CONTEMPORARY ART

The history of art is one of the most difficult tasks to pin down. As what previous
chapters have shown, significant ideas, canons and tradition, preferences and
dominance of styles, media, and mode of production were the definitive
characteristics the segment art history into identifiable periods and movements;
identifiable, but not necessarily precise. It is important to note that the periods and
movements of art are themselves testament to the connection of art and culture in
the everyday life. As it is examined and analyzed in context, it becomes increasingly
apparent that art is not detached from; rather, it is embedded in the affairs of the
society in which it exists. It offers a glimpse as to the beliefs of specific eras and how
these beliefs were translated into how people saw themselves and the world and
how they chose to come into terms with it-all in flux.
This lessons attempts to provide a glimpse of contemporary art and how it was
understood, defined, and represented, not only within the bounds of art world, but
also beyond it.

Defining the Contemporary

The term “contemporary” seems simple and straightforward enough to define. There
is this assumption that it need not be asked; rather, that it must already be
understood. But with an attempt to do so, one finds it is a lot harder to grasp. The
complexity of defining the terms is attributed to the fact that people have dissenting
views on the interpretation of the “present,” of “today,” or what the “now” means-
these are often ideas that follow the word contemporary. Even more so, is when it is
hinged on the word “art” and suddenly it becomes a bit fuzzy.
There are museums, for example, that include name of artists, art forms, or artwork
in their institution’s name, but seem to champion works that arguably fall under an
earlier period. For example, the Institute of Contemporary Art in London which was
founded in 1947 includes in its mandate “the promotion of art that came to be from
that year onwards.” Clearly the timeline is a bit skewed if the assumption is that
contemporary art started decades later. For the New Museum TATE framed
contemporaneity in a ten-year roiling basis and was placed under the bounds of their
Museum of Contemporary Art.
Another source of confusion is the fact that in the colloquial, “modern” and
“contemporary” are considered synonymous. This, however, is not the case when
these terms are used in the context of art. Therein, they refer to two different (but
consecutive) periods quality by different approaches artmaking and the functions that
art served. To better make sense of contemporary art, perhaps it is best to dial back
to its predecessors, modern art.
Modern art saw the digression of artists away from past conversations and
traditions and toward freedom. There is the famous adage of “anything goes.” With
the world becoming increasingly complex, it required an art that could accommodate
such range and breadth. Roughly between the 1860’s to late 1970’s creatives
celebrated the novel opportunities in art, from the material to its manipulation and
ways often illustrated in their figurative works; however, these artists gave their nod
to abstraction. The tenets of this period were not only reflected in its art, but it was
also evident in the way people used the wide range of images and activities they
were engaged in. This period saw the heavy mass production of goods, along with
the encouraging environment made possible by industrialization, new technology,
urbanization, and rise of commercially even culture. There was also a palpable
secularization of society, interest in nature, and primacy of the self and individuality.
Artists were committed to developing a language of their own-terms. It was no
wonder that within this period grew a fast number of different movements.
The period that ensued was touted contemporary art. In order to move forward, has
necessary to underscore that this can be better understood after a starting point has
been established. Compared to the dense taxonomy of modern art, contemporary art
had fewer-isms under its wing. Perhaps, this was also due to the fact that it is still
folding.
Effectively, this period can be traced from 1970’s to the present. There is a reason
behind this cutoff. The cutoff was hinged on two reasons:
1. The 1970s saw the emergence of “postmodernism.” The affix was a clue that
whatever followed was segregated from its precursor.
2. The 1970s saw the decline of the clearer identified artistic movement

