Since he just died in 2007, I was just wondering if he could still be considered one.
I think of the word contemporary as a constantly moving target, so to speak. Because contemporary means now.
If I was asking someone which contemporary artist was relevant to them, I would want them to talk about their own contemporaries, the artists who share this time and make art currently.
On the other hand, if we are studying the history of contemporary art, how far back do we go? Art since the end of World War II is often taught as contemporary art. So, looking at it that way, Kitaj might be considered quite contemporary. Also, having studied with David Hockney, who is still living, Kitaj is/was the contemporary of a living artist.
If you qualify your interest in Kitaj as a contemporary artist, i think you could make a case for that.
February 25th, 2010 at 9:19 am
I suppose you could call his work contempory.
"WebMuseum: Kitaj, Ron B.Kitaj, Ron B. (1932- ). American painter and graphic artist, active mainly in England, where he has been one of the most prominent figures of the Pop art …"
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/kitaj/
References :
February 25th, 2010 at 9:53 am
probably, still crap though
References :
February 25th, 2010 at 10:39 am
I think of the word contemporary as a constantly moving target, so to speak. Because contemporary means now.
If I was asking someone which contemporary artist was relevant to them, I would want them to talk about their own contemporaries, the artists who share this time and make art currently.
On the other hand, if we are studying the history of contemporary art, how far back do we go? Art since the end of World War II is often taught as contemporary art. So, looking at it that way, Kitaj might be considered quite contemporary. Also, having studied with David Hockney, who is still living, Kitaj is/was the contemporary of a living artist.
If you qualify your interest in Kitaj as a contemporary artist, i think you could make a case for that.
References :