BORIS GROYS ART POWER PDF
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):||27 December 2017|
|PDF File Size:||13.76 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.51 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In the contemporary art scene, very little att is paid to the latter function. Sacred objects were once devalued to produce art; today, in contrast, profane objects are valorized to become art. Collecting is an event in time par excellence — even while it is an attempt to escape time.
“Art Power – Introduction” by Boris Groys – A summary
And, indeed, contemporary art has the equality of all the images as its telos. Art was originally “just” art. The traditional art museum told the story of art’s emergence and subsequent victory. Robert Loss rated it really liked it May 08, In parallel with the raising ggoys the ordinary to the artistic, the museum allows us to downgrade the visual hyperbole of reality into the manageable calm of an exhibited artwork—it is atr veritable space for all seasons.
Arguing for the inclusion of politically motivated art in contemporary art discourse, Groys considers art produced under totalitarianism, Socialism, and post-Communism. The museum space loses its own “institutional” light, which traditionally functioned as a symbolic property of the viewer, the collector, the curator.
The difference between traditional modernist and contemporary art strategies is, therefore, relatively easy to describe.
New artworks function in the museum as symbolic windows opening onto a view of the infinite outside. When some artists and art critics found the true source of art in the subjective self-expression of an individual artist, other artists and art critics required that art thematize the objective, material condi- tions of its production borls distribution.
That is, media-driven politics operates on the terrain of art. In fact, the situation was the opposite in Malevich’s grosy and, actually, had been so since the emergence of the museum as a modern institution at the end of the eighteenth century.
But the artistic embodiment of self-contradiction, of paradox, began to be especially practiced in contemporary art after World War II. In his essayGroys defends the role of art as political propaganda and calls for politically motivated art to be included in the discourse of modern art.
All these value judgments, criteria, and rules are, of course, not autonomous. For Groys, with all traditional grounds gone, we can build from difference alone—a thankless task, but an honest one. The museum becomes obscure, dark, and dependent on the light emanating from the video image, that powdr, from the hidden core of the artwork, from the electrical and computer technology hidden within its form.
According to tradition of modern art, an powre must speak for itself; it must immediately On the Curatorship convince the spectator, standing in silent contemplation, of its own value. The global media market lacks in particular the historical memory that would enable the spectator to compare the past with the present and thereby determine what is truly new and genu- inely contemporary about the present.
But opening up to the big world outside the closed spaces of the art system produces, on the contrary, a certain blind- ness to what is contemporary and present. In this sense it is an excess of pluralistic democ- racy, an excess of democratic equality. The art of the artt garde is the art of an elitist-thinking minority not because it expresses some specific bourgeois taste as, for example, Bourdieu assertsbecause, in a way, avant-garde art expresses no taste at all — no public taste, no personal taste, not even the taste of the artists themselves.
So if an artist says as the majority of artists say that he or she wants to break out of the museum, to go into life itself, to be real, to make a truly living art, this can only mean that the artist wants to be collected. May 20, dv rated it liked it Shelves: If the museum dies, it is death itself that dies.
Art Power – Boris Groys – Google Books
This groya cannot succeed, or it can succeed only temporarily. Now the modern state also proclaims the balance of power to be its ultimate goal — but, of course, never truly achieves it. That is, he couldn’t imagine that the balance of power could be shown, could be presented as an image.
One seems to be too ethically concerned to deal with the “totalitarian” art of the twentieth century that “perverted” the “genuine” political aspirations of true Utopian art. The difference between “real” and “simulated” cannot be “recognized,” only produced, because every object in the world can be seen at the same time as both “real” and as “simu- lated. My library Help Advanced Book Search.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: There is, therefore, nothing to say against this kind of self- critical art from within that paradigm — but the question arises if such art can also be understood as truly political art. Even after Duchamp the act of exhibiting any object as an artwork remained ambivalent, that is, partially iconophile, partially iconoclastic. And that means, further, that we can — and in fact must — dissociate the concept of the new from the concept of history, and the concept of innovation from its association with the linearity of historical time.
As is well known, modern art tried in all possible ways to make the inner, material side of the work transparent.