Contemporary painting: a lot of reasoning and a little conspiracy theory

Contemporary painting: a lot of reasoning and a little conspiracy theory

No, seriously, what is the point here and where, in fact, is art here? Like in that scene from «1 + 1», «The guy has a nosebleed and he asks for twenty ?!». And if you look at all this from this point of view, is not the very concept of contemporary art one continuous fiction, where contemporary artists are more like a kind of idle idlers from creativity, but at the same time not creators. Or maybe even worse, all modern paintings and not paintings at all, but the fruit of a secret conspiracy, in scale comparable only to the Freemasons and their top-secret lodge, are shamelessly lying to all of us?

Nonsense or not, but all the same, the above opinion is very popular among ordinary people (perhaps, perhaps, with a smaller share of conspiracy theories, although not a fact). If we approach the issue of «the value of contemporary art» thoroughly, then we have to admit that not only ignorance is the reason for such judgments about the whole sphere of art. I would not like to present groundless accusations, but a certain circle of workers in creative professions has always been distinguished by such an unpleasant feature as overly inflated conceit and complete intolerance to criticism.

It is for such comrades that the hackneyed phrase «I am an artist, I see it this way» has become not so much an excuse as a life credo. Seriously, how many times doubting the artistic value of a painting have you heard from such would-be creators something like «You just don’t understand anything»? And now a question arises that hurts our tender self-esteem: «Am I really such a terrible ignoramus?» This is where the moment comes when no one wants to seem like a deeply uncivilized person and begins to take at face value all the labels hung by someone who is not clear and by what principle.

Contemporary art is the following thing: it is remarkable for its relevance, but one moment will still constantly distinguish it from the «classics» — time, or rather consistency. Have you ever thought about why famous creators of the past do not cause such heated debate as contemporary artists? It’s just that time has already «filtered» everything for us. Seriously, who cares about bad artists 200 years ago? But with modern painting, such an approach will be completely useless, since, no matter good or bad, art touches us directly every day and it is not at all the authors of books on art history and not only critics and experts, but also us with you.

Rowing all contemporary art with the same brush is an openly failed approach, but fact is fact — painting, «beautiful picture» and just «something» — these are three big differences. And you shouldn’t be ashamed at all if some kind of work personally seems to you frankly meaningless or hackneyed. Ask questions and the more the better. In the end, for the sake of something, it was drawn. It begins to be bad at the stage if the only prerequisite for creating such a «modern picture» is only the author’s desire to smudge a couple of canvases as much as possible one fine evening. But it’s really bad — when the author of such a masterpiece tries to impose the same masterpiece on those around him.

You know, there is such a slightly harmful, but still, basically, a wonderful property in a person is the ability to doubt. What exactly is all that text above about? Contemporary art — it all happens and is not worth being afraid if something seems to you personally a complete nonsense. The main thing is to ask questions, read, compare, argue and never take anything for granted — it’s worth it.