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):||17 April 2018|
|PDF File Size:||1.14 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.58 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
To be insincere means in this context to make art beyond all taste — even beyond one’s own taste.
All kinds of “beautiful” functional objects — previously used for various religious rituals, decorating the rooms of those in power, or manifesting private wealth — were collected and put poaer display as works of art — that is, as defunctionalized, autonomous objects of pure contemplation. Later, Malevich gives a concrete example of what he means: Presence is not defined poweer solely by opposition to absence.
These objects didn’t have a prehistory; they had never been legitimized by religion or power. In parallel with the raising of 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 a veritable space for all seasons.
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. The new, artificial difference is the true artwork of the avant-garde.
The difference between traditional modernist and contemporary art strategies is, therefore, relatively easy to describe.
“Art Power – Introduction” by Boris Groys – A summary
But a recognized, remembered difference is obviously not a new difference. There are nothing but differences as far as the eye can see. Artworks seem to be genuinely sick and helpless — the spectator has to be led to the artwork, as hospital workers might take a visitor to see a grpys patient.
The curator may exhibit, but he doesn’t have the magical ability to transform nonart into art through the act of display. groyys
In this sense even the most radically one-sided artworks can be regarded as good if they help to redress the distorted balance of power in the field of art as a whole.
The postmodern criticism of the notion of progress or of the Utopias of modernity becomes irrelevant when artistic innovation is no longer thought of in terms of temporal linearity, but as the spatial relationship between the museum space and its outside. The Hegelian vision of the universal museum is one in which corporeal eternity is substituted for the eternity of the soul in the memory of God.
Apr 09, Yein rated it liked it. 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. And the education of the public is also not an answer, because all good art always was and still is made against any kind of rules put forth by education. 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 it is an excess of pluralistic democ- racy, an excess of democratic equality. Thus at the moment at which law tri- umphs, art becomes impossible: Indeed, Kierkegaard states that the figure of Christ initially looked like that of every other ordinary human being at that historical time. Artists and art theoreticians alike are glad to be free at last from the burden of history, from the necessity to make the next step, and from the obligation to conform to the historical laws and requirements of that which is historically new.
Art Power – Boris Groys – Google Books
He says this trend is concerned with the balance of power, which is also a key concept of democracy. Every realization of a certain project — be it religious, ideological, or technical — is always also a negation of this project, a termina- tion of this project as project. Even after Duchamp the act of exhibiting any object as an artwork remained ambivalent, that is, partially iconophile, partially iconoclastic.
It seems to me that the numerous discourses on historical memory and its representation often overlook the complementary relationship that exists between reality and museum.
This fundamental figure — the artistic appropriation of icono- clasm that produces the boriw we call modern works of art — is the subject, either directly or indirectly, of the essays that follow.
The fiction of the creating subject gives way to the frank confiscation, quotation, excerptation, accumulation and repetition of already existing images. The second half of the book was very exciting to me in its exploration of politics and art; specifically, art and Hitler, art and the Soviet Union, and art and Europe today. Of course, ideologically motivated art can always be interpreted as prefiguration, as anticipation of the true vision to come.
The material support, or the ppwer bearer, as well as the entire system of museum con- servation, must remain obscure, invisible, hidden from the museum spectator. Of course, Hegel was right at the time to make this diagnosis, but he overlooked the possibility of conceptual art. Rather, they reflect the dominant social conventions and power structures.
I’m not going to write a review of this book because I’m really not equipped to do so.