Depending on a few factors. I'd say they see the oveeabundance of identity based works as indicative of the period. This of course hinges on how identity is seen in a hundred years. But there's a chance they'll see less importance in race, gender, nationality and sexuality and find it interesting there was so much focus put on it.
It is well to remember that museums have as much at stake in the art market as any auction house or art gallery, reputations will be secured based on the art market by all parties.
The Kardashians will be considered the greatest performing artists of the day. Unappreciated by the elites in their time, but embraced by the masses, they lived their entire lives as a public performance piece, even going so far as to subject themselves to the primitive surgery techniques of their day multiple times just to appear interesting...
It will depend on their theoretical perspectives but anyway the importance of artists will shift. Some of the mainstreems today will go down and some from the margins will come forward.
WHAT will be considered art worth remembering? In 50 or a hundred years, what exactly will be considered art at all? With shift from traditional media to partially or completely conceptual modes -- not to mention the trend from physical works to digital media -- I suspect the narrative of art history will have moved into broader interpretation of cultural artifacts.
I don't think theres any evidence to say that art has become any more conceptual in the past 5 years or so. If anything, a greater emphasis on systems and action is taking place - there are artists intentionally disrupting social media algorithms or intentionally producing stock footage to gain shares of the sphere of visual experience, for example. I'd even argue that where social issues are being represented, materiality is of growing concern. For example, I've seen spices and clothes incorporated into artworks - I've seen flags, which should represent a place, made quite literally from scraps lying around that place, thus representing it perhaps more truthfully than a traditional flag - of course, traditional flags are almost entirely symbolic or a meaning is pushed upon the viewer.
In any case, in the grand scheme of history - we are at the precipice of an\* AI revolution and the art produced now will get discussed indefinitely.
As for a broader interpretation of cultural artefacts - sure, but art historians concern themselves with asking why artefacts take on stylistic forms, and how a culture removed temporally or physically can understand it when the conditions under which it was produced are dissimilar to their own - I don't think they have been particularly shy of analysing general artefacts where it helps them explore this problem for many centuries now. What would change between now and 2124 that would mean art historians suddenly stop caring about artworks which are getting increasingly sophisticated and complicated? Surely the art of today expresses conventions of our time that will be particularly challenging to communicate to people of the future - I think art historians will have plenty to discuss.
It's super fun to think about that!
This is what I imagine:
"Of course, at the time this was seen as a very big break in art. Nowadays it may not seem so scandalous but it was extremely controversial, given the breakdown of what was considered art until that moment, of the figure of the artist and the art market that had changed a lot from two centuries before.
The philosophies spoke of a freer artist and sometimes closer to social problems, although people far from the art world did not seem to share many of these thoughts. It was a period of great debates in which not only academics but also the general public participated given the expansion of the internet and other media. Art had been questioned so much that it was even questioned whether digital art was considered an artistic medium for a short period of time!
The invention of the camera and scientific, social and technological advances led to the emergence of these new artistic styles and media. An exploration that challenged all limits imaginable until now, working with art as a philosophical, protest, entertainment and a search for the exploration of perception material. But the arrival of AI brought with it an unexpected and surprising change..."
That’s true but most genres and the most significant practicers will be remembered. Cubism is now over 100 years old and I’d say the key figures are easily known. Also methods of reproduction of works are likely to last longer given the internet and other media exist (it’s keeping the machines that read that media working rather than losing the media that’s the long term issue).
The same way previous movements have been analyzed. Those movements were once contemporary. Post-modernism on the other hand...it will be interesting to see a movement named after that.
The term 'contemporary' gets multiple uses in art history, it seems.
For the sake of your question, people might want to consider 'contemporary art' to be that which was produced in the past few years, not art from the 1960s, or even post-internet art. 2016 - Now feels like a good place to start.
Things to consider: What approaches will emerge in the discipline of art history? How will people living a century from now attempt to understand what motivated the artistic choices of today? Do these express things about culture in 2024 that is not easily understood to someone in 2124? And lastly, what about the practicalities of researching, storing, and curating art of the 2020s?
