BORIS GROYS: The Topology of Contemporary Art PART 2: MULTIPLE MODERNITIES. 5. MONICA AMOR: On the Contingency of. Contemporary Art in Time” considers some examples, and conse- quences, of .. Cf. Boris Groys, “The Topology of Contemporary Art,” in Antinomies of Art. Synopsis: To understand the qualitative properties of “Contemporary Art”, the Author examines the interplay between Modern & Post-modern.
|Published (Last):||25 December 2008|
|PDF File Size:||13.49 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.66 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In the video installation where a video is moving in a loop the spectator may move about freely in the room and leave or return at any time. That is also why post-modern art is goris to look very new even if — or actually because — it is directed against the notion of the new. We can even say that, under the condition of the modern museum, the newness of newly produced art is not established post factum-as a result of contsmporary comparison with old art.
To compare one installation to another installation we have to create a new installation that would grlys a place of such a comparison. This gesture has a positive goal to reveal the materiality of the artwork, its pure presence — to establish, as Malevich stated it, the “supremacy of art” by liberating art from its submission under the mimetic illusion, communicative intention or the traditional requirements of instantaneous recognizability.
Are we dealing all the time with the same film footage?
The installation is, as it was already said, a finite space of presence where different images and objects are arranged and exhibited. Artworks in grys installation are originals for one simple topological reason: That is contemporaru the installation is frequently denied the status of a specific art form, because the question arises what the medium of an installation is.
All of us know what does it mean to transmit a certain cultural heritage form one generation of the students to another generation.
The Topology of Contemporary Art: Boris Groys | alfredcrucible
In this regard, who is the authority determining original vs. Every image and object in the installation can be seen as being true, unconcealed, present — but only inside the installation space. It remains maybe the same copy — but it becomes different originals.
The Topology of Contemporary Art: Boris Groys
The modern artwork raised the claim to be unconditionally true, to be unconcealed. We can say that Christ according to Kierkegaard is a readymade among Gods — like Duchamp’s urinoire was a readymade among artworks. Indeed, in his text Benjamin starts from the possibility of a perfect reproduction which would no longer allow any “material,” visually recognizable difference between original and copy.
Indeed, Kierkegaard states that for a spectator who would be toplogy of Jesus Christ it was impossible to recognize in Christ a new God precisely because ckntemporary didn’t look new — the figure of Christ initially looked like that of every other ordinary human being at that historical time.
On a seperate note, I have a hard time commenting on the blog. In Modern age you negate either an artwork or its aura, its context — but not both of them simultaneously. In their relationship to the outside space the same images and objects can be seen as revealing and at the same time concealing their status of being merely the items of the potentially infinite sequences of repetition and reproduction. An installation is a presentation of the present — of a decision that takes place here and now.
The contemporary “contemporary art” privileges the present in respect to the future and to the past. In fact, the aura, as described by Benjamin, only comes into being thanks to the modern technique of reproduction.
The installation topllogy, above contrmporary, a socially codified variation of individual flaneurship as it was described by Benjamin, and therefore, a place for the aura, for “profane illumination. In the framework of contemporary culture an image is permanently circulating from one medium to another medium, and from one closed context to another closed context. The installation reveals precisely the materiality of contemporaryy civilization in which we live, because it installs everything that our civilization simply circulates.
The modernist production by negation is governed by reproduction of the srt of comparison — of a certain historical narrative, of a certain tppology medium, of a certain visual language, of a certain fixed context of comparison.
Their status as copies becomes therefore to be just a cultural convention — as it was earlier the status of the original. That is why the installation is able to openly manifest the conflict between the presence of the images and objects inside a finite horizon of our immediate experience and their invisible, virtual, “absent” circulation in the space outside of this horizon — a oof that defines the contemporary cultural practice. The artwork that is conceived as a machine of infinite expansion and inclusion is not an open artwork but an artistic counterpart of an imperial hybris.
The images are all the time transformed, rewritten, reedited, reprogrammed on their way through these networks — and become also to be visually different by every such a step.
Now an installation cannot be a copy of another installation because an installation is by definition present, contemporary. But postmodernist art does not formulate any own claim to truth remaining exclusively critical and deconstructive. Benjamin suggested that the new technology is able to make a copy more and more identical to the original.
Since then, the concept of aura has made an astonishing philosophical carrier, yet largely as contemporaty of the famous formula of the “loss of the aura” characterizing the fate of the original in the modern age. The traditional, mimetic artwork was subjected to the iconoclastic, destructive work of analysis and reduction. This movement of the spectator in the exhibition space cannot be arbitrarily stopped because it has an topologu function in the perception of the installation.
Every copy is by itself a flaneur — and experiences time and again its own “profane illuminations” turning it into an original. It is also no accident that the vocabulary constantly used by the historical avant-garde is the language of iconoclasm. A creative act if it is understood as an iconoclastic gesture presupposes a permanent reproduction of the context in which this act is effectuated.
That is why the installation is so pervasive and unavoidable art form. The contemporary technology thinks in generations. The iconoclastic froys the new can only be recognized by the art historically informed, museum-trained gaze. That is because for Benjamin mass reproduction and not the creation of the new constitutes Modernity.
You are commenting using your Facebook account. The installation demonstrates a certain selection, a certain chain of choices, a certain logic of inclusions and exclusions.
Now it becomes relatively easy to characterize the place that the contemporary installation occupies in relationship to the modernist claim to truth and to its cnotemporary deconstruction.
You are commenting using your WordPress. Who is making them?