POST BY PADDY JOHNSON
Boris Groys, Image: Artinfo
There are no less than 15 different ways to say “everyone is an artist”, and scholar Boris Groys probably hit on them all last night in his lecture at SVA. He’s an excellent speaker with an astonishing aptitude for turning a good phrase. The lecture itself covered a number of popular topics related to artistic identity: the deprofessionalization of art as a form of professionalization (see related writing by Ed Halter, Bruce High Quality Foundation, and on more than one instance, myself), the idea that unlike earlier times in which only the upper class had time to produce art and text for millions who have no time to view them, now millions of people are creating work for a select few who have no time to view it, (In the future everyone will be famous for 15 people — momus, 1991! thx @tommoody, Clay Shirky on information overload) and of course, the age old question of whether fine art can compete with mass media (an ongoing discussion nearly everyone participates in on some level).
By and large I agreed with Groys’ points, the main one being that the so called “weak” gestures of art — the repetitive and transcendental formal qualities not limited to a particular time — do not match “strong” images like Madonna, Harrison Ford, and 9-11. That’s obvious. A 9-11 image means more to more people than any work of contemporary art. (UPDATE: Tom Moody notes that Damien Hirst’s Shark is an art world example of a “strong” image.) However, Groys also told the audience he believes biennials, museums and art schools act as the core influence for most “weak” images, which is not true. As Tom Moody observes in his notes from the evening, this is essentially saying cat sites would disappear without art schools. I suppose Groys’ thoughts follow the path of self-preservation — he’s got one too many eggs in the fine art’s basket — but why not take the logic to its actual conclusion? The question is not about locating the power within a weak image or gesture, but figuring out its place in a larger system. Does the economic model for art professionals change if the fine art image only speaks to a few? What is role of the artist? Where do we locate value?
These questions are becoming increasingly difficult to answer.
- Tom Moody transcribes his lecture notes and mine. A must read.
- Groys lecture at Frieze in 2008. Touches on some of the same points, though is more politically focused.
- Surf-clubs (Where I suspect we’ll find at least a few of the answers)
{ 68 comments }
One additional note: I notice Groys uses the word spectator as opposed to viewer when describing difference between weak and strong images (weak images are without spectators he says). I wonder if he’d make a distinction between the two. Viewer sounds a lot more distinguished somehow.
One additional note: I notice Groys uses the word spectator as opposed to viewer when describing difference between weak and strong images (weak images are without spectators he says). I wonder if he’d make a distinction between the two. Viewer sounds a lot more distinguished somehow.
I am so mad I missed this. Any idea if it was recorded?
I am so mad I missed this. Any idea if it was recorded?
I think Groys was saying that biennials, museums and art schools act as the core influence for the “weak” images (produced for small audiences–e.g. animated GIFs based on one’s cat), which seems like a stretch to me. In the case of “strong” images he was saying galleries shouldn’t try to compete with the mass media.
I think Groys was saying that biennials, museums and art schools act as the core influence for the “weak” images (produced for small audiences–e.g. animated GIFs based on one’s cat), which seems like a stretch to me. In the case of “strong” images he was saying galleries shouldn’t try to compete with the mass media.
A shark in formaldehyde would be an example of an art-world-generated “strong” image.
A shark in formaldehyde would be an example of an art-world-generated “strong” image.
Oops. Corrected.
I had the impression he was art couldn’t compete with mass media. In other words, it’s not only an economic model in which galleries shouldn’t try to compete with say, movie studios, but that weak images can’t compete with the strong.
Oops. Corrected.
I had the impression he was art couldn’t compete with mass media. In other words, it’s not only an economic model in which galleries shouldn’t try to compete with say, movie studios, but that weak images can’t compete with the strong.
oh I see the distinction.
oh I see the distinction.
oh I see the distinction.
Does he mean the ‘weak images’ are stronger than the kitten images, in a way, in that the artists in the bienials exert an oblique influence over ‘the masses’?
Does he mean the ‘weak images’ are stronger than the kitten images, in a way, in that the artists in the bienials exert an oblique influence over ‘the masses’?
Does he mean the ‘weak images’ are stronger than the kitten images, in a way, in that the artists in the bienials exert an oblique influence over ‘the masses’?
He isn’t distinguishing between Francis Alys’ dumb video loop (which he showed at the lecture) and the cat-GIF-maker’s dumb video loop. Both are “weak” and distract from the dominant strong discourse and he is saying more, more. I tend to agree, but then what is the function of art schools and curators? He says it’s to inspire the cat GIF makers; I say they will make those GIFs regardless.
He isn’t distinguishing between Francis Alys’ dumb video loop (which he showed at the lecture) and the cat-GIF-maker’s dumb video loop. Both are “weak” and distract from the dominant strong discourse and he is saying more, more. I tend to agree, but then what is the function of art schools and curators? He says it’s to inspire the cat GIF makers; I say they will make those GIFs regardless.
