What do you understand by the term “Post-Modernity” as it applies to contemporary art?

The term Post-Modernity is almost impossible to define, for reasons such as when did modernism end and when did post modernity begin and end- if it has? We could place the start of Post modernity in relation to contemporary art as the ultimate phase of modernism, which is contemporary to us. We know through looking at art history from around 1750- 1960 modernists themselves relished in the ideas of invention through the internal experiences of the here and now, of contemporary life; for example the Avante-Garde movement who centred themselves on creating radical art in response to radical politics, which challenged conformity and was seen as unconventional. Art for art’s sake was the general consensus of the later modernists, having no intention or subjectivity. Objective application of materials was seen to be the epitome for artistic appreciation. These accepted beliefs were then to be challenged by the post-modernists, using their foundations as the basis for experimentation rejecting the importance of content but saw the climax of abstraction as an opportunity for a reaction, including new artistic appreciation as well as creation through the use of merging boundaries, sampling, intention and reception of the work. Contemporary art in post modernity can be characterised as taking modernism one step further, the idea of play experimentation and invention taken to the extreme.

In our Contemporary world, Post-Modernity could be understood as a state of mind, a positive view which encourages awareness of social, political, ethnic diversity, environmental issues and consumerism, which raises questions of our current condition in an uncertain world full of ambiguity and scepticism. A way of describing the artworks produced in the post modernist period would be that they were anti-formalist; anything and everything can be named as art, overruling all previous modernistic determining factors which identify art as being art. Contemporary art epitomises the mixing of styles and blurring of genre boundaries thus creating completely new ideas and outlooks as to how art should function. In order to understand the varying contexts contemporary art has found itself in, just what is it that defines these radical artworks as valid contributions to the ever evolving art world? We must look towards the Institutional critique of art. This can give us answers as to why art maybe considered good, bad or above all why it is art in the first place. It is agreed that within the institutional theory of art, that this way of looking is a simple way of understanding artworks and ways of making art that cover a much wider spectrum. There are two principles or main hypotheses. Firstly “For any art to be art, it must be a form which has in some way been changed by human agency or effort”[1] and lastly, “The resulting object must have been shown in a museum, gallery or exhibition”[2]. What this tells us is that in postmodern culture, and what can be seen as very duchampian, is that art can be identified in many forms, its execution or how it was made. It suggests that art has become far more subjective in the way that we consider its meaning in consideration of its creative process. We could suggest that what once was fundamental in materials and mastery and adhered to a certain conventionality has become secondary to the arts value as an established artwork. The viewer’s minds are more open in response to the open minds of the artists and as a result, also of the work they create.

Now we have placed contemporary artworks in to the context of modernity and how they push the boundaries as to what constitutes art, it is now fundamental to look at what exact boundaries have been merged, in this case the merging of mediums and materials, creating works that added to the critical vagueness of contemporary art in post-modernity.  One major ethos which surrounds the art-making process in post modernity up to this day is the Duchampian notion of the readymade and comment on mass media. The idea that the works may not hold any intrinsic meaning but the act of making the work and presenting it as art becomes the artwork itself; one could say pressing the politics of art. With reference to as big an institution as Andy Warhol, whose works among his fellow pop artists, one could argue that they introduced a sense of artistic hegemony; was infecting the art world with a new evident idea, which was distancing itself from the traditional art practices already existent within the cultural sphere at the time. It was this outright radical proposal of art produced by the Pop art movement which were reacting against art critics such as Clement Greenberg who believed in the purity and essence in art making and representation. Greenberg claimed that pop art was not as valid as previous conventional art practices, stating that “I happen not to find it really fresh. Nor does it really challenge taste on more than a superficial level. So far (aside, perhaps, from Jasper Johns) it amounts to a new episode in the history of taste.”[3] This is the kind of statement that motivated pop artists to continue in their practices, leaving behind flatness of painting which connotes meaning and values towards making works which denote meaning through anti-formalist disorientation provided by an indirect transitive sensibility.

