THE DEATH OF CONTEMPORARY ART
Ron DeLegge - 1998




Introduction

am not a writer, no am I aspiring to be one. I have written this essay out of necessity, because of the numerous changes affecting contemporary art(1). Contemporary art as I see it, is terminally ill and well beyond recovery. Since its inception, it has progressively sunk into a lacklustre mode of operation, which has paralyzed its progress. Rather than summarizing the tumultuous events that have overtaken contemporary art, I will point them out and comment on them. Some of these key points are already taking place. The points that have not taken place yet, will soon commence. Together, these events will heavily contribute to the overall demise of contemporary art.




The contemporary art world is filled with a bunch of snobbish elitists and is no different from other fields of study.

The art world(2) is always the first to complain about how it wants to be treated differently. The reason this will never happen is because it doesn’t act differently. It has been infiltrated with pious pseudo-intellectual elitists posing as “humanitarians” with a save-the-world through art kind of mentality. This type of elitist snobbery thrives on other levels in various communities such as the movie industry, the musical arts, the political arena, the business world and most country clubs throughout America. The only difference from snobbery in art versus snobbery in these other fields, is that the art world earns less money and complains about it.

People, particularly Americans, have become completely alienated to contemporary art and its “scene”. In more dramatic situations, like what happened a few years ago at a Robert Mapplethorpe exhibition in Ohio, the public openly expressed its disgruntled feelings toward the art world. Can you blame them? How can the average blue-collar worker possibly relate to institutions like Mary Boone or Larry Gagosian (galleries in New York) for example, that show contemporary art and perpetrate its elitist agenda? These places are not viewer friendly. On the initial visit the general public most likely isn’t familiar with the artist being shown. Also, the general public may not know that a “hip scene” of high glamour art exists. In turn, people are made to feel stupid or ignorant for not understanding a post-minimal work, or some other contemporary work after having left the gallery. With this kind of snobbery in most galleries and even museums, is it any wonder why the public doesn’t care about NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) cutbacks?, or about another gallery closing its doors?, or about how lousy the art market is fairing? Isn’t it plain to see why the public doesn’t care to learn about contemporary art? Then, why would they remotely be interested in collecting or better yet, preserving the work of a bunch of pontifical semi-czars that think so much of themselves? If they happen to work in the corporate world, the general public typically deals with individuals of the same snooty character mode Monday through Friday 9am – 5pm at work. Perhaps they don’t want to go to the museum or a weekend gallery opening for fear they may come across the same kind of elitist snob that they work under. The public’s point of view is valid. What is the difference of snobbery in art versus snobbery in musical arts?, or snobbery in the political world?, or snobbery in the movie industry?, or snobbery in anything? To the public there is no difference, and they are entirely correct. Snobbery is snobbery, and even for the sake of art it is unacceptable behaviour.




The contemporary art world is as political as any other industry and has become too regionalized.

In the art world there are several things to do in order to speed up your “success”. One thing is to patronize rich art collectors. Another thing to do, is move to New York or Los Angeles. Though for me, New York has never been new – it has just been York or Yuck, take your pick. As for Los Angeles, it seems to be a city perennially groping for its identity. As if this wasn’t enough to confuse a young artist, there’s one more thing to do, become politically wired with the “big wigs” that run the art world.

If you are one who lacks political clout you better do the first two items mentioned, or you’ll have to wait until death to sell. In any field including contemporary art, if a person isn’t in some way “connected,” failure is gladly awaiting. In this way, contemporary art is not any different from the rest as it always tries to be, but is the same.

Another item of concern is the fact that contemporary art has become a East coast versus West coast phenomenon. In this way contemporary art in the United States is no longer contemporary, but regional. True contemporary art is not from New York or Los Angeles, but is universal and supersedes all national and cultural barriers regardless of where it was produced. However, contemporary art produced in the United States lacks international appeal. Why? Because it lacks international concerns. Art dealers have been the primary culprits of this narrow mentality. Blinded art collectors have been mislead and misinformed about the status of contemporary art coming out of cities other than New York or Los Angeles. Contemporary art in the United States is not about where the art is going, but about where the art came from. Once individuals know the art is either from New York or Los Angeles, it becomes more readily validated.

In the long run, the general public doesn’t care where contemporary art comes from. Interestingly though, it still makes a difference and it affects the daily decisions of most art dealers, collectors, curators and critics. It’s a strange wonder that this confining mode of operation hasn’t caught up with contemporary art sooner – but those with a minimum of insight see it already coming.




The contemporary art world has no real answers and lacks meaning for most people.

The general public won’t turn to contemporary art anytime soon for solutions to their problems. Would you turn to an entity that is inhabited with pompous oafs who alienate you with their uncalled for behaviour and then dismiss your alienation as ignorance on your part? Would you look for answers from a system that benefits only a very select few? Would you be interested in learning more about a field that constantly whines about its lack of attention? Would it make you happy to spend your valuable free time with individuals that make you feel like an outsider?

