Ever heard someone saying that making contemporary art is easy? Maybe you've found yourself in front of a completely white canvas or a “nonsensical” sculpture while someone nearby shrugs and mutters: “I could’ve done that, too!” It’s a familiar refrain, think of Aldo, Giovanni, and Giacomo’s italian adagio “Il mio falegname con 30.000 lire lo faceva meglio.” Contemporary art that seems “too simple” to be real art. And if you think this bias is exclusive to the world of art, you’re mistaken. The same dismissiveness shows up in our world too, the world of words, where the myth of “everyone can write” thrives in all its disarming simplicity.
That’s why we decided to explore what happens when the concept becomes the true protagonist, whether we’re talking about a painting or a message crafted to resonate with the right audience. To do it, we sat down with Angela Vettese. Art critic, historian, and university professor, Vettese is one of the most influential voices in the contemporary art scene. Author of seminal texts like Contemporary Art: Between Market and New Languages, she’s known for her ability to navigate and interpret the shifting landscape of art and its cultural and social echoes. And if you still think creating a piece of art (or writing a piece of copy) is just about tools and technique, get comfortable: our journey into the heart of creative thought is about to begin.
REMIDA meets ANGELA VETTESE
R: Let’s talk about contemporary art. As you write in your book, it can be great (or mediocre) not because of how it’s made, but because of the concept behind it. What are the main resistances you encounter to this idea?
A: The difficulty lies in showing people that the intellectual side of art isn’t a recent invention, it’s always been there. Sketches, drafts, writings, they’ve always been part of the process, even in ancient art. Without that dimension, a work becomes mere decoration. That’s the real message: it’s not the medium that matters, it’s the idea. Today, an artwork needs to engage in dialogue with other works and, at the same time, push thought beyond what's already said. And that holds true in every creative field, not just visual art.
R: Judging contemporary art can be challenging. Is “understanding” more important than aesthetic judgment? Does a shared standard still exist?
A: Standards still exist, but they’re many and fragmented. It’s like getting into a technical field, you need skill and experience. Really understanding art takes a certain familiarity with its language. Figurative art might seem more “graspable” at first glance, but that doesn’t mean it’s inherently easier. And have we ever really had a single universal standard? At best, we had a Western canon, which itself coexisted with other cultural canons we’re only now starting to truly acknowledge. Art reflects society and its contradictions. It can’t and shouldn’t be forced into a single mold.
R: And what if we bring artificial intelligence into the artistic process? How do you think it will affect the art world?
A: Art has always absorbed whatever tools were available, from painted vases to Duchamp’s ready-mades, from oil on canvas to ephemeral performances. AI won’t be any different: it will open new paths and become just another tool. Art is a constant space of experimentation, new technologies have never been threats. They’re chances to rethink how we create and communicate.
R: Speaking of tools and languages: what do you think is the most effective artistic language today?
A: There isn’t just one. Every artist is free to choose, from high-tech to organic. What matters is that the work is coherent and has something meaningful to say. Twentieth-century art taught us to move beyond technical boundaries and pick the medium that best conveys the message. So if there’s an effective language, it’s one that’s clear, bold, and knows what it wants to say. Whether it’s a high-tech installation or a growing plant, art should provoke, unsettle, and yes, maybe even make us smile.
R: You live and work in Venice, a uniquely artistic and urban environment. How do you think museums should evolve to stay relevant?
A: Museums have gone through a real architectural and conceptual revolution. The Centre Pompidou in Paris changed everything, and so did Tate Modern in London. Museums today need to adapt to the flexibility of contemporary art. They’re no longer just containers, they’re spaces of experience, dialogue, and exchange. Art is alive, in motion, and museums must keep up. The museum of the future will be less a dusty showcase and more a creative platform, connecting people, spaces, and ideas.
R: You quote Ernst Gombrich: “There’s no such thing as Art, only artists.” So what is an artist?
A: An artist is a thinker who turns thoughts into images rather than words. There’s no single formula, they can be brooding or quick, serene or restless. What matters is coherence and the ability to tap into relevant themes. Art should speak to the present and show us the world in a new light. An artist is someone who feels the need to express what hasn’t yet been said, to reveal what usually escapes us.
R: A reading tip for our readers?
A: Follow the most innovative museum exhibitions and read their catalogues. Artforum is excellent, though very American. October is more academic. In Italian, I recommend Mousse, Exibart, and Artribune. And subscribe to e-flux, a great resource to keep up with what’s happening in the contemporary art world. So next time you find yourself standing in front of a blank canvas or a minimalist installation, stop and ask yourself: what is it really trying to tell me? That simplicity might be hiding a complex world, full of ideas bouncing between history, the market, and society.
And the same goes for words: behind every well-crafted sentence, there’s a thought, a world that lies just beneath the surface. If you think it’s time to give that thought a voice, write to us at supernova@remidastudio.com.
