A lot of contemporary art today operates on a What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) basis. The artwork, no matter how abstract, uncanny, or seemingly nonsensical, is often presented without explanation from the artist. The viewer is left with an image, an object, or an installation that resists interpretation beyond its immediate presence. There is no hidden meaning to unravel, no profound philosophical message—just the thing itself.

The Origin of WYSIWYG: From Computing to Art

The phrase What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) originated in computer science, specifically in the development of text editors and graphic design software. In the early days of computing, what users saw on their screens was often very different from how the final printed or published version appeared. For instance, in early word processors, text formatting wouldn’t be reflected on the screen—it would only appear correctly when printed.

WYSIWYG systems revolutionized word processing (e.g., Microsoft Word), web design (e.g., early website builders), and desktop publishing (e.g., Adobe InDesign) by ensuring that what users saw while editing was a direct representation of the final output. This eliminated abstraction and made digital content creation more intuitive and accessible.

When applied to contemporary art, WYSIWYG takes on a metaphorical meaning: the artwork does not suggest a deeper layer of meaning beyond what is immediately visible. Just as a WYSIWYG editor removes hidden complexities, certain works of contemporary art remove the expectation of conceptual depth.

WYSIWYG Art: A Surface Without Depth?

Consider, for example, Maurizio Cattelan’s Comedian, a banana duct-taped to a wall. The work, priced at $120,000, created a stir not because of any deep message but precisely because of its apparent absurdity. It was what it was: a banana on a wall. While it was presented as conceptual art, it lacked an inherent concept elaborated by the artist himself. "Conceptual art is art for which the idea (or concept) behind the work is more important than the finished art object" explains the Tate Galerie. Here, however, the significance was not intrinsic but externally constructed—shaped by influential figures in the art world, such as Emmanuel Perrotin, who attached layers of meaning to justify its place in the market and institutions. Rather than the artwork speaking for itself, it was the art world’s endorsement that conferred its status, revealing how contemporary art often operates on a system of validation rather than inherent artistic substance.

Another example is Jeff Koons’ balloon sculptures, which are technically impressive but conceptually straightforward—polished, oversized versions of balloon animals. They reflect a culture of mass production and consumerism, yet the art remains on the surface, offering little beyond what meets the eye.

This phenomenon can also be observed in the tendency toward untitled artworks. The practice, popularized by artists like Wassily Kandinsky, was originally intended to allow viewers to engage freely with the piece, without a title dictating its meaning. However, in much of contemporary art, this lack of a title or explicit meaning often leads to an absence of engagement rather than an invitation to interpret.

If there is no subject, and the object conveys no message or aesthetic emotion, what is the purpose of this branch of contemporary art? It’s important to clarify that this critique does not apply to all contemporary art—many artists today create deeply meaningful, thought-provoking work. But in some cases, the lack of narrative, intention, or emotional depth raises the question: Is this an absence of artistic substance? And if so, can it still be considered art?

The Power of Institutions: Art by Validation

Museums, galleries, and art institutions play a crucial role in determining what is recognized as art. The mere fact that an object is exhibited in a prestigious gallery or museum can grant it artistic status. This creates a process of artificial elitization: the institution tells the audience this is art, and the audience, even if they do not understand or feel anything from the work, assumes it must be valuable because of where it is displayed.

As a spectator, encountering an incomprehensible work of art in a renowned institution can be alienating. The assumption is that the meaning exists, but it is beyond the viewer’s intellectual reach. This creates a kind of inferiority complex in the audience—leading them to validate the artwork not because they connect with it, but because they believe they are supposed to. The more this cycle repeats, the more a gap forms between art and the viewer. The artwork does not communicate, but the audience is conditioned to believe it speaks to a level of erudition they cannot access.

This is what I mean by What You See Is What You Get art. It does not attempt to engage beyond its surface, but institutions, critics, and the art market construct a value around it that may not exist in the work itself.

WYSIWYG Art as a Reflection of Contemporary Culture

This approach to art mirrors the way digital technology has shaped modern perception. In an age dominated by instant content consumption—social media, quick visual gratification, and hyper-simplified communication—WYSIWYG art aligns with the idea that there is nothing to “decode” beyond the immediate visual experience.

However, this raises a critical question: does this accessibility democratize art, making it more immediate and inclusive, or does it diminish the depth and intellectual engagement that art has historically offered?

Conclusion: The Double-Edged Sword of WYSIWYG Art

In computing, WYSIWYG made content creation more accessible but also removed some of the flexibility and depth that traditional coding offered. Similarly, in contemporary art, WYSIWYG-style works are immediate and direct but may sacrifice the layers of meaning that make art an intellectually enriching experience.

This leads to a paradox: is art still meaningful if it asks nothing of its viewer? Or does WYSIWYG art redefine meaning itself—suggesting that art doesn’t need to communicate beyond its surface to be valid?

By framing contemporary art through the lens of WYSIWYG, we can better understand how technological thinking has influenced artistic creation, perception, and validation in today’s world.