The contemporary, contemporariness, contemporary art practices

1 The contemporary is the untimely (Agamben)

At first glance, the contemporary is what pertains to the present, and in linear time, the present is what happens last. The contemporary is simply some sort of chronologically the current. But also in the present works are produced that could hardly be called contemporary. Producing a work in the present does not make it contemporary. The specificity of contemporary art practices obviously lies in other qualities than their mere belonging to the present moment. According to this definition of contemporariness, contemporary works have a problem with the time to which they appear to belong. Contemporariness is therefore a particular attitude to one’s time, a simultaneous accepting of it and distancing oneself from it. The contemporary and thus also the current is what affects our time with its untimeliness. Although dating from early Baroque, the Caravaggio painting of the Virgin with dirty feet¹ could be said to be a contemporary work: it affects the present and also has a certain potential for the future. Its power depends on the durability of this effect.

2 Contemporary art practices in relation to non-art

The concept of art defies or refuses definition; or, there are at least as many definitions of art as there are thoughts about it, but its essence cannot be deduced from its origin. Of course, the thought of art developing linearly from earlier, worse art to present-day, better art is also wrong. What is clear is that the concept and definition of art keep changing. Or, according to Adorno, “the definition of art is at every point indicated by what art once was, but it is legitimated only by what art became with regard to what it wants to, and perhaps can, become.”² Many things that were art in the past are no longer art today. A paradoxical thought that seems to negate the history of art speaks of the death of art and the birth of that which was not art in the past. To take this radically further: art is defined in relation to what it is not. What do I have in mind when I put art in relation to non-art? Let me simplify: even though everything – that is, anything done in life – can be formalized in art in one way or another, life itself is not art. Or put the other way around, art is part of life, but is not life. It is some kind of formalized density of life, some kind of essence taken to a power, and as such it affects life. The formalizing procedures are not conventional, however, but on the contrary originate in the processes of conflict or agreement with the past or the immediate circumstances. There is no consensus on what a work of art should be (like), but care should be taken nevertheless: ‘anything goes’ does not apply to a work of art.

3 A contemporary work of art is profane

To offer another angle of thought: art is not particular. We do not need to look for anything specific in the territory we call art. In particular because the attempt of looking for specificities comprises also an injunction that immobilizes the singularity of an individual work of art. Art is or exists only because works of art exist. Specificities point toward expertness, toward something not being generally accessible. In other words, toward something not in common use. Agambern is very precise on this in his use of the word ‘profanation’: ‘If to ‘consecrate’ (sacrare) designates the removal of things from the sphere of human law, to ‘desecrate’ (profanare) is to restitute them to free usage by the people. … Strictly speaking, the profane is that which was sacred or religious and has now been restituted to free usage by the people.’³ As used by Agamben, ‘profanity’ is another term that helps describe the properties of the territory of contemporary art practices. In view of what was said above, the term ’contemporary’ becomes vague here, and it is precisely this indefiniteness that intrigues me. If on the one hand the term ‘contemporary’ can be attributed to a work of art of any time, including the past, which means that any work of art produced in any time can be contemporary as long as it affects the present, ‘profanity’ takes art away from professionals expert in the practices of painting and sculpture or the history of fine art/art history. Suddenly, inexpertness becomes an advantage. Even more: the starting position of ‘not knowing’ here turns out to be crucial. The contemporary is that which does not belong to any particular specificity/field of expertise/knowledge, but is special only within each individual work.

4 We see a contemporary work of art when we want to see it

One needs to have the desire or be curious to see (it). But that is not enough. This curiosity must also be satisfied. Or, as Rado Riha says in his text “Kako lahko vidim revolucijo?”⁴ (How can I see revolution?), one needs to want to realise one’s desire to see. This is the beginning, or, to be even more precise, ‘curiosity’ is a gap that is not determined by some prior knowledge. The realisation of not knowing enables the beginning of ‘construing’ what a work of art is. Such a beginning is highly recommendable, if not downright imperative, since it enables realisation, hindered by prior knowledge/prejudice. What does contemporary art count on? Not on knowledge/specialisation/profession, but on the quite simple fact that the viewer thinks.

(Jože Barši, excerpted from Turist, Janja Žvegelj, Ljubljana: Društvo za domače raziskave, Galerija Škuc, 2009)

1 Michelangelo Caravaggio, Morte della Vergine, 1605/06, the Louvre.

2 Theodor W. Adorno: Umetnost, družba, estetika. Misel o moderni umetnosti (ed. Janez Vrečko). Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 1981. 95.

3 Giorgio Agamben: Kaj je dispozitiv?. Problemi 8–9 (2007). 25.

4 Rado Riha: Kako lahko vidim revolucijo?. Filozofski vestnik XXVII/1 (2006).