I’d love to know if there’s a transcript or audio file of this talk. Thanks for posting these notes.
@tommoody — I’m not totally convinced that even shark-in-tank can compete on the level of Madonna, 9/11, Michael Jackson, etc. *maybe* in the UK, where it ends up in the tabloids, but I’m not sure even Hirst goes that far outside are more circumscribed art world. But I didn’t hear the talk.
I’d love to know if there’s a transcript or audio file of this talk. Thanks for posting these notes.
@tommoody — I’m not totally convinced that even shark-in-tank can compete on the level of Madonna, 9/11, Michael Jackson, etc. *maybe* in the UK, where it ends up in the tabloids, but I’m not sure even Hirst goes that far outside are more circumscribed art world. But I didn’t hear the talk.
I’d love to know if there’s a transcript or audio file of this talk. Thanks for posting these notes.
@tommoody — I’m not totally convinced that even shark-in-tank can compete on the level of Madonna, 9/11, Michael Jackson, etc. *maybe* in the UK, where it ends up in the tabloids, but I’m not sure even Hirst goes that far outside are more circumscribed art world. But I didn’t hear the talk.
I *wish* I had a transcript. SVA’s Blogger in residence Michael Bilsborough is trying to hunt down an audio file or transcript from the evening.
I *wish* I had a transcript. SVA’s Blogger in residence Michael Bilsborough is trying to hunt down an audio file or transcript from the evening.
I *wish* I had a transcript. SVA’s Blogger in residence Michael Bilsborough is trying to hunt down an audio file or transcript from the evening.
Hi, Ed,
Yes, I think Groys would agree that these over-the-top artistic gestures (shark in tank, live elephant in gallery, wrapped Reichstag) don’t ultimately compete with Michael Jackson so the art infrastructure shouldn’t even try to work on that “strong” level. Inspiring to hear!
Hi, Ed,
Yes, I think Groys would agree that these over-the-top artistic gestures (shark in tank, live elephant in gallery, wrapped Reichstag) don’t ultimately compete with Michael Jackson so the art infrastructure shouldn’t even try to work on that “strong” level. Inspiring to hear!
Good news! SVA had the lecture taped last night and it will be available to watch on iTunes shortly (about a week). Here’s the link.
http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/sva.edu.1363555220.01363
Good news! SVA had the lecture taped last night and it will be available to watch on iTunes shortly (about a week). Here’s the link.
http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/sva.edu.1363555220.01363
Scary thought, and possibly tangential to the main questions in your conclusion, but maybe the place to look for ‘weak’ gesture production isn’t surf clubs, but online forums like 4chan.
Scary thought, and possibly tangential to the main questions in your conclusion, but maybe the place to look for ‘weak’ gesture production isn’t surf clubs, but online forums like 4chan.
Not tangential–much discussion and mud slinging took place in the Rhizome comment threads about the surf clubs / 4chan connection. (Some felt the former were a weak–not “weak”–version of the latter.)
Not tangential–much discussion and mud slinging took place in the Rhizome comment threads about the surf clubs / 4chan connection. (Some felt the former were a weak–not “weak”–version of the latter.)
Not tangential–much discussion and mud slinging took place in the Rhizome comment threads about the surf clubs / 4chan connection. (Some felt the former were a weak–not “weak”–version of the latter.)
Seems to this writer that some of what Boris Groys may spoken about, as reported above, could in part be interpreted easier by relying on the following example: Abstract Expressionism, once it had become celebrated among nationally influential critics and disseminated into our national cultural institutions, and ultimately indoctrinated into the so-called canon, quickly paved the way for anyone to decorate their home or office with an “abstract expressionist” painting thus giving anyone the ability to personalize the space, as such, much in the same way we today “personalize” the desktops on our ubiquitous machines called computers. Furthermore, with so much material out there to choose from, it is little wonder few people really know what to think about art; and fewer still follow this artist or that artist who always seems lacking an authentic statement.
Joel Smock
Seems to this writer that some of what Boris Groys may spoken about, as reported above, could in part be interpreted easier by relying on the following example: Abstract Expressionism, once it had become celebrated among nationally influential critics and disseminated into our national cultural institutions, and ultimately indoctrinated into the so-called canon, quickly paved the way for anyone to decorate their home or office with an “abstract expressionist” painting thus giving anyone the ability to personalize the space, as such, much in the same way we today “personalize” the desktops on our ubiquitous machines called computers. Furthermore, with so much material out there to choose from, it is little wonder few people really know what to think about art; and fewer still follow this artist or that artist who always seems lacking an authentic statement.