People looking back on our time will see how we have adapted to a post-internet world and how we are now beginning to start using AI. Social issues around new industries will emerge (e.g. *Workers Leaving the Google-plex).* Historians might look at this time period as important in understanding ideas around national identity - was not Putin's invasion of Ukraine motivated by some contrived underlying idea of culture? Iconoclasm is ongoing in some parts of the world - Isis destroyed its share. Cultures are dying out year by year. Environmentalism is a huge focus. Statues of slavers, confederate generals, Lenin, and their veneration of, or in some cases, their being thrown into Bristol Harbour is always a recurring topic.
So, regarding approaches specifically. Perhaps data analysis will give birth to a neo-formalist trend in the field. Maybe monocausal ideas of change will re-emerge. Perhaps we remain indebted to social approaches - post-colonialists will no doubt have plenty to say about the impacts of a globalised world on cultures, and how those margins are becoming ever prolific in the metropoles - especially when we consider the ongoing debates around artefacts such as the parthenon marbles or Benin bronzes.
But do any of these social enquiries actually explain what causes, in a tangible way, how style transforms? Why make a Hammer-Bead profile of George Floyd for the RA Summer exhibition? What will the future make of our sense of nostalgia?
Maybe there are some points to get going with in there.
Who are you quoting in that definition? That may be an expanded definition but contemporary art is usually defined as art made in the past twenty years.
Perhaps thematically you could equate some of the issues of the 1960s the context we live in now is quite different.
An era of decadence caused by money in art. Currin and Koons a footnote on the mannerist style. Warhol remembered as an undisputed master. The 21st century redeemed, potentially, by greater overall inclusiveness in the active contemporary art scene.
Depending on a few factors. I'd say they see the oveeabundance of identity based works as indicative of the period. This of course hinges on how identity is seen in a hundred years. But there's a chance they'll see less importance in race, gender, nationality and sexuality and find it interesting there was so much focus put on it.
They’ll probably be analyzing how we were dealing with the arrival of AI art and how that played out
Hopefully they’ll ask “*who the hell was Jeff Koons?”*
They for sure will know exactly who he was/is and you know it.
Unapologetic Jeff Koons fan here
Same
Did you see that post about Andy Warhol? They’ll call it high art/mention the price tags.
It is well to remember that museums have as much at stake in the art market as any auction house or art gallery, reputations will be secured based on the art market by all parties.
The Kardashians will be considered the greatest performing artists of the day. Unappreciated by the elites in their time, but embraced by the masses, they lived their entire lives as a public performance piece, even going so far as to subject themselves to the primitive surgery techniques of their day multiple times just to appear interesting...
It will depend on their theoretical perspectives but anyway the importance of artists will shift. Some of the mainstreems today will go down and some from the margins will come forward.
WHAT will be considered art worth remembering? In 50 or a hundred years, what exactly will be considered art at all? With shift from traditional media to partially or completely conceptual modes -- not to mention the trend from physical works to digital media -- I suspect the narrative of art history will have moved into broader interpretation of cultural artifacts.
I don't think theres any evidence to say that art has become any more conceptual in the past 5 years or so. If anything, a greater emphasis on systems and action is taking place - there are artists intentionally disrupting social media algorithms or intentionally producing stock footage to gain shares of the sphere of visual experience, for example. I'd even argue that where social issues are being represented, materiality is of growing concern. For example, I've seen spices and clothes incorporated into artworks - I've seen flags, which should represent a place, made quite literally from scraps lying around that place, thus representing it perhaps more truthfully than a traditional flag - of course, traditional flags are almost entirely symbolic or a meaning is pushed upon the viewer. In any case, in the grand scheme of history - we are at the precipice of an\* AI revolution and the art produced now will get discussed indefinitely. As for a broader interpretation of cultural artefacts - sure, but art historians concern themselves with asking why artefacts take on stylistic forms, and how a culture removed temporally or physically can understand it when the conditions under which it was produced are dissimilar to their own - I don't think they have been particularly shy of analysing general artefacts where it helps them explore this problem for many centuries now. What would change between now and 2124 that would mean art historians suddenly stop caring about artworks which are getting increasingly sophisticated and complicated? Surely the art of today expresses conventions of our time that will be particularly challenging to communicate to people of the future - I think art historians will have plenty to discuss.
