In this book Boris Groys analyses the cultural constructs of our time, like the museum or the internet , articulating a rheology (fluidity ) of Art . He reflects upon contemporary terminologies such as activism, aestheticization, infection and transgression and their incorporation into the modern understanding of the Art world. He makes three points that I find extremely relevant.
1.He refers back to avant-garde artists in the beginning of the 20th century :
‘At the beginning of the 20th century , the artists and writers of the Avant-Garde started a campaign against art museums and generally about the preservation of the art of the past. They asked a simple question: Why are certain things privileged, why does society care them and invest money in their conservation and restoration, while other things are delivered to the destructive power of time and nobody cares about their eventual dissolution and disappearance? (…) It seems like we consider the past more valuable than the present, but this is unjust and even absurd, because we live in the present and not in the past .Can we say that our own value is lower than the value of the people who lived before us ? The Avant-Garde polemic against the institution of the museum was driven by the same egalitarian and democratic impulse as modern politics. It asserted the equality of things, spaces and , even more importantly, times, in analogy to the equality of men.’[1]
They were some of the firsts to put into question the system, specifically the premises under which they include or exclude. In a previous blog entry I also mentioned I have always found this extremely inspiring because they did not see Art as merely aesthetic but as crucial for a revolution in social, moral, and cultural values.
I personally value art work of the past, however it is often true that we tend to dismiss art works that are made in the present. It has also been normalised that artworks becoming more popular once the artist has passed away, so it is certainly fascinating
2. He brings up the role of Art activism in our current times and differentiates it from the critical art of the past decades :
‘The Art activists do not want to merely criticise the art system or the general political or social conditions under which this system functions. Rather, they want to change this conditions by means of Art—not so much inside the art system as outside them , that is, change the conditions of reality itself. (…) Art activists want to be useful, to change the world, to make the world a better place but at the same time , they do not want to cease to be artists. And that is the point where theoretical, political and even purely practical problems arise. Art Activism attempts to combine art and social action come under attack from those with traditionally artistic and those with traditionally activist perspectives ‘[2].
This is particularly the case for Gen Z creatives who usually do not only submit to one take on things, their practices being mostly hybrid and fluid in nature. It often comes in contrast with pervious generations which, as Groys stated, tend to have a more traditional take, they prefer things that are more concrete, one thing or the other.
3. He remarks the important role that the internet plays in modern Art :
‘In recent decades the Internet has become the primary place for the production and distribution of writing, including literature; artistic practices ; and, more generally, cultural archives. Obviously, many cultural workers experience this shift towards the Internet as liberating , because the Internet is not selective– at least it is much less selective than the museum or traditional publishing house.’[3]
In line with Legacy Russel’s Glitch Feminism, the internet works as a space where people can share limitless, and many times becomes a liberating space from material conditions.
The Internet makes our experience of Art more collective rather than individual. One can share their processes globally and create communities beyond the limit of space.
It of course has its perks, but in comparison to recognised cultural institutions, it appears much more welcoming.
[1] Boris Groys, In the Flow , (Verso, 2016) p.1
[2] P.43
[3] P.171