Joel Smock
Correction in prior post: “…some of what Boris Groys may spoken about…” should have read “some of what Boris Groys may have spoken about…”
Correction in prior post: “…some of what Boris Groys may spoken about…” should have read “some of what Boris Groys may have spoken about…”
CARLES wrote a cool post about mainstreamers being creative on thew internet and lady gaga, it seems related: http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/2010/01/an-analysis-of-cookies-baked-crafted-to-represent-various-lady-gaga-costumes.html
CARLES wrote a cool post about mainstreamers being creative on thew internet and lady gaga, it seems related: http://www.hipsterrunoff.com/2010/01/an-analysis-of-cookies-baked-crafted-to-represent-various-lady-gaga-costumes.html
I’m sounding a bit like Groys’ spokesman in this thread and I don’t presume to speak for him. Beyond what I heard in the lecture my grasp of his beliefs is tentative. Frieze called him an “imp of the perverse” dispensing “nihilist irony” – based on some of his other writings he seems an unlikely theorist for surf clubs. I will read Art Power and let you know what I think.
I’m sounding a bit like Groys’ spokesman in this thread and I don’t presume to speak for him. Beyond what I heard in the lecture my grasp of his beliefs is tentative. Frieze called him an “imp of the perverse” dispensing “nihilist irony” – based on some of his other writings he seems an unlikely theorist for surf clubs. I will read Art Power and let you know what I think.
He doesn’t know enough about the net to be useful in that way. That said, I would be very surprised if surf-clubs weren’t taking his theories to their logical conclusion. IE The retooling you’re talking about.
He doesn’t know enough about the net to be useful in that way. That said, I would be very surprised if surf-clubs weren’t taking his theories to their logical conclusion. IE The retooling you’re talking about.
For example, from Bookforum’s review of Art Power, this explains his (and Borna Sammak’s) fascination with the museum: “For Groys, despite the proliferation in recent years of extra-institutional curatorial projects and alternative art venues, the museum continues to secure crucial space for informed, historical comparison within an ever-expanding spectacle culture. Moreover, the art museum offers a place ‘to contemplate and enjoy something normal, something ordinary, something banal as well.’ In other words, the only true refuge for ‘the normal,’ ‘the ordinary,’ and other manifestations of ‘real life’ ends up being the art museum, since the museum has the power to include a potentially infinite range of banal objects and practices, from shovels to bricks to a man sweeping up, thereby establishing a ‘paradoxical archive of . . . profane immortality.'” That’s pretty perverse, all right.
For example, from Bookforum’s review of Art Power, this explains his (and Borna Sammak’s) fascination with the museum: “For Groys, despite the proliferation in recent years of extra-institutional curatorial projects and alternative art venues, the museum continues to secure crucial space for informed, historical comparison within an ever-expanding spectacle culture. Moreover, the art museum offers a place ‘to contemplate and enjoy something normal, something ordinary, something banal as well.’ In other words, the only true refuge for ‘the normal,’ ‘the ordinary,’ and other manifestations of ‘real life’ ends up being the art museum, since the museum has the power to include a potentially infinite range of banal objects and practices, from shovels to bricks to a man sweeping up, thereby establishing a ‘paradoxical archive of . . . profane immortality.'” That’s pretty perverse, all right.
Agreed he’s a net novice–he talks about it as if up on another plane, not a participant at all. But artists are free to creatively misread him I guess.
Agreed he’s a net novice–he talks about it as if up on another plane, not a participant at all. But artists are free to creatively misread him I guess.
Agreed he’s a net novice–he talks about it as if up on another plane, not a participant at all. But artists are free to creatively misread him I guess.
Agreed he’s a net novice–he talks about it as if up on another plane, not a participant at all. But artists are free to creatively misread him I guess.
Like “weak” images, Mr. Moody’s weak argument that Groys’ intellectual observations is somehow “perverse” suggests Mr. Moody is an authority on all that is orthodox, when, in fact, Mr. Moody’s authority is nothing more than implicit authority, hence Mr. Moody’s added suggestion that other’s “misread” Groys.
Additionally, if it is true, as Mr. Moody suggests, that “the museum continues to secure crucial space for informed, historical comparison within an ever-expanding spectacle culture”, then such a broad statement seems to include the realm of politics and religion.
Hopefully, Mr. Moody will give his own manufactured statements a little more consideration so as to revise them appropriately so as to reflect more flexibility. Groys, to be sure, is on to something, like it or not.
Like “weak” images, Mr. Moody’s weak argument that Groys’ intellectual observations is somehow “perverse” suggests Mr. Moody is an authority on all that is orthodox, when, in fact, Mr. Moody’s authority is nothing more than implicit authority, hence Mr. Moody’s added suggestion that other’s “misread” Groys.
Additionally, if it is true, as Mr. Moody suggests, that “the museum continues to secure crucial space for informed, historical comparison within an ever-expanding spectacle culture”, then such a broad statement seems to include the realm of politics and religion.
