Explained: What Makes an Artwork Contemporary?

What Makes an Artwork Contemporary?

In today’s day and age, one might feel as if ‘anything goes’ in art. So, how can we define what makes an artwork contemporary? In what way does it distinguish itself from Modern Art? What conditions are essential to consider an artwork as contemporary?

An artwork is contemporary when: (i) it is made between 1960/1970 to today; (ii) the artist intended to create a contemporary artwork; (iii) the esthetics are time-bound, in which it engages a dialogue with (recent) art history; (iv) and the subject matter is relevant in a contemporary context.

In a nutshell, when an artwork meets these four conditions, one can determine the artwork is ‘contemporary’. These four factors are crucial for an artwork to be seen as a contemporary piece of art. However, how do we need to approach these conditions? Why are they important? What if they are not all four applicable? To clarify the selection of these conditions and why they are essential to speak of a contemporary artwork, we have discussed them one by one. Let’s dive into the first condition, the time and/or era of the artwork.

Condition 1: The Time or Era

The first condition may be seen as very self-explanatory, but it becomes less and less straightforward when we go further and further back in the time of our recent art history. But first, here comes the general rule: An artwork can be considered contemporary when it is/was produced between roughly 1960/1970, up to today.

As you might expect, the tricky part is around 1960/1970. In other words, all art that is being created today is absolutely contemporary in time. In fact, all art that has been made in the 21st century meets this condition without any doubt. The same could be said about the 1980s and 1990s, however, arguably in a bit less convincing manner. When we approach the 1970s, things start to become a bit more tricky as many critics, rightfully so, argue this period can be seen as postmodern but not as contemporary.

In a nutshell, first, there was the era of modernism which ranged from roughly 1850/1860 up to 1950/1960. Then there was postmodernism which started around 1950/1960 (read more on the distinction between Modern Art and Postmodern Art with our extensive article Explained: Modern Art vs Postmodern Art).

Now, some argue postmodernism is the current and ongoing era which would mean contemporary art ranges from this point up to today. Whereas others argue postmodernity has ended, as we arrive in a new era of post-postmodernism – also referred to as meta-modernism – arguing postmodernity ended around 1990/2000.[1][2] This would mean the contemporary era only ranges from 1990/2000 up to today.

In short, these major eras or -isms in cultural history can be very confusing. To remain on topic, when it comes to art, one does not use the movement of post-postmodernism (yet), only Modern Art (1850/1860-1950/1960) and Postmodern Art (1950/1960-today). So why is there no consensus when it comes to contemporary art for the decades of the 50s, 60s, and 70s?

The answer lies within the different art movements during this period. For instance, if one speaks of Abstract Expressionism in the 1960s, there is no debate as Abstract Expressionism was the culmination point of Modernism and Modern Art, and, therefore can not be seen as contemporary art. But in the same decade, we encountered Minimal Art and Conceptual Art. Both movements are key postmodern movements and are still relevant today. Think of Donald Judd’s Minimal sculptures. Even though they already exist for half a century, they still look and feel as if they were made yesterday. So, this art from the 1960s could be seen as contemporary art, even though it is six decades old.

It is clear to say the 1960s and 1970s are on the edge of being considered as contemporary art. As a result, art movements such as Minimal Art, Conceptual Art, Pop Art, Op Art, Performance Art, Installation Art, Land Art, or Feminist Art are neither Modern Art nor are they contemporary art for some. I would argue we can still consider them contemporary art. An important argument is their pertinence today, and how they shaped the contemporary art scene. From the 1980s on with Neo-Expressionism, Post-Minimalism, Street Art, or Neo-Pop, we can say with confidence these movements are very contemporary.

In any case, the distinction where an artwork meets the condition of the time or era in which it is produced becomes often unclear in the 1960s and 1970s. The reason why is that art movements and art, in general, may not be approached as something static. Art is a very dynamic process of tendencies and developments in which movements overlap, as is the case with Modern Art, Postmodern Art, and Contemporary Art.

When it comes to the question if this condition is absolutely necessary in order to have contemporary artwork, the answer is ‘yes’. This first condition is an absolute pretext for an artwork to be contemporary. We conclude this chapter with a clear and easy-to-use time frame.

Condition 2: The Intention of the Artist

A second condition consists of the intention of the artist. In recent art history, the notion of ‘intention’ has become increasingly important since the arrival of Postmodern Art movements. Due to the exploration and emergence of new media, the intention of the artist became an issue an sich. Before, with the traditional media, making the intention clear was unnecessary.

For instance, when there were only four forms of visual arts – painting, sculpture, drawing and printmaking – it was clear when an artist created a painting, he intended to create an artwork. However, with the arrival of new and different forms of contemporary art – painting, sculpture, drawing, printmaking, collage, digital art/collage, photography, video art, installation art, land art, (public) intervention art and performance art – the intention of the creator becomes crucial to determine wether one can speak of an artwork.

Let’s illustrate this issue with a few examples. Today, photography is arguably one of the most accessible art forms. We all have a phone with a camera in our pockets or purse, and we almost use it on a daily basis. However, if we take a picture of our dog sleeping in a cute position, the photograph in question is not an artwork. However, when it is the intention of the artist to take a fine art photograph of a sleeping dog, we can argue the photograph can be considered is a contemporary artwork (see image below).

