Smith Paragraph

Contemporary Art has several different meanings and interpretations.  It takes place in areas such as fashion and design, politics, and education, while having a constant expansion in the art world.  It has been a continual question on what “Contemporary Art” would transform into.  Some questioned if it would ever become “periodlessness”.  It has transformed into a permanent “unfolding of the visual arts”.

Contemporary Art is one of its own, that has its own characteristics, but brings countries and nationalities together.  It is distinct from modern art and is the word that describes all of todays art. Smith explains that other areas of art have come from and evolved from Contemporary art.

I took from this article that Contemporary Art has ever been transforming and expanding in the art world.  It has no definite definition, which is something that artists now are still trying to discover.  I feel that we all have a lot to learn when it comes to contemporary art and what it means so us as an artist.  We have spent the majority of our lives seeing Contemporary Art grow and transform into what it is now.

One Response

  1. Emily,
    I think you caught on to some of the most important parts of the Smith article, but you could have gone into a little bit more detail, specifically when discussing the unfolding of the visual arts. How, specifically, has art been unfolding? I’m no Smith, but I recall when he discusses contemporary art in the 1980’s, he explains how many new genres are being formed, such as video and digital arts. Also he talks about how globalization has complicated matters, and lead to certain movements bleeding into one another. This may be a little tangential, but as someone who loves working with computers, I find this process similar to the de-fragmentation process of a disk drive; certain art movements (sectors of memory) may be mixed up and in the wrong place (and subsequently removed), or detrimental to the function of the whole drive itself. Hopefully this analogy works for you. Another important part I found in the article was on page 13, when he discusses how “80’s art repeats avant-garde strategies” while ignoring “political utopianism” and “theoretical radicalism”. Basically, artists are influenced heavily by Modernist art, but may leave out many of the messages and significances of the art itself. Basically, I believe it’s harmful to rely to heavily on art movements from previous generations; because there are GENERATIONAL CHANGES (I believe the key to Smith’s article–also on page 13), art may be subject to extinction. I believe contemporary art is similar to Darwin’s theory of evolution in many ways, features (or movements, artists and genres) may change just a little bit through the passage of time, or completely become extinct.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: