What is contemporary? If someone asks me, I cannot help but ask back: in what terms? Do you want the dictionary definition? Philosophical definition? One knows such question of categorization cannot be answered succinctly (unless the person who answers is too annoyed or without knowledge), since these terms do not always concur with a fixed definition. Though the core to these terms remain in temporality, they mean more than just time; the terms encompass philosophy, style, historical background, ideologies, and much more. As such, critically defining these terms is a complex task.

Contemporary, in art and museum world, therefore encompasses both the sense of being literally present, or pertaining to presentism, and something more. I know it bothers people that this something more cannot clearly be defined. But again, viewing contemporary solely as being present has problems: Are modernism and postmodernism dead then? Is an artist who is stylistically anachronistic but born during the 21st century a contemporary artist? As such, simply denoting contemporary art in terms of presentism generates contradictions and complications. How, then, do we define contemporary? I define contemporary as the harmony between presentism and contextualization through multi-temporalities. Contemporary encompasses both new sensibility, undisturbed by context and past, and previously overlooked sensibility, discovered through re-reading of historical context. That is, contemporary is defined by both multi-temporal, historical context and present, avant-garde spirit toward future.

Attempt at Contemporary

One attempt to define contemporary is Claire Bishop’s attempt to politicize and contextualize the term. In Claire Bishop’s book “Radical Museology,” Bishop defines contemporary in two terms:

1. Presentism – thinking of our current moment as the horizon and destination of our thoughts
2. Dialectical method and a politicized project with a more radical understanding of temporality.

First definition is easy to grasp; this definition pertains to presence itself. However, the definition of dialectical contemporary is in some sense radically different. Bishop further defines this dialectical contemporary as she writes, “What I call a dialectical contemporary seeks to navigate multiple temporalities within a more political horizon. Rather than simply claim that many or all times are present in each historical object, we need to ask why certain temporalities appear in particular works of art at specific historical moments. Furthermore, this analysis is motivated by desires to understand our present condition and how to change it.” Multiple temporalities, politicization, history, and better future are the keys to her argument. She believes that contemporary involves multiple temporalities, in which these temporalities and specific historical moments reinforce the sensibility and the context of specific works; the politicization of works through the lens of multiple temporalities, which motivates us toward better future, is what she believes to be contemporary. To further understand what she means by this, we need to take a closer look at Bishop’s examples of her new notion of contemporary. She praises Van Abbemuseum for its attempt to build historical consciousness of museum itself, Reina Sofia for rethinking education and the medium-specific status of the collection, and MSUM for displaying multiple, overlapping time periods (temporalities) to discover previously overlooked historical context.

Reflecting on Bishop’s definition of dialectical contemporary, I understand the importance of contextualization in more profoundly appreciating the work of art. However, although I agree that contemporary seeks multiple-temporalities, Bishop’s notion of contemporary too strongly emphasizes historical and educational role of contemporary; Bishop downplays the importance of presentism.

Presentism and Avant-garde

Contemporary, residing in presentism, is also the springboard for a new, breakthrough sensibility in future. This sensibility involves both technical novelty and resistance against current political tendency (which in Bishop’s case is neo-liberalism). I understand that re-reading historical context of artworks can be great in understanding previously unseen sensibilities; for instance, Bishop praised Reina Sofia for displaying historically relevant newspapers, magazines, songs, and other mediums next to an artwork, creating an overall. more enlightening context for the work. I am sure this exhibition technique discloses previously unnoticed sensibility; as you unveil context and as it reinforces new meaning to work, the work may appear differently. However, though I agree with Bishop’s idea of politicization and historicization to a certain extent, her definition of contemporary seems to neglect or lacks to prioritize the search for a new, avant-garde sensibility. This particular new sensibility is the sensibility that is both challenging to current political concern (neo-liberalism) and is stylistically novel. Although I think Bishop’s vision can set up challenges to current neo-liberal market driven world of contemporary, I doubt if it can expand on avant-garde spirit. Bishop’s definition does not empower presentism as it prioritizes politicization, and this downplay of presentism in comparison to dialectical contemporary discomfits me. Being present and being without ties to history and politicization clears away the distractions for the emergence of avant-garde sensibilities. Thinking of contemporary within historical context is important and enlightening, but genuine avant-garde spirit, that is central to the progress of art in its search for stylistically ‘new,’ should deserve higher or at least equal priority in defining contemporary.

Contemporary Is…

Therefore, contemporary is about both presentism to achieve avant-garde, new sensibility in future, and dialectical contemporary that understands works through certain context established by multi-temporalities and politicization. This definition encompassses the efforts both to be stylistically new and to understand work more deeply through politicization and contextualization. Though my definition is similar to that of Claire Bishop, I want to define contemporary more in terms of presentism rather than of historicization and politicization. I understand that she has problems with neoliberal tendency of art institutions and thus, her definition of contemporary is in a way reactionary to neo-liberalism. However, this backlash definition cannot propel contemporary forward, toward future. Bishop certainly uses the notion of future in her contemporary dialectics, saying that understanding history prepares us for future. I agree with her that understanding work from multiple temporalities and multiple mediums is fruitful for our future attitude in exploring art. However, contemporary art should not be too subject to analysis and contextualization for its progress in sensibilities. If her definition of contemporary emphasizes reframing and re-reading, I emphasize more of presentism. Focusing on senses of present moment increases the possibility for new sensibilities that transcends historical and political context. Because Bishop’s definition is more reactionary to what she hates, which is neo-liberal forces that increasingly affect contemporary, her definition tends to overlook what is central to the progress of art: genuine, avant-garde pursuit of new sensibilities.

Contemporary is both about presentism and contextualization of work through multiple temporalities. First definition stays conducive to the emergence of new sensibilities, and the second definition enables one to see work’s previously unveiled sensibilities. I agree with Bishop’s approach to define contemporary, but I wish that she does not overlook the power of presentism. The power of rereading and reframing is great, it educates us. But art is more than education. It is about exploration of new sensibilities: new sensibilities in style, retained by an artwork itself and intended by its author (not requiring other contexts from multi-temporalities). Contemporary belongs to both sense and logical understanding, and these two work harmonically toward future sensibility that is both completely new (avant-garde) and re-contextualized (previously overlooked). Contemporary should not divert away from presentism just because present is filled with market-driven epidemic of capitalism; in fact, it is sometimes de-contextualization and focus on present moment that produces new sensibility, completely new and groundbreaking in its style and resistant to neo-liberal market context.