Hopefully, Mr. Moody will give his own manufactured statements a little more consideration so as to revise them appropriately so as to reflect more flexibility. Groys, to be sure, is on to something, like it or not.
“Perverse” was the term used by Frieze magazine to describe Groys, as I mentioned. Here’s the link so Mr. Smock can read it himself: http://www.frieze.com/comment/article/the_power_of_art/
“Perverse” was the term used by Frieze magazine to describe Groys, as I mentioned. Here’s the link so Mr. Smock can read it himself: http://www.frieze.com/comment/article/the_power_of_art/
“Perverse” was the term used by Frieze magazine to describe Groys, as I mentioned. Here’s the link so Mr. Smock can read it himself: http://www.frieze.com/comment/article/the_power_of_art/
“Perverse” was the term used by Frieze magazine to describe Groys, as I mentioned. Here’s the link so Mr. Smock can read it himself: http://www.frieze.com/comment/article/the_power_of_art/
Mr. Moody,
Although you reinforce the characterization with your concluding remark by saying “that’s pretty perverse, all right”, I still appreciate the redirection to the original source. Cheers!
Regards,
Joel K. Smock
Mr. Moody,
Although you reinforce the characterization with your concluding remark by saying “that’s pretty perverse, all right”, I still appreciate the redirection to the original source. Cheers!
Regards,
Joel K. Smock
@Joel K Smock: Tom Moody is simply citing a source for clarity and does not claim to be an authority. If you fail to address the substance of the quoted comment, choosing instead to attack commentors on this form again, your comments will not be approved.
@Joel K Smock: Tom Moody is simply citing a source for clarity and does not claim to be an authority. If you fail to address the substance of the quoted comment, choosing instead to attack commentors on this form again, your comments will not be approved.
@Joel K Smock: Tom Moody is simply citing a source for clarity and does not claim to be an authority. If you fail to address the substance of the quoted comment, choosing instead to attack commentors on this form again, your comments will not be approved.
@Joel K Smock: Tom Moody is simply citing a source for clarity and does not claim to be an authority. If you fail to address the substance of the quoted comment, choosing instead to attack commentors on this form again, your comments will not be approved.
@Joel K Smock: Tom Moody is simply citing a source for clarity and does not claim to be an authority. If you fail to address the substance of the quoted comment, choosing instead to attack commentors on this form again, your comments will not be approved.
Wouldn’t the ubiquity of cat gifs in some way form a strong image? I mean, the LOL Cats are instantly recognizable and widely distributed. I’d say that for the general public, an image of an LOL Cat is on par with say, an image of Madonna in terms of popular appeal. What does he mean by weak and strong, exactly? Is it supposed to signify an emotional response to an image? I’m really confused about how cat gifs figure into this conversation.
Wouldn’t the ubiquity of cat gifs in some way form a strong image? I mean, the LOL Cats are instantly recognizable and widely distributed. I’d say that for the general public, an image of an LOL Cat is on par with say, an image of Madonna in terms of popular appeal. What does he mean by weak and strong, exactly? Is it supposed to signify an emotional response to an image? I’m really confused about how cat gifs figure into this conversation.
Wouldn’t the ubiquity of cat gifs in some way form a strong image? I mean, the LOL Cats are instantly recognizable and widely distributed. I’d say that for the general public, an image of an LOL Cat is on par with say, an image of Madonna in terms of popular appeal. What does he mean by weak and strong, exactly? Is it supposed to signify an emotional response to an image? I’m really confused about how cat gifs figure into this conversation.
Wouldn’t the ubiquity of cat gifs in some way form a strong image? I mean, the LOL Cats are instantly recognizable and widely distributed. I’d say that for the general public, an image of an LOL Cat is on par with say, an image of Madonna in terms of popular appeal. What does he mean by weak and strong, exactly? Is it supposed to signify an emotional response to an image? I’m really confused about how cat gifs figure into this conversation.
Again, just based on my notes from the lecture: Groys didn’t say anything about LOL cats. He gave the example of looking at websites that people put up as a tribute to their cats. (I envisioned ’90s homepages with terrible animated GIFs of Twinkle and Precious, or something like Atrios’ “Friday Catblogging”–Groys wasn’t specific.) Groys noted that there was no discussion among these site owners about their pets and he wondered who the audience was for all these sites. “Low visibility” is one of the attributes of what he was calling the weak sign.
Again, just based on my notes from the lecture: Groys didn’t say anything about LOL cats. He gave the example of looking at websites that people put up as a tribute to their cats. (I envisioned ’90s homepages with terrible animated GIFs of Twinkle and Precious, or something like Atrios’ “Friday Catblogging”–Groys wasn’t specific.) Groys noted that there was no discussion among these site owners about their pets and he wondered who the audience was for all these sites. “Low visibility” is one of the attributes of what he was calling the weak sign.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }