I was watching a documentary about Westminster abbey, but professor Justin Champion suddenly speaks about ‘contemporaries’. I’ve looked up the word because it looks a lot like Dutch, ‘contemporain’, only meaning people who share the same interests in something today, However, in English it seems to have two meanings; people living now and people who lived in the past who shared the same interests in something. I think prof. Justin Champion is referring to people who are still alive and therefore are his contemporaries? Please shed some light on it. The link of the documentary is below. Thanks.
Torsten, ik leg het je misschien beter uit door te zeggen dat het Nederlandse woord ‘contemporain’, hetzelfde is als hedendaags, eigentijds…terwijl ‘contemporary’ in het Engels naar mijn mening twee betekenissen heeft; het kan refereren naar het verleden, maar ook naar het hedendaagse. Kijk maar hoe Oald het woord ‘contemporary’ verklaart: a person who lives or lived at the same time as somebody else, especially somebody who is about the same age
I want to learn so much more about the English language, I already know a lot of things, but as I said, I want to get to know the finer points about this angelic language. Sorry, if get a bit emotional, bit it is really a beautiful language, but it’s certainly not an easy one.
“Contemporaries“ comes from the word for same time.
It refers to people alive at the same time.
“Most of my contemporaries are retired”
“Van Gogh and Gaugin were contemporaries”
The important characteristic is that they share the same period of time, though usually you’re talking about them because they also share some other characteristic.
Contemporary can mean modern. The Contemporary Resort at Disney world looks very modern.
Your contemporaries are those who share the same time period as yours and additionally people you know by reason of having worked together or who have had similar experiences. For example most of my contemporaries were of a generation of young men who were obliged to do 2 years of military service. ‘Contemporary’ as an adjective to describe for example art, design and buildings means they are recent in their creation.
Do you have a timestamp in that video when the term was used? I watched about ten minutes but I don’t have time watch it all right now.
Alan and Arinker already explained it. You might be confused about past vs present because it depends on the context. Considering the subject of the video, it almost certainly means people from the same time period in the past.
The important thing is not the time itself, but the point of view. Contemporary is used to clearly distinguish between people reading about it in a history book vs people who lived during that time with their own culture, lifestyle, views on life, etc.
What do people think of Brexit today? What will the history books say about it a hundred years from now? Can people in the future really put themselves in the shoes of Englishmen of today?
In some contexts it can mean a closer relationship, such as professional colleagues who worked together and discussed the subject. This distinguishes between knowledgeable professionals vs others from the same time period. This is likely what was meant in the video.
Contemporary can mean modern or current.
Contemporary art ( NOT the same as modern art )
Contemporary music ( with several sub genres )
Contemporary history ( this basically means history during the lives of people still alive - for example WW2 history )
@Alan, your explanation takes the reader to higher levels of intricate interpretations of the word!
So, do I correctly infer that we do not mean them to be necessarily belonging to the same generation when we say they are contemporary thinkers?
Am I right if I say that modern art is the art that started from the beginning of the 20th century and lasted until 1960?
Also, contemporary music, is the music we currently hear on the radio? If so, can we still consider, for instance the songs of Abba as contemporary? As you know they split up in 1982, but reunited in 2019 and subsequently released another album on 5th of November this year.
I also looked up contemporary history which refers to events of usually within the lifetime of a historian, although it could also refer - in the European and North American context, to post-1945 or even post-1914 history?
Thanks
I don’t think we necessarily have to belong to the same generation. Let’s say, for example, we both are playwrights. We’re still alive, we do not belong the same generation, but we both are contemporaries. From what I’ve read here on the forum, it does not have to do with age. I mean Ben Jonson (1572-1637) and William Shakespeare (1564-1616) were of the same generation, and in a way so are you and I in the sense that we’re still alive. It seems to me that it sort of slowly moves with time and as long as we are alive and taking an active part in discussions, we are indeed contemporaries. This is my point of view and I think the word contemporary can be interpreted in a much broader way.
No. Art experts consider modern art the period from the late 1800s to mid 1900s. Van Gogh is modern art. Although I think it also has to do with style. I don’t know all the terminology, so I’m not the one to ask.
Yes, I think ABBA (should that be all caps?) would be considered contemporary music. There are a lot of types of contemporary music. I don’t really keep up with all of them. I know I grew up with “classic rock” which means 60s-70s rock music. During that era, the term rock was used very broadly. It meant almost anything that young people listened to. The term rock and roll was much more narrowly used. Or at least I use it more narrowly.
I dislike trying to put everything into nice neat categories. I do it sometimes because it’s the only way to communicate with others. With music, art or movies, I don’t care what category it’s in. I don’t care if “experts” consider a musician or artist good. There is only one thing that matters. Do I like it or not?
Thank you for making it clearer to me, so what would you say from the late 1800’s to the 1950’s or even 1960? And as a historian, I have to say, you’re quite right not to put everything into nice categories, but sometimes you have to, to make things a bit more clear to students, however you also have to explain that when changes in society they take place, not everything changes at once. Let me give you an example; after, what some people call the dark ages, which are ofcourse the medieval times, come modern times, the renaissance, but this does not mean that feudalism disappeared completely in 1500, because if you owned land during the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, you were considered to be very wealthy and sometimes they even gave lands to those who’d helped them. So feudalism gradually withered away. Sometimes students don’t understand that. A society doesn’t change over night. You know what I mean? That’s why I’m happy you say you don’t want categorise everything.
Johannes Vermeer, a Dutch painter during the Golden Age. It’s almost like history’s repeating itself, because during the 16th and 17th centuries a lot of Dutch painters were asked to paint portraits of English monarchs, but of course during that time Belgium was no longer part of the Netherlands, since 1585 when Philip II blocked the harbour of Antwerp. Later we were part of the Netherlands again, but that was also ended in 1830.
I like the NIght Watch by Rembrandt. I once went to Amsterdam and I visited ‘het Rijksmuseum’ and I started watching it and I couldn’t keep my eyes of it. So, beautiful!
So, NN, no cubism and Picasso for you then
I actually prefer Picasso and cubism to Van Gogh - barely.
As far as cubism, I don’t care for it as art, but it still has an appeal to me. I’m a square kind of guy. I enjoyed drafting from a young age. I can’t draw freehand worth a crap, but I can do OK with straight edges, T-squares, triangles and compasses. I had gone though my dad’s engineering graphics book by 10-11 years old. But take the instruments away from me and I’m utterly worthless at drawing.
I don’t know much about art. It’s not something I can talk about intelligently. But when I see something, I know if I like it or not. Or if I don’t like it, I can still appreciate the talent (sometimes).
Back to straight lines and angles. I like stuff like M.C. Escher. Not as art, but for the geometry of it.
As for Holland/Netherlands. I learned in elementary school the country of Holland (probably from a historical perspective). Then later it was Netherlands, which I always thought of as the modern country. But when the Internet came around, it seems like everyone from there says they are from Holland. I assume it’s the most populated region. But people saying they are from Holland tells me that they relate to Holland more than they relate to Netherlands.
Anyway, I need to get to bed before it gets light.
Hi Lawrence,
I did not intend to be hifalutin! I was merely trying to distinguish between the noun and the adjective. ‘Contemporary thinkers’ for me can be either philosophers of the same era in any historical sense or those thinkers of today. I hope I have understood your question.
