Artists aren’t revered with celebrity status the way they once were.

I made a visit to the MoMA’s Abstract Expressionism exhibit this past weekend, and saw pieces by some of my favorite artists—Rothko, Pollock, de Kooning, Kline—and came to the conclusion that there’s no present-day club of famed artists the way there was in the 1950s.

Just thinking off the top of my head, there are only a few contemporary artists (that I know of) who have achieved worldwide celebrity status with name recognition. Damien Hirst and Paul Morrison are prime examples, but the list is short.

This most likely has a lot to do with the short attention span of our generation: we’re concerned with finding the next thing. This is why newer bands rarely have successful second albums, and why we’re seldom impressed when friends introduce us to TV shows or movies that we haven’t discovered for ourselves.

It then goes without saying that the most extreme and original artists are the ones who will draw public appeal. Hirst chose to put cut-up sharks in formaldehyde tanks, and later made his fame more lasting when he helped design Lady Gaga’s grand piano (an act that’ll give anyone their “15 minutes”).

In looking back at the godfathers of abstract art, the path to fame was similarly traveled. Pollock received attention through his drippy, speckled mess of a technique, and Rothko’s simple rectangle design worked against traditional subject matter found in the classics. To receive national attention then, one would argue, you need to be creatively reckless. Or more simply, have cajones.

There’s something else about our godfathers that made their fame more prominent: they were willing to work together.

The MoMA’s exhibit gives interesting detail as to how the abstract artists would regularly meet and discuss humanities topics, anything ranging from geometry and mathematics in painting, to the origins of man and evolution. There was a sense of community where artists were willing to work and learn from each other.

This undoubtedly had an impact on their recognition. If you happen to like art by Barnett Newman or Robert Motherwell, chances are you’ll also be inclined toward Rothko. This is no coincidence. This is not to say that Newman and Rotho are similar (I’m sure Rothko would vehemently object to any artist comparison) but rather to note the importance of sharing ideas and concepts that was more common for their time.

With the artists aside, the medium of contemporary art has also evolved. From my experience, I feel it’s more common to meet a photographer or digitally-empowered artist, than it is to meet a painter. Friends of mine enrolled in art schools create abstract art through digital alterations, relying more on technology than their own creative means. Marshall McLuhan would nod approvingly.

More importantly, now that everyone has access to a computer and camera, everyone has the option of being an artist. More and more people are increasingly starting their own blogs and uploading their own material, neglecting the need for experience or studies.

In this aspect, everyone is an artist, and their own celebrity.

We aren’t relying on the few greats to set the pace for art and contemporary excellence, instead we’re taking the reins into our own hands and letting our peers in the online world be the judge.

Our time to dote on celebrity painters like Warhol or Pollock may have ended, but with a new generation, a new medium to create art, and a new attitude, the future and appreciation of artists will be seen in a different light.

To contact the Ionian’s Joseph Bland e-mail him at [email protected]