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 october or dhu al qidah or heshavan 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 th century i think it is possible to find many other reasons for striking out such a definition of contemporary art as this lexicalisation implies