Lindsey Plevyak's Reading Responses

Do you feel that we can define contemporary art, if so what does it mean to you?

I feel that it's possible to define contemporary art, yet in doing so, one must acknowledge the influence that previous art has had on contemporary work. In the article, the author states, "The problem of what's contemporary is rooted, {Foster's respondents say} in everything from art history's being established as an autonomous academic discipline in the mid-19th century to contemporary art's sometimes being considered exempt from that discipline." The important point of this, is that contemporary art may be defined as new and modern but its roots are deep and based off of the influences of artists from the past.

Foster is quoted asking "is this floating-free [present art practice] real or imaginary?" Do you think the freedom of art has turned around the definition of art?

I think art has had the ability to express freedom. Art that was created prior to the 19th Century was based greatly on ideals that had been passed through through out the centuries, and were built upon in new, expressive ways. Most art had some religious ideals or controversial issues of the time, where as work today is somehow slightly more original and is exploring the freedom of being abstract and timeless, in the sense of it having no historic boundaries. I think the freedom of contemporary art, both to create and to explore, has significant impacted the definition of art and has reshaped what is considered art today.