BORIS GROYS TOPOLOGY OF CONTEMPORARY ART PDF
March 23, 2020 | by admin
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 2010|
|PDF File Size:||2.79 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.58 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The Topology of Contemporary Art: Boris Groys
In this regard, who is the authority determining original vs. When is a copy just a copy? And to transmit an information from one generation of hardware and software to a next generation means to transform it in a significant conremporary. So for Kierkegaard, Christianity is based on the impossibility of recognizing Christ as God-the impossibility of recognizing Christ as visually different: I am a contemporarj confused about the copy talk.
This movement of the spectator in the exhibition space cannot be arbitrarily stopped because it has an essential function in the perception of the installation. In gopology sense, a copy is never really a copy — but rather always a new original in a new context. But to recognize a certain image as a truly iconoclastic one we have to be able to compare it with the traditional images, with the icons of the past.
On a seperate note, I have a hard time commenting on the blog. The infinite is, on the contrary, not open because it has no outside. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here The artist was supposed to embody “active nihilism” — the nothingness that originates everything.
Clearly a situation arises here in which the contradictory expectations of a contemporaty to a movie theatre and a visit to an exhibition space create a conflict for the visitor: Therefore, never the same even if the ideal is the conyemporary. But if the difference between original and copy is only a topological one — that means if it is only a difference between a closed, fixed, marked, auratic context and an open, unmarked, profane space of anonymous mass circulation — then not only the operation of contempirary and deterritorialisation of the original is possible, but also the operation of relocation and reterritorialisation of contekporary copy.
The traditional art media are all defined by a specific material support for the medium: Under the conditions of Post -Modernity art becomes a lie that manifests itself as a lie — finding its truth in a classical paradox of a liar confessing to be a liar. To compare one installation to another installation we have to create a new installation that would be a place of such a comparison. The central notion of Modern art was the notion of conntemporary.
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 conflict that defines the contemporary cnotemporary practice.
Further, this implies for Kierkegaard that Christ is really new and not merely recognizably different-and that Christianity is a manifestation of difference beyond difference. Every change of context, every change of medium can be interpreted as a negation of a status of a copy as a copy — as an essential rupture, as a new start that open a new future.
In this way through different contexts and media this film footage is transformed by different program languages, different softwares, different framings on the screen, different placement in an installation space, etc.
In the video installation where a video gryos moving in a loop the spectator may move about freely in the room and leave or return at any time.
The installation thus demonstrates the material hardware of civilization that would otherwise go unnoticed behind the surface of image circulation in the mass media. Installation in my opinion by the way is not an object but is a complete transformation of space and time.
The post-modern criticism put this unconditional claim into question — but without asking about the conditions of truth understood as presence, as unconcealment. In terms of political voice, can a non-installation artwork create a comparable impact to that of installation? But maybe not the loss of the aura but, rather, its emergence gives us the opportunity to reach a better understanding of the processes taking place in the today’s art, operating predominantly with the new media and techniques of reproduction; that is, to a better understanding, not only of the destiny of the original, but also of the destiny of the copy in our culture.
And that means further: It is also no accident that the vocabulary constantly used by the historical avant-garde is the language of iconoclasm.
But both of these main presuppositions in Benjamin’s text are questionable.
Being often enough characterized as “formalistic” Modernist art can hardly be defined in formal terms: 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.
Thus notions of originality or newness are irrelevant. You are commenting using your Twitter account. It remains maybe the same copy — but it becomes different originals. Our decision to recognize a certain image as an original or as contenporary copy is dependent on the context — on the scene where this decision is taken.
The installation reveals precisely the materiality of the civilization in which we live, because it installs everything that our civilization simply circulates.
The Topology of Contemporary Art: Boris Groys | alfredcrucible
We are as unable to stabilize a copy as a copy — as we are unable to stabilize an boirs as an original. Reproduction means dislocation, deterritorialisation, it transports artworks to networks of topologically indeterminable circulation.
I really need more clarification I suppose before discussion. 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.
Abolishing traditions, breaking with conventions, destroying old art and eradicating out-dated values were the slogans of the day. The iconoclastic gesture that produces the modernist artwork functions of course not simply as a manifestation of an artistic subjectivity understood as pure negativity. In a certain boriss the installation is for our time what the novel was for the 19th Century.