Amidst the meanders of contemporary art, the response to trauma seems to diverge in two opposing directions. On the one hand, we are inclined to ignore what actually exists in our attempt to restore the very same conditions of desire that made art in the past possible (a vicious circle whereby art is the sole referent of itself). And this is dangerous state of affairs - one need to look no further than the mediaís treatment of art today- and one that threatens to relegate art to the fun factory that is the mass media, eschewed thus far by the great artists of contemporary times. On the other hand, the multiplicity of attitudes that goes to make up art today tends to embrace the culture of trauma in its attempt to address it with a search for critical vitality. Indeed, one incontrovertible truth, from whatever angle we broach the issue, is that the while art cognoscenti might do all they can to ensure that art remain comprehensible to the few, art actually needs a public. Even information needs an audience, a fact testified by deep-running changes currently underway. Reality, traumatic or otherwise, needs a public to make it possible and to share in the experience. Artists who redefine their experience in terms of trauma do not draw the line at reflecting or bearing witness to the crisis (this would be tantamount to excessive self-referentiality). Neither do they limit themselves to resolving a problem in terms (in themselves complex) of the crisis of representation which has accompanied us throughout the 1990s, but react by attempting to re-codified the very basis of the language of art.