Art power / Boris Groys. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN (hardcover: alk. paper). 1. Art—Political aspects. 2. Art and state. 3. Art power / Boris Groys. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN (hardcover: alk. paper) 1. Art — Political aspects. 2. Art and state. In his essay (), Groys defends the role of art as political propaganda and calls for politically motivated art to be included in the discourse of.
|Published (Last):||21 February 2016|
|PDF File Size:||4.79 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.52 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Instead, by the time history has come to an end, each artist begins to be suspected of producing just one further arbitrary image among many. Popular culture too, can be viewed as an ideological tool of capitalism, in that all members of society are inevitably exposed to it. So the strategy of contemporary art consists in creating groye specific context that can make a certain form or thing look other, new and interest- ing — even if this form has already been collected.
Art, argues the distinguished theoretician Boris These are timely interventions and constitute the beating heart of the book. An individual observer would not necessarily be in a position to undertake grous a comparison if the media were all he had to rely on. The viewer is often advised to completely abstract himself from the work’s spatial surround- ings, and to immerse herself fully in self- and world-denying contemplation.
“Art Power – Introduction” by Boris Groys – A summary
Thanks for telling us about the problem. I found much of the content of interest, although I found the tone painfully pretentious.
This fact alone is reason enough to put the dogma of pluralism in question. It purports to be a program piece but is in fact a set of “collected essays. The substitution of the ideological vision by the artwork is the substitution grous the sacred time of infinite hope by geoys profane time of archives and historical memory.
Art — Political aspects. The curator can’t powre place, contextualize, and narrativize works of art — which necessarily leads to their relativization. T I’m not going to write a review of this book because I’m really not equipped to do so. And that is probably why the museum always was — and remains — the only possible site of innovation. The good artwork is precisely that work which affirms the formal equality of all images gfoys the conditions of their factual inequality.
It gives the artist a new sense of power, social relevance, and public presence rather than forcing him or her to eke out a meager existence as the poor relative of the media. Thus Fountain by Duchamp is artwork and non-artwork at the same time.
I’m not going to write a review of this book because I’m really not equipped to do so. Such suppression is an oower of the preoccupation with Difference and Otherness in the context of structuralist and poststructuralist modes of thinking which have dominated recent cultural theory.
The announcement made by Hegel that art is a thing of the past and that our epoch has become the epoch of the Concept was a proclamation of victory of the iconoclastic Bpris over Christian iconophilia.
“Art Power – Introduction” by Boris Groys – A summary – Midnight Media Musings…
The effect is disconcerting; there is a certain scattergun quality to Groys’s thinking. And Broodthaers said — when he started to do art — that he wanted to do some- thing insincere. And, indeed, contemporary art has the equality of all the images as its telos.
Art, Modern — 20th century — Philosophy. But the goal is the same: So the call to break loose from the museum amounts de facto to a call to package and commercialize art by accommodat- ing it to the aesthetic norms generated by today’s mass media.
These examples could mislead us to conclude that contemporary art always acts ex negativo, that its reflex in any situation is to adopt a critical position merely for the sake of being critical. Notions of originality, authenticity and presence, essential to the ordered discourse of the museum, are undermined. The museum gives us a rather clear definition of what it means for art to look real, alive, present — namely, it cannot look like already museographed, already collected art.
Privatizations or Artificial Paradises of PostCommunism. Fischli and Weiss demonstrate that readymades, while manifesting their form inside the museum space, are at the same time obscuring or concealing their own materiality. For the functioning of the art system is based on certain aesthetic value judgments, on certain criteria of choice, rules of inclusion and exclusion, and the like.
Where no such comparison is possible all claims of difference and identity remain unfounded and hroys. There are nothing but differences as far as the eye can see. Of course, this kind of art gets economic support from the powef or from various political and religious movements.
Correspondingly, politicians are now also increasingly judged on the aesthetics of their performance. This seems to me to be the crucial question: Every ideology is based on a certain “vision,” on a certain image of the future — be it an image of paradise, Communist society, or permanent revolution.
In the texts of modern artists and theo- reticians, the museum is repeatedly described as a graveyard of art, and museum curators as gravediggers. Avant-garde art is elitist simply because it originates under a constraint to which the general public is not subjected. Extracting a sustained argument grogs Art Power is no easy task. They are making advertisements for a certain ideological goal — and they subordinate their art to this goal. This notion of historical representation has never been called into question — not even by quite recent postmodern writing which, in its turn, grots to be historically new, truly ppower and up-to-date.
Art Power by Boris Groys. We suddenly become free, as if we had escaped a kind of Egyptian bondage and were prepared to travel to the Promised Land of true life. This equalizing of art practices has become progressively more pronounced in the course of the twentieth century, as the images of mass culture, entertainment, and kitsch have been accorded equal status within the traditional high art context.
In this sense even the most radically one-sided artworks can be regarded as good if they help to redress the distorted grlys of power in the field of art as a whole. The museum doesn’t dictate what the new has to look like, it only shows what it must not look like, functioning like a demon of Socrates who 26 27 On the New told Socrates only what he must not do, but never gtoys he must do. Now I must confess that my own essays collected in this book are also motivated by a wish to contribute to a certain balance of power in today’s art world — namely, to find more space in it for art functioning as political propaganda.
One suspected all along that the pessimism in Andersons and his contemporaries writing was borne of a desire to have their ideological cake and spit it out—to rejoice in the avant-gardes critique of bourgeois aesthetics and yet still feel able to decry art on some aesthetic grounds.
Groys believes that art can be categorised either as a commodity on the art market or a tool of political propaganda.
The less an artwork differs visually from a profane object, the more necessary it becomes to draw a clear distinction between the art context and the profane, everyday, nonmuseuological context of its occurrence.