The enduring dislike of contemporary art

It is hard for an average person to connect with contemporary art. I had convinced myself in a theory of an “inside joke” among artists: not that they create ridiculous imagery, but they challenge themselves and each other to explore the boundaries of certain artistic dimensions. Consequently, for those who are far removed from such boundaries, the works remain indistinct. And it follows that contemporary art should not be commonplace for common people, but should be provided, in free but separate format, for artists themselves.

Yet this theory overlooks the challenges of humanity. Although post-impressionism and all subsequent avant-garde movements followed impressionism, which itself pushed beyond academism and others in natural succession, there was a certain theme in many powerful avant-garde art that emerged through 20th century, highly connected to the pain and savagery of their era. Their own empathy assigned a certain responsibility to artists, in depicting not a utopia, but the dismembered human beings, distorted collective psyche, and all that’s lost or destroyed. This angle is valuable enough to recognize not only for critics of contemporary art, but also the artists who, in pursuing originality, might benefit from understanding why their predecessors first shattered conventional forms.