Perhaps an artist took a gallery and just bricked up the entrance so that no one could enter, deeming it a complete exhibition: Rirkrit Tiravanija did exactly this in my first year at OCAD and this piece, by the way, has been critically acclaimed.
Speaking of university, today it is almost a given that a contemporary artist hold at least a post-secondary degree, and frequently even a Masters. Expect their work to reflect those 4+ yeas of art theory, most of which came out of high modernism, a notoriously disinterested and rigorous era, whose purist inclinations have been somewhat adulterated by postmodernism, the rise of conceptual art, and a considerable body of post-colonial writing. Contemporary artist have been in the academic trenches, they will use an unfamiliar subset of language. You will see that reflected in their visual and descriptive vocabulary. If you are interested in decoding the vernacular of contemporary art, Modernism is a great starting point, and this site is an incredible resource.
I acknowledge that the sense of confusion engendered by Fine Art's seeming inaccessibility can be debilitating. It kneecaps the viewer's faith that this is an object in which they should invest both time and value. If there is no clear narrative or story, if there are no protagonists with whom the viewer can identify, or scenery in which they can imagine themselves, many will simply refuse to acknowledge that the artwork is a viable, culturally valuable object. I won't even get into how ridiculous the "Art or Not" debate becomes if the work is impossible to OWN.
So let's address the elephant in the room: What value does contemporary art actually HAVE?
The best answer I can give is that artists have always been valued because they are quirky — unlike 99.99% of people they see the world differently, and that fresh perspective is aestheticized and handed it to us on a (often very attractive) silver platter. Great art is simultaneously refreshing, critical, and poignant. There is a reason that the word "genius" is applied to history's greatest philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, and artists.
Yes, there is the truism, "a person's genius is never recognized in their own time." But in the case of fine art, flipping the switch of comprehension and engagement ON is incredibly easy!
Contemporary art doesn't want to tell you a story. Take a deep breath, give it the benefit of the doubt… It wants to ask you a question!
I dare you to walk into any gallery, look closely at an object that seems to reject historical norms, read the little label citing Artist, Title, Date, and ask yourself what that artwork wants from you.
Engage with it. Maybe even ask someone who looks like they work there a question or two! They're always happy to answer.
