Contemporary Art: How and Why

Autumn promises to be an exciting time for New England’s contemporary art scene. The new Linde Family Wing for Contemporary Art has just opened at Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts while the renovated Rose Art Museum will celebrate its grand opening in Waltham, Mass., on October 27. Here’s some food for thought before you step into the galleries:

Meet the Contemporary Artist

Contemporary artists are all over the map, in more ways than one. They hail from every corner of the globe, and yet even those working shoulder to shoulder often produce art that is radically different in style. Strange as it may seem, such stylistic DIVERSITY is actually one of the foremost characteristics that many contemporary artists share.

You see, today’s artistic climate is as maximalist as ever, but more than a century has passed since artists have had a widespread, common style to push towards the extreme. As a result, MODERNIST artists have spent the past hundred years seeking styles of visual expression that are completely new—in other words, completely “modern.” Just as maximalists gain attention by increasing the intensity or dramatic flair of an existing style, modernists gain attention by finding new styles that are sometimes bold, sometimes shocking, and always one of a kind. In the modernist mode of artistry, concept often comes before craftsmanship: the most successful modernists usually gain recognition for the ideas behind their art rather than its technical expertise.

Ellsworth Kelly, "Blue White," 1962. Rose Art Museum, Waltham, MA.

But maybe you’ve found a contemporary artist whose style is not so arresting—whose work seems in some ways to be more traditional or familiar. Allow me to introduce the POSTMODERNIST artist.

The postmodernists earned their peculiar label simply because they took center stage after the modernists, for whom the constant invention of new styles had begun to constitute a maximalist arms race of its own. Like the modernists, they produce art in a wide range of individual styles and generally seek thought-provoking results. But rather than devising new styles, the postmodernists use as a starting point the time-tested classicism of the styles we already know and love.

Though postmodernist art will often display great beauty and complexity, don’t assume that these artists have developed their skills in the same way as did the earlier artists whose styles they now emulate. By definition, postmodernists are highly aware of what they’ve set out to do—to produce art that deliberately utilizes a no-assembly-required style from the past—while numerous historical realities caused the original artists to cultivate their styles for altogether different reasons (see “Before Contemporary Art,” below). And this self-conscious element of artistry can have a very visible effect on the final product: rare is the postmodernist whose art does not “take a step back” by incorporating commentary upon the original style (for instance, in the form of humor) or by mixing the elements of one style with those of another.

The contemporary artist whose style does not arise from one of the two very broad and often fuzzy categories of artmaking described here is perhaps an endangered species, but certainly not impossible to find. Have you discovered a piece of contemporary art that shows the influence of long-term constraints like materials or deadlines? Perhaps a high level of craftsmanship? All may be signs of classicism. Of course, as the phrase “long-term” suggests, the biggest indicator of classicism by far may be multiplicity: If the artist has produced the same sort of work over and over again, and many are now in national collections, something must be going right.

Maurizio Nannucci, “All Art Has Been Contemporary,” 2010. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

Before Contemporary Art

Mounted near a second-floor balcony in the MFA’s new Linde Family Wing is this neon sign created by Maurizio Nannucci. It declares to anyone who strolls by that “all art has been contemporary.” The message holds considerable appeal, for it’s rather fun to work out that yes, even the oldest works in the museum’s collection were once the recent creations of living, breathing artists. “Give us a chance, too,” Nannucci seems to imply.

Unfortunately, the message is flawed.

We devote so much thought to that big word, CONTEMPORARY, that another important concept in the message goes unchallenged: ART.

To claim that all art has been contemporary suggests that like today, people in centuries past dropped their brushes and chisels to announce, “Hey, everybody, I’ve made some new art!” This assumption all but ignores the circumstances that guided the artistry of so many creative masters whose works now reside (often anonymously) in museum collections. “Here’s the portrait I painted of your family.” “Here’s the statue I carved for your church.” “Here’s a ceramic vase.” “A mahogany chair.” “A silver necklace.”

For the creative person working to honor the constraints of the world around him, whether he understands his work to be “art” or not is almost beside the point. Many of the older items in the MFA’s collection may have come to be prized most for their aesthetic value only centuries (or millennia!) after their creation. Only now does the world see these beautiful objects simply as “art.”

For more insight, check out ‘Shall We Dance?’ Art and Function (November 2010).

Learn about the museums’ current exhibitions by clicking on the art displayed above.