Neo-Dadaists Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns are exemplary of this new methodical equation of art values. They present in their works anything, a heterogeneous use of materials, natural matter amalgamated with painting techniques. The metaphorical orientations of the works are vertical, meaning that they portray culture and representation, Rauschenberg’s bed is a prime example of this. Within the human domain and through accepting social values, we except that we lay horizontally across a bed, it adheres to the laws of gravity, nature and our experience of reality, however Rauschenberg’s work is represented vertically, making the viewer come to terms with the work with the challenging notion of it being abhorrent to nature and an artistic cultural representation in post-modernity. Of course this enforces the fundamental principle of contemporary art practice; a clashing of reality and representation, the total opposite of purity of essence where art becomes a brand of philosophical investigation; challenging formalism and creating works in the criteria of culture and representation. To name two artists that seem to encapsulate the post-modernity ethos including challenging aesthetics in their works, I would suggest, are Gerhard Richter and Jeff Koons. We could say that in post-modernity the consumer culture has doubled ten-fold, people want bargains and novelty; they are looking for a form of entertainment in their art, almost like a product. In the case of Jeff Koons, his line of production is not distinctively craftsman-like, more like a factory or mechanically replicated product that may even appear cheap like a child’s toy! More interestingly, we could suggest that we have seen more of a shift in education and educational priorities of artists who seek to find unique production methods and in some cases it would seem to abandon all knowledge of previous artistry and become more involved with their own forms of production that simultaneously represent their maverick style interpretations through their work. Jeff Koons work is a prime example of this almost performative idea that also seems to revive some Warholian ideas about popular culture and mass production. Introducing the idea of simulacra, Koons works represents this idea perfectly in his child-like toys; a prime example is his work “Popples” mad in 1988[4]. Now seen as an icon of kitsch, the toy is a character from a 1980s children’s cartoon which Koons has taken and resized, and produced mechanically, claiming it art. Obviously this creature does not exist in the natural world, we could not go and see it in a zoo, children who watched the TV programme could not see it in the real world, but somehow we appropriate it with childlike innocence, and maybe even like all soft toys, human affection. Koons who had taken the God-like role and created an amalgamation of recognised forms that could exists as art but collectively holds no real value in reality, represents the perfect simulacra, an important element of the contemporary art of Post-modernity. Another example of simulacra is the photographic work of Cindy Sherman. Her Untitled film stills, 1978[5], which represent Sherman, as the protagonist in a variety of film scenes. The question arises as to who is the protagonist? Is it the model, Sherman herself as the artist, or the idea of a woman presenting herself a certain way to adhere to some social or cultural stereotype?  Consequently, we cannot pin down who is the real version or blueprint version from which the others are being referred to, creating an uncanny simulacra using photography, which in itself has become the creating tool for many works of contemporary art in post-modernity.

