Groys Art and Money Article_226

7/29/2019 Groys Art and Money Article_226

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/groys-art-and-money-article226 1/9

Boris Groys

Art and Money

The relationship between art and money can beunderstood in at least two ways. First, art can beinterpreted as a sum of works circulating on theart market. In this case, when we speak about artand money, we think primarily of spectaculardevelopments in the art market that took placein recent decades: the auctions of modern andcontemporary art, the huge sums that were paidfor works, and so forth Ð what newspapers

mostly report on when they want to saysomething about contemporary art. It is nowbeyond doubt that art can be seen in the contextof the art market and every work of art canfunction as a commodity.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊOn the other hand, contemporary art alsofunctions in the context of permanent andtemporary exhibitions. The number of large-scale, temporary exhibitions Ð biennials,triennials, Documenta, Manifestas Ð isconstantly growing. These exhibitions are notprimarily for art buyers, but for the general

public. Similarly, art fairs, which are supposedlymeant to serve art buyers, are now increasinglytransformed into public events, attracting peoplewith little interest in, or finances for, buying art.Since exhibitions cannot be bought and sold, therelationship between art and money takes hereanother form. In exhibitions, art functionsbeyond the art market, and for that reasonrequires financial support, whether public orprivate.

Detail of Susan Hiller, Measure by Measure , 1973-ongoing. Paintingsburnt annually, in glass burettes, on shelf.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊI would like to stress a point that is oftenoverlooked in the context of contemporarydiscussions about exhibitions. These discussionsoften suggest that art can exist even when it isnot shown. The discussion of exhibition practicethus becomes a discussion of what is includedand what is excluded by a certain exhibition Ð asif excluded artworks can somehow still exist

somewhere, even when they are not shown. Insome cases artworks can be stored or hidden

0 1 / 0 9

04.08.11 / 12:22:50 EDT



Fran•ois Pinault posing infront of his art collection.

from the public view and still exist as they wait tobe exhibited later. But in most cases, to not showan artwork simply means not allowing it to comeinto being at all.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIndeed, at least since DuchampÕsreadymades, artworks that only exist if they areexhibited have emerged. To produce an artworkmeans precisely to exhibit something as art Ðthere is no production beyond exhibition. Yet

when art production and exhibition coincide, theresulting works can very rarely begin to circulateon the art market. Since an installation, bydefinition, cannot circulate easily, it would followthat if installation art were not to be sponsored,it would simply cease to exist. We can now see acrucial difference between sponsoring anexhibition of, letÕs say, traditional art objects andsponsoring an exhibition of art installations. Inthe first case, without adequate sponsorship,certain art objects will not be made accessible tothe wider public; nevertheless, these objects will

still exist. In the second case, inadequatesponsorship would mean that the artworks,understood as art installations, would not comeinto being at all. And that would be a pity at leastfor an important reason: artistic and curatorialinstallations increasingly function as places thatattract filmmakers, musicians, and poets who

challenge the public taste of their time andcannot become a part of the commercializedmass culture. Philosophers, too, are discoveringthe art exhibition as a terrain for theirdiscourses. The art scene has become a territoryon which political ideas and projects that aredifficult to situate in the contemporary politicalreality can be formulated and presented.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊPublic exhibition practice thus becomes a

place where interesting and relevant questionsconcerning the relationship between art andmoney emerge. The art market is Ð at leastformally Ð a sphere dominated by private taste.But what about the art exhibitions that arecreated for wider audiences? One repeatedlyhears that the art market, distorted by theprivate taste of wealthy collectors, corruptspublic exhibition practice. Of course, this is truein a sense. But then what is this uncorrupted,pure, public taste that is thought to dominate anexhibition practice that surpasses private

interests? Is it a mass taste, a factual taste ofwider audiences that is characteristic of ourcontemporary civilization? In fact, installationart is often criticized precisely for being Òelitist,Ófor being an art that the wider audiences do notwant to see. Now this argument Ð especiallybecause it is so often heard Ð deserves careful

