In
the “Art Power”, Groys starts with the thesis that the field of
modern art is not one of a pluralism, but rather of logic of
contradictions, by giving an example of art movements which
immediately provoked countermovements – thesis and antithesis
summing zero, a perfect balance of power. As a consequence of the
Enlightenment, when the notion of power bigger then any other (of
God) disappeared, belief in the balance of power started, Groys
explains that modern art gained its own power of regulatory
character, excluding everything that could distort that balance. Not
only that modern as well as contemporary art is controversial, but
the very art work itself, so called “paradox-object that embody
simultaneously thesis and antithesis”. Writer denounces possibility
of any open interpretation of an art work (potentially infinite
plurality of interpretations) not imposing on spectator any ideology,
theory or faith. Therefore, he is putting an end to strives of art
theorists such were Umberto Ecco and Roland Bart, who proclaimed
necessity of exactly this interpretational openness. Groys simply
believes that this is not possible, characterizing it as an illusion.
Art is predominantly commodity and as such, it implies imposing of
certain dominant ideologies on its spectators – clearly, ideology
of a free market. According to him, as paradox-object, these art
works require a perfectly paradoxical and self-contradictory
reaction, becoming normative of any contemporary art work, which
successfully handles thesis and antithesis and governs the balance of
power. By reading the book further, it seems that Groys is
appropriating idea of “controversy”, considering it, apparently,
as the main principle of building his arguments.
Further on,
it is interesting to see how Groys observes possibility of critique
today, of notion of art and revolution, of political art,
institutions of art and of art market. He is making rough division of
modern art created under art market as a commodity, and art as a tool
for political propaganda, exclusively connecting the last with art of
the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, i.e. with totalitarian regimes.
This exclusivity becomes blurred when he states that “his 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”. It remains unclear if he observes present “regime”
as totalitarian one. Maybe things should be observed more narrowly –
he actually speaks of totalitarian character of art market by saying
that “the dominating art discourse identifies art with art market
and remains blind to any art that is produced and distributed by any
mechanism other then the market.” Groys
further argues that under the “morality of art market”, all art
produced under the non-market conditions
was excluded from the field of institutionally recognized art as one
that perverted political aspirations of true utopian art. He argues
that dissident art of Soviet Union tends to be neglected by the
dominating art theory, which both true and untrue. In most of the
former socialists Eastern European countries it could be hardly said
that this kind of art is institutionally recognized (of course, there
are example of that practice), unless we accept figures of private
collectors and art collections of banks as relevant “institutional”
players in the existing art market.
He
continues with the impossibility of any substantial critique in
contemporary art and of commodified art objects, which are to
differentiate from other commodities through its ability to become
critical and self-critical commodity. Therefore, he denounces any
critical potential of art today and only in few moments in the book
states few strategies which lightly could go in critical direction,
mostly based on retrieving the autonomy of art - “It is also
interesting that even the most severe judgment on the moral
dimensions of the free market never leads anybody to conclude that
art that was and is produced under those market conditions should be
excluded from critical and historical considerations.” Therefore,
self-critical commodity is a paradox by itself, concerning Groys, and
as such it perfectly fits into dominating paradigm of modern and
contemporary art and it also means that it can not be truly
political. It could be noticed that in the book, he rarely makes
clarification of what should be understood as “political art”.
Usually, this term is identifies with art as a political propaganda
and only in few occasions “political” art is identified as art
that tends to transcends the borders of the art system (by creating
new paradox – paradox of staying exactly in the boundaries of the
very system). “Art becomes politically effective only when it is
made beyond or outside the art market – in the context of direct
political propaganda” - by this, Groys is referring only to art
made under totalitarian regimes, Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany,
basically denouncing any political notion of art created under
(neo)liberal capitalist democracies of Western world (as the one that
only confirms that condition). One conclusion that could be made out
of this is that there is no real differences in between these
basically “totalitarian” systems, although he is never openly
expressing it (except when stating that it is “dark suspicion” to
think that market operates by an “invisible hand”, which should
have led to closer examination of relations between market, art
market and the roll of a state). Groys considers Islamist videos and
posters functioning in the context of the international antiglobalist
movement to be those creations made outside the dominating art
market, they are overlooked by institutions of the art market (which
shows to be less and less the case). Usually, they are funded by the
state or political and religious movements, therefore, they are
created “outside” the art market, which leads us that this could
be politically effective. But, if art made under “non-institutional”
conditions is really critical, then it becomes easely included in the
art institutions that tended to exclude it and it leads to further
stabilization of these institutions. Groys draws conclusion that
internal critique of the art market only can improve the market and
not change it fundamentally. Soviet art, Islamist videos or posters
are created and distributed in ways other then those which follows
the logic of the art market. What stays at the end is that today's
art object is a paradox-object, because it accumulates a paradox: it
is an image and a critique of image at the same time.
Groys
further discusses autonomy of art as a precondition to autonomous
power of resistance. He believes that art world can not be observed
in any significant sense as autonomous, since it is regulated by many
rules and aesthetic value judgments which reflect power structures
and dominant social conventions. Still, he argues that there is no
immanent aesthetic value that art could be judged from, therefore, he
appeals to establishing “the regime of equal aesthetic rights for
all art works”. There lays potential for resistance as a
precondition to any political engagement. According to Groys, this is
the only way to resist inequality between images as imposed from the
outside, which reflects social, cultural and political inequalities.
He founds that exactly this is the moment which would deprive artist
to break taboos, provoke and/or extend boundaries of acceptable. By
criticizing socially, politically and culturally imposed hierarchies
of values, art gains its autonomy and its resistance potential.
According to Groys, contemporary politics of emancipation is a
politics of inclusion which acts against the exclusion of political
and economic minorities. He speaks both about
politization of art and culturalization of politics. These
arguments he further partially continues in his
essay dedicated to biopolitics, as the true realm that is manifested
today, in which political will and technology's power shape things
(life). What is interesting in relation to resistance in art, is that
Groys simplifies notion of revolution to its narrow historical
dimension which attempts to replace society as it is with a new,
artificial society. He sees position of artist within it as decisive
one, concluding in that manner with the
great “disappointment” because of
inability of the avant-garde art to bring a new humanity. After many
contemporary discussions about art and revolution, Groys doesn't take
closer look at the necessary wider picture which inevitably brings
three stances (of insurrection,
resistance and constitutive power) in the relationship of art and
revolution.
Groys
finishes the book with few essays concerning Socialist Realist art
and later, concerning process of privatization in the former Soviet
Union and Eastern European countries as a permanent state and/or
artificial paradises of post-communism, where struggle for
distribution, appropriation and privatization is permanently
repeated.