Social Context: In Between Modern and Contemporary Art

Reaping the benefits and drawbacks of the dramatic changes that occurred at
the beginning of the twentieth century, the social, political, and cultural context
continued a provoke the artists to create. There is potent source of reference for his
works so that he may continue to question the existing and emergent values of
society. This multiplicity of perspective brought to light a move difficult terrain to map
out in terms of clear and distinct movements because what compelled artists’ works
were not prevailing medium, technique, or style rather it was the themes and
concerns they addressed. And the conversation was no longer limited to geographic
locales, but became increasingly a global conversation.
“Art may be spoilt for choice. In a world where nothing is seasonal or regional
anymore, there is no home base from which to operate. And so the arts today can be
seen as responding to a number of issues, some from within their own structures of
means and techniques, some more widely understood as issues within society.
Typically none is resolved.” Contemporary art was heavily driven by ideas and
theories, and the even the blurring of notions of what is and can be considered as
“art,” with the involvement of television, photography, digital technology,
performance, and even objects of the everyday. It was the idea that was more
important that its visual articulation.
There were several art movements that were caught in between the
succession of modern and contemporary art. These movements laid the groundwork
for the transition contemporaneity. Reeling after war, one of the early movement was
abstract expressionism (early 1940s to mid-1960s) which took the basic tenets of
abstraction and combined with it with gesture techniques, mark-marking, and a
rugged spontaneity in its visual articulation. Often affiliated with New York painters
(hence being called the New York school) some of theme include Clyfford Still,
Jackson Pollock, Willem De Kooning, Barnett Newman, and Mark Rothko, who were
committed to creating abstract works that had the ability to convey elicit emotion,
especially those residing in the subconscious. Two major style emerge from this: that
of action painting and color fields. Action painting underscore the process of creation
in that it showed the physicality, direction and most often, the spontaneity of the
actions that made the drips and strokes possible. On the other hand, color fields.
Emphasized the emotional power of colors. From the vivid demarcations to the more
toned-down transitions, these bands of color were akin to the effects of landscapes.
Creating energy was the center of “op art” or optical art (early 1960s onward).
Much like what was discussed in the lesson on elements of art that dimension can
be implied even on a two-dimension surface or plane, op art relied on creating an
illusion to inform the experience of the artwork using color, pattern, and other
perspective tricks that artist had on their sleeves. From making it seem like a section
was protruding out of receded in the background, to creating movement, works
under this movement showed certain kind of dynamism. It inspired several artists in
different countries to create there own iteration of op art: Hungarian artist Victor
Vasarely, British artists Bridgit Riley and Peter Sedgley, American Richard
Anuszkiewiscz, and Israeli Yaacov Agam. Other artists expended their works to
include other materials such as nails, plexiglass, and metal rods, including Jesus
Soto, Guenther Uecker, Enrico Castellani, end Carlos Cruz-Diez.
The quest for actual movement in the works created were respond to by kinetic art
(early 1950s onward). Harnessing the current and direction of the wind components
of the artwork which was an example of how art and technology can be brought
together. Artists known for creating kinetic art were Naum Gabo, Alexander Calder,
Jean Tinguely, Bridge Riley, and Nicolas Schoffer. One of the most recent kinetic
artist to gain attention is Theo Jansen with his massive sculptures or beasts, as he
likes to refer to them. Using plastic tubes and PVC pipes, he has created several life
forms that took over the sea-side.
In Japan during the post-war, platforms that were grounded one movement
and a sense of dynamism were utilized to convey ideas attached to the new-found
freedom, individuality and openness to the international sphere. Termed gutai
(1950s-1970s) individuality and openness to the concreteness, it preceded the later
forms of performance and conceptual art. The goal was not only to explore the
materiality of the implements used in the performance, but also to hold a deeper
desire to make sense of the relationship that is struck between the body, the
movements, and the spirit of their interaction during the process of creation. Gutai
straddled between multiple platforms from performance, theatrical events,
installation, and even painting. The founder of the Gutai Art Association or Gutai
Group was Yoshihara Jiro in 1952. Other known gutai artists were Tanaka Atsuko,
Saburo Murakami, Kanayma akira, Murakami Saburo, and Shozo Shimamoto.
Entitled “Challenge to the Mud” (1955), Kazuo Shiraga utilized his body, writhing in a
pile of mud. The shapes formed, and the state of the mud were left as is after his
performance, and was kept as part of the exhibition as a kind of action-painting. This
is one the most important example of gutai.
Another movement was minimalism which cropped up in the early 1960s in
New York, and saw artists testing the boundaries of various media. It was seen as
an extreme type of abstraction that favored geometric shapes, color fields, and the
use of objects and materials that had an “industrial” the sparse.