0 2 / 0 9

04.08.11 / 12:22:50 EDT



analysis. First of all, one has to ask: Ifinstallation art is elitist, what is the elite that isassumed to be the natural audience for this art?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn our society, if we speak about the elite,we understandably refer to the financial elite.Thus, if somebody suggests art to be Òelitist,Ó itwould seem to imply that this art is made forspectators coming from the affluent andprivileged classes of our society. But, as I have

already tried to show, the contrary is true in thecontext of installation art. Affluent, privileged artcollectors buy expensive art objects thatcirculate in the international art market, and arenot as interested in installation art, whichfunctions primarily as part of public artexhibitions and cannot be easily sold. And it isusually the case that, after stating thatadvanced installation art is elitist, theresponsible authorities will invite wealthycollectors to show their private collections insidea public space. The notion of the elite thus

becomes completely confusing, for no one canunderstand who this Òelite,Ó implied byaccusations of elitism, is actually supposed tobe.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn an attempt to clarify what people couldmean by the word Òelitist,Ó let us turn to ClementGreenbergÕs essay ÒAvant-Garde and KitschÓ(1939), a text that became a well-known exampleof the so-called elitist attitude to art. Today,Greenberg is mostly remembered as atheoretician of modernist art who coined theconcept of flatness, but ÒAvant-Garde andKitschÓ deals with another question: Who canfinancially support advanced art under theconditions of modern capitalism?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAccording to Greenberg, good avant-gardeart tries to reveal the techniques that oldmasters used to produce their works. In thisrespect, an avant-garde artist can be seen ascomparable to a well-trained connoisseurconcerned less with the subject of an individualartwork Ð as Greenberg states, this subject isdictated to the artist mostly from the outside, bythe culture in which the artist lives Ð than theartistic means through which the artist treats

this subject. The avant-garde in this senseoperates mainly by way of abstraction Ðremoving the ÒwhatÓ of the artwork to reveal itsÒhow.Ó Greenberg seems to assume that theconnoisseurship enabling the spectator to beattentive to the purely formal, technical, andmaterial aspects of the artwork is accessibleonly to members of the ruling class, to the peoplewho Òcould command leisure and comfort thatalways goes hand-in-hand with cultivation ofsome sort.Ó1 For Greenberg, that means thatavant-garde art can only hope to get its financial

and social support from the same Òrich andcultivatedÓ patrons that have historically

supported art. Avant-garde art thus remainsattached to the bourgeoisie Òby the umbilicalcord of gold.Ó2 These formulations stuck withmany of GreenbergÕs readers, and defined thereception and interpretation of his text.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBut what makes GreenbergÕs essay stillinteresting and relevant today is the fact thatafter stating his belief that only the Òwealthy andeducatedÓ Ð that is, the elite in the traditional

sense of the word Ð can be capable and willing tosupport avant-garde art, Greenberg immediatelyrejects this belief and explains why it is wrong.The historical reality of the 1930s bringsGreenberg to the conclusion that the bourgeoisieis unable to provide a social basis for avant-garde art through its economic and politicalsupport. To maintain its real political andeconomic power under the conditions of modernmass society, the ruling elite must reject anynotion or even any suspicion of having ÒelitetasteÓ or supporting Òelite art.Ó What the modern

elite does not want is to be ÒelitistÓ Ð to bevisibly distinguishable from the masses.Accordingly, the modern elite must erase anydistinction of taste and create an illusion ofaesthetic solidarity with the masses Ð asolidarity that conceals the real powerstructures and economic inequalities. Asexamples of this strategy, Greenberg cites thecultural policies of the Soviet Union under Stalin,of Nazi Germany, and Fascist Italy. But he alsosuggests that the American bourgeoisie followsthe same strategy of aesthetic solidarity withmass culture to prevent the masses from beingable to visually identify their class enemy.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn applying GreenbergÕs analysis to thecurrent cultural situation, one can say that thecontemporary elites collect precisely the art thatthey assume to be spectacular enough to attractthe masses. This is why big private collectionsappear Ònon-elitistÓ and well-adjusted enough tobecome global tourist attractions whenever theyare exhibited. We are living in a time in whichelite taste and mass taste coincide. One shouldnot forget that, in the current moment,significant wealth can only be gained by selling

products with mass appeal. If contemporaryelites suddenly become Òelitist,Ó they will alsolose touch with mass expectations in theirbusiness practices and, accordingly, lose theirwealth. Thus, the question arises: How issomething like ÒelitistÓ art possible under theseconditions?ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe same essay by Greenberg suggests ananswer to this question. If the avant-garde isnothing other than an analysis of traditional artfrom its productivist side, then ÒelitistÓ art is thesame as Òart for artistsÓ Ð that is, art made

primarily for the producers of art and notexclusively for the consumers of art. Advanced