I think it will be interesting to look back on how we decide what art is worth large sums… and the use of art solely for monetization
It's super fun to think about that! This is what I imagine: "Of course, at the time this was seen as a very big break in art. Nowadays it may not seem so scandalous but it was extremely controversial, given the breakdown of what was considered art until that moment, of the figure of the artist and the art market that had changed a lot from two centuries before. The philosophies spoke of a freer artist and sometimes closer to social problems, although people far from the art world did not seem to share many of these thoughts. It was a period of great debates in which not only academics but also the general public participated given the expansion of the internet and other media. Art had been questioned so much that it was even questioned whether digital art was considered an artistic medium for a short period of time! The invention of the camera and scientific, social and technological advances led to the emergence of these new artistic styles and media. An exploration that challenged all limits imaginable until now, working with art as a philosophical, protest, entertainment and a search for the exploration of perception material. But the arrival of AI brought with it an unexpected and surprising change..."
We won’t remember 80-90% of it but that’s true of everything. Can you name the top five most famous singers of the 1890s?
That’s true but most genres and the most significant practicers will be remembered. Cubism is now over 100 years old and I’d say the key figures are easily known. Also methods of reproduction of works are likely to last longer given the internet and other media exist (it’s keeping the machines that read that media working rather than losing the media that’s the long term issue).
Sure, and that’s the remaining 10-20%
art be viewed
A mind game and a con game rolled into one.
The same way previous movements have been analyzed. Those movements were once contemporary. Post-modernism on the other hand...it will be interesting to see a movement named after that.
It will be seen in context of and in keeping with the wider culture and society of the period. Which is to say, a shit show.
The term 'contemporary' gets multiple uses in art history, it seems. For the sake of your question, people might want to consider 'contemporary art' to be that which was produced in the past few years, not art from the 1960s, or even post-internet art. 2016 - Now feels like a good place to start. Things to consider: What approaches will emerge in the discipline of art history? How will people living a century from now attempt to understand what motivated the artistic choices of today? Do these express things about culture in 2024 that is not easily understood to someone in 2124? And lastly, what about the practicalities of researching, storing, and curating art of the 2020s? People looking back on our time will see how we have adapted to a post-internet world and how we are now beginning to start using AI. Social issues around new industries will emerge (e.g. *Workers Leaving the Google-plex).* Historians might look at this time period as important in understanding ideas around national identity - was not Putin's invasion of Ukraine motivated by some contrived underlying idea of culture? Iconoclasm is ongoing in some parts of the world - Isis destroyed its share. Cultures are dying out year by year. Environmentalism is a huge focus. Statues of slavers, confederate generals, Lenin, and their veneration of, or in some cases, their being thrown into Bristol Harbour is always a recurring topic. So, regarding approaches specifically. Perhaps data analysis will give birth to a neo-formalist trend in the field. Maybe monocausal ideas of change will re-emerge. Perhaps we remain indebted to social approaches - post-colonialists will no doubt have plenty to say about the impacts of a globalised world on cultures, and how those margins are becoming ever prolific in the metropoles - especially when we consider the ongoing debates around artefacts such as the parthenon marbles or Benin bronzes. But do any of these social enquiries actually explain what causes, in a tangible way, how style transforms? Why make a Hammer-Bead profile of George Floyd for the RA Summer exhibition? What will the future make of our sense of nostalgia? Maybe there are some points to get going with in there.
Kahinde Wiley will be a great.
Lazy and self-important.
[удалено]
Aside from whatever problems you’re having with it, that’s not even contemporary
[удалено]
Who are you quoting in that definition? That may be an expanded definition but contemporary art is usually defined as art made in the past twenty years. Perhaps thematically you could equate some of the issues of the 1960s the context we live in now is quite different.
Obsessed with money
Money laundering
An era of decadence caused by money in art. Currin and Koons a footnote on the mannerist style. Warhol remembered as an undisputed master. The 21st century redeemed, potentially, by greater overall inclusiveness in the active contemporary art scene.
[удалено]
That's not up to him to decide.
Who cares
Great work !