Why Everything You Thought You Think About Contemporary Art Is Wrong - Page 69

C2 Proficiency · Multiple Matching · Ready for C2 Proficiency Workbook, Macmillan

You are going to read an article about misconceptions about contemporary art. For questions 1–10, choose from the sections (A-E). The sections may be chosen more than once.

MYTH: The idea of being 'contemporary' is new

First, the screamingly obvious: all art (if it is any good) has at some point been 'contemporary', had a moment where it was fresh and new and yes, occasionally, shocking. From the early impressionists to Picasso's Cubism, the history of more modern art is littered with innovations and provocations. It may seem crass, opportunistic or just plain ugly, but at its best, it's what the artist is doing to move the medium forward. To be clear, the idea that art is just the production and reproduction of images died a long, long time ago. Besides, we have Instagram for that. One of the classic confusions these days is when you go into a gallery and are confronted by a dizzying smorgasbord of photographs, paintings, sculptures, installation and video. The progress of technology has meant that artists are able to work in different media; the natural curiosity of the artist means they often want to. As for whether they're any good, who knows? That is entirely subjective.

MYTH: You're meant to be impressed by everything

One of the worst things someone can say at an art gallery is, 'My child could do that!' That's not because it's insulting to the artist. It's because you've missed a trick. Get your child to do it, then! It would at the very least pay for their future astronomical student fees. If you will persist in viewing the art world as a joke, just be sure that it isn't at your expense. It's okay to dislike some contemporary art. You're not meant to like everything, or indeed 'get' it. Because that is the big fear: 'Do I get it?' This is, however, looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Sometimes, with art, there isn't much to get – it's just whether it touches you at a more instinctive, gut level. Other times, there is so much to get, so many potential readings, that you couldn't possibly get all of them anyway. Chances are, the artist hasn't either. Failure is a prerequisite, and must be forgiven. Not every work that is created and shown is a Raphael. Not every idea that seemed dazzling in the studio comes across as particularly deft in a museum. Remember: no artist sets out to be minor. Yet the sieving process of history will deem that most of them are.

MYTH: All the beautiful pictures have gone

Contemporary art is all piles of bricks and clouds of wasps and practical jokes, and no one likes a nice pretty picture any more, right? Wrong. The monsters of contemporary art have always given us stunning images, from the mysterious blurry paintings of Gerhard Richter to the multiple Marilyns of Andy Warhol. They may be playing with beauty, making it strange or unsettling, but it's beauty of a sort all the same. What's more, right now, figurative painting is back in fashion, summoning huge sums at auction houses and getting critical recognition too. The Whitechapel Gallery's current show, Radical Figures, is celebrating ten contemporary artists who – shock, horror! – are using paint to portray human beings.

MYTH: Artists want to thumb their noses at Western tradition

Okay, so you think that Western art is declining and decadent because the West is decadent and in decline. Fine. But note that contemporary art has very much opened itself up to other continents; these days, no self-respecting museum isn't scrambling to host work from Africa, Asia or South America. You could call it tokenism, you could call it vampirism, but you could also call it common sense. Fervid interest in the likes of the Nigerian Njideka Akunyili Crosby, or the Argentine-Swiss Vivian Suter (both contributors to London's Art on the Underground scheme) remind us that the art world isn't necessarily a closed circle; it is much, much larger than you think.

MYTH: Artworks are just playthings for the ultra-rich

Art has always been a yardstick of power. It was like this when the Medici were covering Florence with their self-aggrandising commissions, and it's like this now when a billionaire funds a brand new wing at Tate Modern and gets their name plastered on it. To grumble about the relations between art and money is really to try to close to the stable door once the horse has bolted. Everyone kvetches about how much modern art costs, but this is more to do with our grim fascination with money rather than any specific interest in the works. If a billionaire chooses to spend millions on a pile of bricks and rubber, at least they are supporting an artist and a gallery, indeed a whole ecosystem in which other, smaller artists can thrive. The general public, meanwhile, isn't asked to spend millions to enjoy the same stuff, thankfully.

a suggestion that the majority of artists will fail to make a lasting impression

the inherent impossibility of determining the definitive quality of artworks

an admission that it is too late to end a controversial connection

a reassurance that emotional responses are more valid than interpretation

a hint that the quality of art can be judged by its originality

an outdated assumption that art is essentially about still pictures

a rebuttal of a claim about a decline in the aesthetic value of art

the indirect benefits of an apparently ridiculous decision

an arrogant assertion that is likely to reflect badly on the critic

a rejection of criticisms of displaying work by a more diverse range of creators

Available as a free printable PDF worksheet with an optional answer key.

More C2 Proficiency Multiple Matching practice · All C2 Proficiency practice