Christopher Earley

Contemporary art is a global success story. It is regularly lauded for its formal experimentation, its diversity, and its interrogation of pressing issues. However, it is also a category of art that creates deep confusion, seemingly floating free of any attempts to clarify its historical determination, conceptual definition, or criteria for critical judgement. The aim of this thesis is to move against this confusion by attempting to answer a central question: what makes art contemporary? In response, I develop three main lines of argument. I begin by arguing that contemporary art has two key features. First, it is made in contexts of absolute heterogeneity, in which artists are free to use any material, art form, genre, or style they please. Second, it attempts to engage with the crises of contemporaneity. This thesis focuses on understanding the second feature which has not been subject to extended philosophical reflection. Next, I argue that one of the main ways contemporary art attempts to grapple with contemporaneity is by getting its audience to improve their cognitive standing on crises. I argue that contemporary art aims not just to provide its audiences with knowledge, but also to make them active co-producers of understanding. In doing so, contemporary artists attempt to help their audiences become participants in shaping the present. Finally, I explore the ways in which the preceding arguments can help us to understand what it means to appreciate an artwork as contemporary art. I endorse a functionalist approach to artistic value. But I also argue that realising the artistic value of contemporary art is often a risky endeavour. I claim that, when dealing with experimental and challenging art, we have to be closely attentive to the way artists exempt themselves from various norms and the impact this has on the activity of audiences and mediators.

Activist artists often face a difficult question: is striving to change the world undermined when pursued through difficult and experimental artistic means? Looking closely at Adrian Piper's 'Four Intruders plus Alarm Systems' (1980), I will consider why this is an important concern for activist art, and assess three different responses in relation to Piper’s work. What I call the conciliatory stance recommends that when activist artists encounter misunderstanding, they should downplay their experimental artistry in favor of fitting their work to their audience's appreciative capacities. What I call the steadfast stance recommends that activist artists have reason to use their privilege of artistic exceptionalism to challenge their audience's expectations, even if this leads to misunderstanding. I claim that a middle position that I call liberal conciliation best balances the demands for actual change placed on activism and the experimental means that artists bring to activism.