Contemporary art is perhaps not so cryptic as usually believed. The problem is that it doesn't represent things, but concepts: Kounellis "paints" life, Hirst "paints" death, On Kawara "paints" time, Fontana paints empyt space, Yves Klein "paints" soul. Paolucci correctly popints out that Michelangelo already painted concepts, 
not images; David is freedom, it doesn't represents freedom. Michelangelo had nonethless should limit his expression to relatively realistic representations; only in the first half of XXth century begun a long research that extended largely tools and practices of art. 
not images; David is freedom, it doesn't represents freedom. Michelangelo had nonethless should limit his expression to relatively realistic representations; only in the first half of XXth century begun a long research that extended largely tools and practices of art.
The shift to concepts means that contemporary art has a muche lurger scope and subject than ancient arts; ancient artists represented saints, people, horses, landscapes; contemporary artists cana represent everything. Nonetheless, "commercial" art, for instance advertising, is still heavily concerned with aesthetics, and this represents a strong limitation; and I don't know if in tese first years of XXIth century a come back to (highly sophisticated) aesthetics has not happened.