Another example can be found in street art in the form of public intervention art. When a football fan writes or draws a statement or logo on a wall in a public space with spray paint, he or she expresses (most likely illegally) his or her fanaticism for a particular football club. When a street artist writes or draws an image or text on a wall in a public space, intending to create a work of art, it is clear to say the mural can be considered as an artwork, whereas the football fan’s work is not.

Only when it is or was the premeditated intention of the artist to create the artwork, one is able to determine whether the artwork is contemporary. Therefore, as with our first condition, the intention of the artist is an absolute pretext for an artwork to be contemporary.

Condition 3: The Esthetics of the Artwork

Our third condition discusses the aesthetics of the artwork, which may often be a slippery slope in art criticism. Therefore, this condition is arguably not a pretext for an artwork to be considered as contemporary. However, it does claim that not all artworks are ‘equally contemporary’.

For instance, when a hobby artist dedicates his spare time to painting or drawing nudes in the tradition of the art academies in the 19th century, the esthetics are – or can be – strongly bound to the 19th century, and thus not contemporary. But, the painting or drawing was made today. And, it was the clear intention of the artist to create an artwork. Are these works still contemporary?

In this case, as we can tick off the first two conditions for an artwork to be contemporary, one might argue his works are indeed contemporary artworks. On the other hand, they are a bit ‘nostalgic’ as they could easily have been made in the 19th century. Thus, as the aesthetics are not time bound, it would be very difficult to distinguish the artwork as contemporary if we would not have the context of the date when it was produced.

Even more, chances are – when the artwork has been done ‘right’, succeeding in realizing it following the academic rules of the 19th century – one would not be able to determine when the artwork was made without material-technical research of the surface and used medium. Therefore, one can argue the artwork is not contemporary in this sense of its meaning.

On the other hand, this does not mean one is not being ‘contemporary’ when using traditional media. On the contrary, in recent years the use of traditional media and techniques has become increasingly popular, and therefore contemporary. Think of the mesmerizing oil paintings by Michaël Borremans or Neo Rauch, to name just a few.

Borremans’ technique is strongly linked to baroque masters such as Velazques or Caravaggio, and his medium is traditional oil paint. But although he engages in a dialogue with art history and the tradition of oil painting, his esthetics remain bound to the 21st century. When approaching his painting, it is obvious his works are made today, as it was not possible before them if it weren’t for Conceptual Art and consorts to create these types of compositions, analogies, or readings. Even though his works are clearly made today, the imagery still claims a certain universality and timelessness (see image below).

Then, we have other examples that are very clear. For instance Photorealism. Photorealism emerged in the 1970s and is still pertinent in the contemporary art scene. With Photorealism, the esthetics are clearly bound to today’s age, the flatness of the images reminiscent to photography, the technical know-how combined with the necessary skill in order to create these photorealist paintings, and also the depicted people, objects, and environments originating directly from our contemporary environment.

With abstract painting, things become a bit more tricky. With our first condition, we have discussed how an abstract expressionist painting is not a contemporary artwork but a modern artwork. However, today, the aesthetics of abstract expressionism is still very much alive. In this case, we argue the aesthetics of pure abstraction are still time-bound to the contemporary era, as it remains one of the most pertinent aspects of art.

As a result, we conclude an artwork is contemporary when the esthetics of the artwork are time-bound to the contemporary era, and/or engage with our (recent) art history. In contrast to our previous two conditions, this condition is not an absolute pretext for an artwork to be considered as contemporary but strongly contributes to it.

Condition 4: The Subject Matter of the Artwork

An artwork can achieve its contemporary character not only because of its aesthetics but also on the basis of its contemporary subject matter. In this case, the artwork is contemporary when the subject matter is relevant in a contemporary context.

For instance, when an artwork addresses a certain event from our contemporary history or reacts against the political and ideological climate of today, the subject matter is linked to this day and age, making the artwork contemporary.

Think of artworks reacting to historical or political events such as 9/11, the bombing of Hiroshima, climate change, famine crisis, and so on. By doing so, the artwork becomes politically, culturally, and historically relevant. Think of our numerous case studies in our article What Makes Contemporary Art Important?

I wouldn’t say this condition is necessary for any artwork. An artwork can have a political layer of meaning, be it explicit or implicit. However, there is no such thing as the exigency of political or ideological subject matter. For instance, one can paint a still life, and still be relevant as a painter (for examples of contemporary relevant still life paintings, feel free to read our article on Contemporary Still Life Painting here).

In other words, an artwork’s subject matter can be relevant in numerous ways. For instance, the way you construct the artwork, the choice of the medium or use of different media, the implementation of a philosophical notion, the esthetic qualities, the dialogue with art history, the possibility of escapism, meditative qualities of the artwork, it’s radical character, and so on.

In a similar way as with our third condition, subject matter (of any sort) that is relevant in a contemporary context strongly contributes to the artwork being contemporary. However, it is not an absolute pretext.

Please note: If you are a contemporary artist yourself, make sure to read our article on How To Succeed As an Artist. Or, feel free to head over to our Services for artists, to get featured on CAI, or request professional 1-on-1 advice.

Notes:

[1] Potter, Garry and Lopez, Jose (eds.): After Postmodernism: An Introduction to Critical Realism. London: The Athlone Press, 2001.
[2] Vermeulen, Timotheus and Robin van den Akker. “Notes on metamodernism”, in Journal of Aesthetics and Culture (2010).

Last Updated on September 2, 2023