=The Signature of the Atomic Bomb
There are good reasons to claim that the catastrophical event of the atomic bombing of Japan, marks the shift to what we here term contemporary in regard of art as defined in the contents page per 27 October 2010, or 19 Dhu al-Qidah 1431, or 19 Heshavan 5771. Butoh may thus be regarded as the epitome of contemporary art. Except from this, it is a problematic definition for a number of reasons. First. Art by artists working both before the World War II, during and after, can not necessarily be defined as more, or less, contemporary because of this timestamp. Contemporary art did explicitly exist also before World War II, as this label - contemporary - has been expressed as a mark of quality, pertaining especially to modernism, by art carrying an ideal summoning, from the artist or his genius, making some kind of composed expression of what, in such case, are to be evaluated or considered the spirit of the time, reflecting or in dialogue with the contemporary world, in the event of the art-making process including its publication or presentation. Another trickster is, for me, that the concept of contemporaneousness also must be regarded in relation to art that specifically deals with contemporarity as it moved through time. It is absurd as a Norwegian to not consider Henrik Ibsen a maker of contemporary art. His plays are distinguished by being contemporary plays and historic plays. I sincerly believe that Henrik Ibsen was intending to make drama that also were to be transformed, or may I say be transported by the unfolding of time. The retrospective style of his contemporary plays is at least a strong indication for that his plays not necessarily should stay in the conformity of the 19th century. I think it is possible to find many other reasons for striking out such a definition of contemporary art as this lexicalisation implies.