In a foreseeable and living future, Hilma af Klint will be the most influential contemporary artist, replacing Duchamp, Warhol, or Cézanne as the point of reference. On the basis of this I will argue that "contemporary art" is radically different to the system of fine art as we know it, exists parallel to it, and serves as an medieval and occulting device screening off this art. If "contemporary art" was identical to art, then not only would Michael Thompson (Rubbish Theory, 1978) be wrong in his theory of how "durables" are produced out of rubbish, but Krysztof Pomian's theory of the nature of collectibles as semiophores  (Collectionneurs, amateurs et curieux, 1986) would be severly deficient as well. They are not, but the antinomy between contemporaneity and artistic value reveals two incompatible value-systems which one the one hand demonstrates the extreme visibility, medievality, and authenticity of an art à la mode, and an on the other the invisibility, documentability, and forgeability of an art that will be contemporary with us in the future. The recent reception of Hilma af Klint (and others) will serve as case in point.