When we go to contemporary galleries in London, we sometimes don’t have definitive closure in our observations of these works, but that is part of their obscure postmodern intentionality. However some are more comprehendible than others. A major theme explored in contemporary artists work is the notion of comment or critique, portrayed through the use of celebrity, irony, whit and the disorientated shock factor. A prime example of this is the ironic piece which is centred upon whit, irony, celebrity and most definitely shock factor, is Spanish sculptural artist Eugenio Merino's "4 the Love of Go(l)d", which depicts the suicide of Damien Hirst, one of the artist from the YBA’s whose work will be shown in his first retrospective in the Tate Modern next year. The piece may be shocking but it is also very clever. The irony behind the work is that if Damien were to die, his work would become even more valuable that it is whilst he is alive, still making work; this is also a satirical comment on traditions of art, patronage and legacy of art markets. Usually in a variety of forms that would seem incomprehensible to be acknowledged as an art piece, and sometimes in more agreeable form, one which is used heavily is installation and interactive pieces known as happenings. I think it would be fair to say that this actually pretty much encapsulates most contemporary art today and is what has brought us to this very point in post-modernity. The death of the object is a progressive outlook we could have on the move into conceptualism. We see art develop its own context, it can be anything, found anywhere, and material that is observed and pondered over becomes a thing of the past. An imperative example of this change in freedom of creativity is 70s- 80s body and performance art, which can be also seen a step further towards individualism in art. Partly because in some works the viewers in the prescience of the artist themselves which also adds another dimension; an idea in contemporary art which is most certainly post modern .Works are and still being created which are not only taken out of a frame and exemplary of an abandonment of stationary object, but are in some cases taken out of a museum or gallery environment, again, making the viewer disorientated, making them question, critique and above all placing an elevated importance on the intention of the artist and his motivation for doing so. The public want to be shocked and given a sense of active stimulation of the mind. One French artist whose work certainly provides this criterion is Olivier Sagazan. His work is primarily performance based is also known for his dark, harrowing painted works. His performances are unsettling, the audience may find his work actively provoking, having both a physical and mental stirring affect because Sagazan taps into what we as humans find either scary, uncanny and totally eerie, which s simultaneously what we find ourselves, in post-modernity, being drawn to, provoking a response and wanting to experience and question.  We can see that within post-modernity a whole new attitude was adopted, a totally new ethos moving towards, including situations and providing the viewer with an entirely new experience, which sometimes is unique.  An example of this would be Emin and Lucas “shop” which saw them creating their own gallery space for six months, where they used the space as gallery space and a place to sell these works to the public, which included t shirts, mugs with various printed slogans. Here we see a totally different art practice, there is interaction (also seen in Rirkrit Tiravanija’s cooking installations) and most important we are again made to rethink the validity of the art, does it adhere to the institution of critique? This stems back to our idea of re-education and a new found spirit within artists and their motives to create such art. It is because of these criteria; this type of art may be made to excess but at the same time, it would prove difficult to exhaust the mediums and cognitive schema associated with its viewers experience; an idea that is imperative to understanding contemporary art in post-modernity. The question then arises what is next in the future of art, has art peaked in post-modernity?

We have seen that most contemporary art within Post-modernity is characterised by its own chaotic integrity, uncertainty, surrounded by no clear teleology in its art. Post modernity can be seen as a matrix of values and contemporary viewpoints that in its art, centres itself greatly upon intention and reception. It is impossible to define post-modernity wholly, but this is only reflected in the contemporary art produced in this time, it is equally equivocal such to the times. It seems we have to apply meaning and value ourselves, which is dependent upon the social and cultural occurrences and adaptions, which most artists use as influence for their works. This is why it is interesting to see what the future has in store for art and artists, will they and can they proceed beyond the uncategorized?

                                                                                                                                                                          

Bibliography:

Barker.F, P. Hulme, Postmodernism and the re-reading of modernity, Manchester University Press ND, 1992.

Barthes.R, ”Death of the Author”.

Hopkins,D. After Modern Art 1945-2000, Oxford University Press, 2000.

O'Brian.J, the Collected Essays and Criticism: Modernism with a vengeance, 1957-1969, University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Pooke.G, G. Whitham, Teach Yourself Art History, McGraw-Hill, 2004.

Smith, E. L, Visual arts in the 20th century, Harry N. Abrams, 1996.

---

[1] Grant Pooke, Graham Whitham, Teach Yourself Art History, McGraw-Hill, 2004, pp 79.

[2] Grant Pooke, Graham Whitham, Teach Yourself Art History, McGraw-Hill, 2004, pp 79.

[3] John O'Brian, the Collected Essays and Criticism: Modernism with a vengeance, 1957-1969, University of Chicago Press, 1995. Pp197.

[4] Edward Lucie-Smith, Visual arts in the 20th century, Harry N. Abrams, 1996, pp 335.

[5]Francis Barker, Peter Hulme, Postmodernism and the re-reading of modernity, Manchester University Press ND, 1992, pp192