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 2 4

Ñ a

p r i l 2 0 1 1 B o r i s G r o y s

A r t a n d M o n e y

0 3 / 0 9

04.08.11 / 12:22:50 EDT



art wants to demonstrate how art is made Ð itsproductive side, its poetics, the devices andpractices that bring it into being. Greenberg givesavant-garde art a definition that casts it beyondany possible evaluation by taste, wither popularor elite. According to Greenberg, the idealspectator of avant-garde art is less interested init as a source of aesthetic delectation than as asource of knowledge Ð of information about art

production, its devices, its media, and itstechniques. Art ceases to be a matter of tasteand becomes a matter of knowledge andmastery. In this sense, one can say that, as amodern technique, avant-garde art is, generally,autonomous Ð which is to say, independent ofany individual taste. Therefore, artworks shouldbe analyzed according the same criteria asobjects like cars, trains, or planes. From thispoint of view, there is no longer a clear differencebetween art and design, between an artwork anda mere technical product. This constructivist,

productivist point of view opens the possibility tosee art not in the context of leisure and informedaesthetic contemplation, but in terms ofproduction Ð that is, in terms that refer more tothe activities of scientists and workers than tothe lifestyle of the leisure class.

Fernand LŽger, Ballet MŽcanique, 1924. Film still of the mechanized,

animated Chaplin which opens and closes the film.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn a later essay, ÒThe Plight of CultureÓ(1953), Greenberg insists even more radically onthis productivist view of culture. Citing Marx,Greenberg states that modern industrialism hasdevaluated leisure Ð even the rich must work,and are more proud of their achievements asthey enjoy their leisure time. This is whyGreenberg simultaneously agrees and disagreeswith T. S. EliotÕs diagnosis of modern culture inhis book from 1948, Notes Toward the Definition

of Culture. Greenberg concurs with Eliot that thetraditional culture based on leisure and

refinement came into a period of decline whenmodern industrialization forced all people towork. But at the same time, Greenberg writes:ÒThe only solution for culture that I conceive ofunder these conditions is to shift its center ofgravity away from leisure and place it squarely inthe middle of work.Ó3 Indeed, the abandonmentof the traditional ideal of cultivation throughleisure seems to be the only possible way out of

innumerable paradoxes that were produced byGreenbergÕs attempt to connect this ideal withthe concept of the avant-garde Ð the attemptthat he undertook and then rejected in ÒAvant-Garde and Kitsch.Ó But even if Greenberg foundthis way out, he was too careful to follow it. Hewrites further about the proposed solution: ÒI amsuggesting something whose outcome I cannotimagine.Ó4 And further again:

Beyond such speculation, which isadmittedly schematic and abstract, I

cannot go. É But at least it helps if we donot have to despair of the ultimateconsequences for culture of industrialism.And it also helps if we do not have to stopthinking at the point where Spengler andToynbee and Eliot do.5

It becomes obvious that when saying avant-garde art is Òelitist,Ó what one actually means bythe word ÒeliteÓ is not the ruling and wealthy butthe art producers Ð the artists themselves. Itwould follow that ÒelitistÓ art means that artwhich is made not for the appreciation of theconsumers, but rather that of the artiststhemselves. Here we are no longer dealing with aspecific taste Ð whether of the elite or of themasses Ð but with art for the artists, with artpractice that surpasses taste. But would such anart that surpasses taste really be an ÒelitistÓ art?Or, put differently: Are artists really an elite? In avery obvious way, they are not, for they aresimply not wealthy and powerful enough. Butpeople who use the word ÒelitistÓ in relation toart produced for artists do not actually mean tosuggest that artists rule the world. They simply

mean that to be an artist is to belong to aminority. In this sense, ÒelitistÓ art actuallymeans ÒminorityÓ art. But are artists really sucha minority in our contemporary society? I wouldsay that they are not.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊPerhaps this was the case in GreenbergÕstime, but now it is not. Between the end of thetwentieth century and the beginning of thetwenty-first, art entered a new era Ð namely, anera of mass artistic production following an eraof mass art consumption. Contemporary meansof image production, such as video and cell

phone cameras, as well as socially networkedmeans of image distribution such as Facebook,