Looking at contemporary art won’t solve the average person’s problems. It won’t pay the bills or feed the kids – so why even bother? I’m not saying that the general public’s viewpoint when it comes to contemporary art is entirely correct. But think about it for a moment. To the general public, there is nothing that contemporary art has to offer that will benefit them. When they enter a museum or gallery and see things they don’t understand, a two-fold problem unveils itself. First, the viewer becomes close minded. Second, they unfortunately probe no further than their initial reaction because they can’t relate, and therefore, the art becomes useless because it lacks meaning for them. The public needs to change its perception of contemporary art. (Indications are that this won’t happen anytime soon.) But, unless contemporary art can get off its podium and start relating to average people and benefit them somehow, it will continue to go unnoticed.




The art world has misbehaved and therefore merits no special treatment.

I use the word misbehaved because it reminds us of how children have the tendency to act when things aren’t going their way. In many instances, the art world has adopted juvenile mannerisms. An example, the public is accused of being too narrow minded when it comes to contemporary art. Yet for no explicable reason, the art world still cries to them like a baby to its mother for support. Would you support an entity that hurls accusations at you? The fact is that the art world has not done anything special or profoundly important to deserve noble treatment. It lies, it steals, it complains, it accuses, it fights, it eats, it sleeps and it can die just like every other institution known to mankind. Has the art world made people smarter? Has it lengthened the lives of people? Has it made them more peaceful and brought them closer to their fellow man or to their families? Has it made people change their lifestyle to a better one? Has the art world made people less materialistic and more personable? If it has done any of these things, it has been on a very limited scale and most certainly not well enough to avoid obscurity. Therefore, the art world and contemporary art deserves no special honor or privileges. For this community to expect special treatment from anyone (the general public or the government included), is at best, ignorance magnified.




The contemporary art world should quit complaining about its lack of support from the general public.

The whole process of contemporary art is one of complaining. Collectors moan about high prices if buying or deflated prices if selling. Art dealers moan about lack of sales. Artists moan about lousy dealers or about bad reviews. Critics moan about terrible shows. Curators moan about the difficulty of putting up quality shows that will have meaning for the public, without going over the allotted budget. Museums moan about lack of revenue and public indifference. So what’s the general public’s reaction to all of this complaining? When thinking about viewing contemporary art, is their immediate feeling one of unceasing enthusiasm or jubilant joy? Not likely. Since everyone else is complaining, they have a right to complain too. Well, except their complaint isn’t about lack of sales or about bad reviews or even a lagging art market. Their complaint is about the lack of meaning that contemporary art has for them and their lives.

So, then why does the art world expect people to hail it as something wonderful? It cries about how no one pays attention to it, it cries about how it hasn’t been treated fairly, it cries about its lack of support from the private sector and cries about its lack of support from the public sector. It cries and cries and cries. Interestingly, not much different from the cries echoed by most convicted killers on death row completely convinced of their entire innocence. Would you go to personally see or listen to an entity that was constantly complaining? Then why should the public make a “prison visit” out of going to see contemporary art? Why should they have to support an institution that accuses them of indifference? They no longer care to listen what contemporary art has to say because the majority of what it is saying, has already been said.




Contemporary art is on course for complete oblivion, which will lead to its eventual and soon pending extinction.

The problem with most things that become extinct is we didn’t realize that it was happening before it was too late. Even if we did realize it though, our reaction would likely be one of denial or complete disbelief, as opposed to taking the necessary precautions to prevent an atrocity from occurring. Is it any wonder then, why contemporary art enthusiasts would scoff at my assertion that contemporary art will become extinct? Their preference is the road of denial. They’d rather not accept that their art form is dying, and especially have it revealed to them by complete strangers. But the art world’s dismissal that contemporary art is dying and will soon be laid to rest, won’t change the facts.

All trends seem to indicate that contemporary art is not growing, but on the contrary, shrinking. Insightful individuals realize that shrinkage in any business spells danger. To the general public, contemporary art has already become oblivious and it will continue into further oblivion. The general public simply does not care about contemporary art. But then again, does contemporary art care about the general public? In both cases the answer is no. The only difference is that the general public always wins. It’s true in government, it’s true in business and it’s true with contemporary art. The art world simply cannot match the public in numbers, power and money. On a certain level, contemporary art is controlled and directed by its clergy class, which is composed of a few very powerful individuals that have clout and money. Since they have no interest in contemporary art in the first place, why should they care about seeing it, regardless of how large or exclusive a certain collection appears to be? If the public’s interest is not in contemporary art, why should they have to build or support public facilities with their own tax money for it? If it’s a contest between mall shopping and going to see an exhibit, I think all of us know which one wins. Contemporary art is in deep trouble, and it is coming to a culmination. If there is any one major problem leading to its eventual demise, lack of interest could very well put the nail in the coffin.




Contemporary art is ending.

Contemporary art has many problems, as the foregoing has clearly shown. For example, it is a plethora of contradiction – saying one thing and doing another. In the United States, it has become too regionalized. The art is about where it came from, New York or Los Angeles, and not about where it’s going. Nor does it have universal concerns. In this way, it is no longer contemporary, but regional art. This is no different from other fields of study. Contemporary art needs to be sufficiently different from other fields if it is to succeed, but sadly it is not.

Another major problem with contemporary art is the elitist crowd that it has attracted, courted and fornicated with. The art world has become like a prostitute. It sleeps with whoever will benefit it at that particular moment and then with no advance notice, it jumps into bed with someone entirely different and new. In real life, prostitutes are among the highest at risk group for contracting the AIDS virus. It is my opinion, that the art world has contracted the AIDS virus in a figurative sense. It has slept with so many different beasts, that it can no longer keep track. For me, it has never been too difficult to realize that prostitution plus contemporary art is a bad combination. In any field, prostitution is not good and in most cases, spells disaster. What makes contemporary art and its avid supporters think it can avoid this fate? It is them who have slept with the art world and that are more interested in themselves and their own agenda, let alone the general public or even contemporary art itself. The general public, whom the art was supposed to be made for in the first place, can’t even remember the names of the ones making it. How can a power driven art dealer or art collector possibly hope to make a name that the public will remember? Does anyone really remember or care who sold Kokoschka or who collected Modigliani? The point is, contemporary art has lost its focus on the art and the artists. It’s only about showcasing the monetary wealth of art dealers and art collectors. To illustrate this, two powerful art dealers recently opened up spaces in Los Angeles and they were heralded by many within the local art community. True, they may be known by an “elite” few, but these character types have never been and never will be popular with the general public. Will anyone even remember the names of these galleries in 150 years or so? Probably not. Even if they heard those names spoken today, the public would most surely respond ask “who?” Galleries like this have done such a wonderful job of remaining incognito that even the general public doesn’t know of their existence. It is institutions like these that have made contemporary art a mystery. Gallery openings are closed to the public and for exclusive guests only. Sometimes, openings are so secretive that nobody knows when they are. If you’re not a rich collector, don’t dare ask to see what’s in the back room. It’s this kind of elitist behaviour that turns the public off to contemporary art. The art world has been tainted by its close association with the “elite” crowd. One thing is sure, private country club mentalities will not further the causes of the art world or contemporary art.

From their own perspective, those clearly associated and vested in contemporary art are so high and mighty, that nothing could possibly threaten or overtake their highly prized art form. It’s not an attitude too different from those who built the Titanic, the ship that would never sink. To their dismay, they overlooked the possibilities of failure.

Interestingly, I’m not the only one tired with contemporary art and the lacklustre results it has produced. Many art collectors are also tired of the disappointing results associated with collecting contemporary art, and have decided to dissolve their collections. This is not that surprising, since contemporary art has never really been profitable for the private sector as compared to other forms of investment. This dissolving has created a sort of boom in the auction houses, with many coveted pieces becoming available at relatively affordable prices. For most individuals though, the cost of collecting contemporary art outweighs the profit. In turn, this has meant that only a very select few can engage in this high calibre hobby. This translates into fewer collectors, which means fewer collections, which means fewer works produced by fewer artists that show in fewer galleries and fewer museums. This has resulted in a diminishing audience appeal for contemporary art.




Conclusion

In conclusion, contemporary art has self destructed. It has chosen to drive the road of death and none of us can change its course. The consequences of taking that road are irrevocable and will lead to complete annihilation. This overweight beast has been warned but it refuses to acknowledge. It has become an enemy of itself. Prostitution has become its favourite method of expansion. It is a regime of scandal, gluttony, immortality and is everything it stands for that I am against. It has proven that it knows how to alienate the general public by the way it acts and continues to act. It has shown a consistent pattern of snobbery in addition to constant whining. The general public never cared much for contemporary art and a mass conversion towards it will never happen. It lacks the support it needs to continue to exist. Contemporary art will never be the same again. It will be forced to change, whether it wants to or not. Destruction has happened to world governments that did not change, and it will happen to contemporary art. It is no longer new or fresh. It is no longer contemporary. It must be replaced by something else. Its replacement is imminent and cannot be stopped. Contemporary art will undergo the same kind of death that modern art experienced in the late 1950’s and early 60’s. It is no longer a question of if it will happen, but when it will happen. I’ve never been good at guessing, but my personal prediction is sometime within the next 15 years. What sort of new form will replace contemporary art? Whatever it is, it certainly can’t be much worse.

Stay tuned.

1* When discussing contemporary art, I am making reference particularly to contemporary art within the United States. Perhaps, the same attitudes that affect the art world here, prevail in the international world of contemporary art as well.

2* The use of “art world” in the context of our discussion makes reference only to the contemporary art world of today.