Contemporary art: what is it, after all?

By definition, contemporary is that which is from the same time, from the same era, especially from the era in which we live. Contemporary art is always a momentous subject and is frequently debated in all symposiums and biennials on art. This is probably what fuels it all over the world.

From the second half of the 20th century, when it was realized that the art produced then had nothing to do with what was being done in the first half of that century, this trend began to be labeled as contemporary art and it is still around the world, to this day. It was then that the visual artists of the contemporary movement abandoned the representation of reality, saying it was completely bankrupt. They began to defend that the composition of colors and shapes in itself was a work of art; they defended the prevalence of ideas, disregarding the materialization of works. This is where the confusion begins, since everything started to be called art and the vast majority of people – people have the right to express their opinions – doubt that certain works called contemporary are really art.

The main characteristic of contemporary art is the abandonment of traditional media. With the abandonment of canvas and bronze, other media emerged and were then simply abolished by contemporaries. The conceptual art of the 1960s, which perhaps consolidated the process, started to work more with the head than with the hands. See the examples of the works of Lygia Clark (1920-1988) and Hélio Oiticica (1937-1980). From them, we started to have many ideas and few works, which, in terms of market demand, is very good, since with the decrease in supply, demand increases.

Contemporary art exploded worldwide at this time, it is here and, after so many years, it is still recurrently discussed and understood by few. Ask Affonso Romano de Sant'Anna (1937), a renowned poet and writer from Minas Gerais who lives in the capital of Rio de Janeiro, who wrote the chronicle 'Art: Alarming Mistake', published in O Globo on 12/29/2001, where he says that:

Especially in the so-called "visual arts", in recent years a gap has become evident between the public and the works presented as artistic.

Affonso Romano de Sant'Anna also says:

In addition to this, there is the fact that this denial does not only exist among artists who occupy space in the same contemporary world, but also many intellectuals, equally important within the so-called modernity, do not recognize the character of innovation or artistic creativity in many of the works currently presented in galleries and museums. Therefore, we are faced with an unusual and disturbing phenomenon within socio-artistic relations.

Regarding this article, many people quietly agreed with the text, declaring that they were afraid to say that they did not understand contemporary art, so as not to be seen as ignorant. At the time, in 2001, this article shook certain foundations, since Affonso Romano de Sant'Anna is a respected intellectual. I can understand some works and others I cannot, but that is not important, especially since everyone knows that the subject I study is the art market.

For those who do not know, contemporary art is that which has to do with the virtual world and new media, such as installations and performances. Because they are often ephemeral, the works have to be documented photographically, so that they crystallize and can prove to posterity that they once existed. I believe, due to the recurring question, that contemporary art will remain for some time and then pass the baton, as other movements have done, to other artistic trends, perhaps even to traditional techniques, painting, sculpture and engraving, which, reinvigorated, may one day return with full force, with their easels, palettes and brushes, without this being called a setback or utopian. The world turns many times...

Obviously, most artists who produce art today do not use the language of so-called contemporary art. However, I share the opinion of those who preach that artistic production must always be contemporary in relation to the time in which it was produced and, preferably, be inserted in the context of the place where it was executed; and be the product of recognized creativity. For me, art is creation and must be identified with the place and time in which it is created. It is not the work of art that has to seem contemporary; it is the artists who have to have a contemporary heart and think in the present.

Speaking of which, I only believe in artists who know how to draw, academically and perfectly, stones, hands and bread; who know how to mold an old man's head; and who master their palettes with the authority of a master. Anyone who passes this test is an ARTIST, with all capital letters, and can do any creative nonsense, a simple scribble, which I will call a work of art.

I foresee a difficult situation for those who theorize the world of arts, when faced with this question: what will be the name of the artistic movement that will come after contemporary art? Will it be post-contemporary art? Have you noticed this absurdity, my reader? Contemporary art has existed since the time of the caves. Cave art was contemporary. Pre-Columbian art was contemporary. Academic art of the 19th century was contemporary. Modern art was contemporary. All art that participated in the movements of its time was contemporary. It can be concluded, then, that prehistoric man and pre-Columbian Indians, as well as João Baptista da Costa (1865-1926) and Tarsila do Amaral (1886-1973) also created the purest contemporary art.

Source