0 4 / 0 9

04.08.11 / 12:22:50 EDT



Stephen Willats, Metafilter , 1973-5, Painted wood, Perspex, computer, slide projector and problem book. Collection of Fonds National dÕArt Contemporain,Paris

0 5 / 0 9

04.08.11 / 12:22:50 EDT



YouTube, and Twitter give global populations thepossibility of presenting their photos, videos,and texts in a way that cannot be distinguishedfrom any other post-conceptual artwork. Andcontemporary design gives the same populationsthe possibility of shaping and experiencing theirown bodies, apartments, or workplaces asartistic objects and installations. This meansthat contemporary art has definitively become a

mass cultural practice. Furthermore, it meansthat todayÕs artist lives and works primarilyamong art producers Ð not among artconsumers. Or, to use GreenbergÕs phrase, theartist is finally put squarely into the context ofproduction. This places professionalcontemporary art outside the problem of taste,and even outside the aesthetic attitude as such.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊUnder these new social and economiccircumstances, the artist should have no shamein presenting him- or herself as being interestedin production and not consumption Ð as being an

artist today means to belong not to a minoritybut to a majority of the population. Accordingly,an analysis of contemporary mass imageproduction has to substitute the analysis of theart of the past as Greenberg theorized it. Andthis is precisely what contemporary professionalartists do Ð they investigate and manifest massart production, not elitist or mass artconsumption.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe aesthetic attitude is, by definition, theconsumerÕs attitude. Aesthetics, as aphilosophical tradition and academic discipline,relates to and reflects on art from theperspective of the art consumer Ð the ideal artspectator. This spectator expects to receive theso-called aesthetic experience from art. At leastsince Kant, we know that the aestheticexperience can be an experience of beauty or ofthe sublime. It can be an experience of sensualpleasure. But it can also be an Òanti-aestheticÓexperience of displeasure, of frustrationprovoked by an artwork that lacks all thequalities that ÒaffirmativeÓ aesthetics expects itto have. It can be an experience of a utopianvision that leads humankind out of its present

condition to a new society in which beautyreigns; or, in somewhat different terms, it canredistribute the sensible in a way that refiguresthe spectatorÕs field of vision by showing certainthings and giving access to certain voices thatwere earlier concealed or obscured. But it canalso demonstrate the impossibility of providingpositive aesthetic experiences in the midst of asociety based on oppression and exploitation Ðon a total commercialization andcommodification of art that, from the beginning,undermines the possibility of a utopian

perspective. As we know, both of theseseemingly contradictory aesthetic experiences

can provide equal aesthetic enjoyment. However,in order to experience aesthetic enjoyment of anykind the spectator must be aestheticallyeducated, and this education necessarilyreflects the social and cultural milieus into whichthe spectator was born and in which he or shelives. In other words, the aesthetic attitudepresupposes the subordination of art productionto art consumption Ð and thus the subordination

of art theory to sociology.

Claes Oldenburg, Vitello Tonnato, 1962. Muslin on painted glazed clayon a dish.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊIn fact, the aesthetic attitude does not needart, and it functions much better without it. It isoften said that all the wonders of art pale in

comparison to the wonders of nature. In terms ofaesthetic experience, no work of art can standcomparison to even an average beautiful sunset.And, of course, the sublime side of nature andpolitics can be fully experienced only bywitnessing a real natural catastrophe, revolution,or war Ð not by reading a novel or looking at apicture. In fact, this was the shared opinion ofKant and the Romantic poets and artists thatlaunched the first influential aestheticdiscourses: the real world is the legitimateobject of the aesthetic attitude (as well as of

scientific and ethical attitudes) Ð not art.According to Kant, art can become a legitimate

0 6 / 0 9

04.08.11 / 12:22:50 EDT



object of aesthetic contemplation only if it iscreated by a genius Ð understood as a humanembodiment of natural force. The professionalart can only serve as a means of education innotions of taste and aesthetic judgment. Afterthis education is completed, art can be, asWittgensteinÕs ladder, thrown away Ð to confrontthe subject with the aesthetic experience of lifeitself. Seen from the aesthetic perspective, art

reveals itself as something that can, and shouldbe, overcome. All things can be seen from anaesthetic perspective; all things can serve assources of aesthetic experience and becomeobjects of aesthetic judgment. From theperspective of aesthetics, art has no privilegedposition. Rather, art comes between the subjectof the aesthetic attitude and the world. A grownperson has no need for artÕs aesthetic tutelage,and can simply rely on oneÕs own sensibility andtaste. Aesthetic discourse, when used tolegitimize art, effectively serves to undermine it.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊOur contemporary world, though, isprimarily an artificially produced world Ð in otherwords, it is produced primarily by human work.However, even if todayÕs wider populationsproduce artworks, they do not investigate,analyze, and demonstrate the technical meansby which they produce them Ð let alone theeconomic, social, and political conditions underwhich images are produced and distributed.Professional art, on the other hand, doesprecisely that Ð it creates spaces in which acritical investigation of contemporary massimage production can be effectuated andmanifested. This is why such a critical, analyticalart should be supported in the first place: if it isnot supported, it will be not only hidden anddiscarded, but, as I have already suggested, itwould simply not come into being. And thissupport should be discussed and offered beyondany notion of taste and aesthetic consideration.What is at stake is not an aesthetic, but atechnical, or, if you like, poetic, dimension of art.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊA good object and example of such aninvestigation can be found in the poetics of theinternet Ð the dominant medium of mass

production in our time. The internet oftenseduces the average spectator Ð and even someserious theoreticians Ð to speak aboutimmaterial production, immaterial workers, andso forth. And indeed, for someone sitting in anapartment, office, or studio looking at the screenof his or her personal computer, this screenpresents itself as an opening, as a window intothe virtual, immaterial world of pure, floatingsignifiers. Apart from the physicalmanifestations of fatigue that are inevitableafter a few hours in front of the screen, the body

of a person using the computer is of noconsequence. As a computer user, one engrosses

oneself in solitary communication with themedium; one falls into a state of self-oblivion, anoblivion of oneÕs body that is analogous to theexperience of reading a book. But one is alsooblivious to the material body of the computeritself, to the cables attached to it, the electricityit consumes, and so forth.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊBut the situation changes drastically if thesame computer is placed in an installation, or,

more generally, in an exhibition space. An artexhibition extends the attention and focus of thevisitor. One no longer concentrates upon asolitary screen but wanders from one screen tothe next, from one computer installation toanother. The itinerary of the visitor within theexhibition space undermines the traditionalisolation of the internet user. At the same time,an exhibition utilizing the web and other digitalmedia renders visible the material, physical sideof these media: their hardware, the stuff fromwhich they are made. All of the machinery that

enters the visitorÕs field of vision thus destroysthe illusion that the digital realm is confined tothe space of the screen.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊThe standard exhibition leaves an individualvisitor alone, allowing him or her to individuallyconfront and contemplate the exhibited artobjects. Moving from one object to another, thisvisitor necessarily overlooks the totality of theexhibition space, including his or her ownposition within it. An art installation, on thecontrary, builds a community of spectatorsprecisely because of the holistic, unifyingcharacter of the space produced by theinstallation. The true visitor of the installation isnot an isolated individual, but a collective ofvisitors. The art space as such can only beperceived by a mass of visitors Ð a multitude, ifyou like Ð and this multitude becomes part of theexhibition for each individual visitor, and viceversa. The visitor thus finds his or her own bodyexposed to the gaze of others, who in turnbecome aware of this body.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊAn exhibition that uses and thematizesdigital equipment stages a social event, one thatis material and not immaterial. The installation is

frequently denied the status of a specific artform because it is not obvious what the mediumof an installation actually is. Traditional artisticmedia are all defined by a specific materialsupport: canvas, stone, or film. The materialsupport of the installation medium is the spaceitself Ð though this is not to say that theinstallation is somehow Òimmaterial.Ó On thecontrary, the installation is material parexcellence, because it is spatial Ð for being inspace is the most general definition of beingmaterial. The installation transforms the empty,

neutral public space into an individual artwork Ðand it invites the visitor to experience this space

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 2 4

Ñ a



0 7 / 0 9

04.08.11 / 12:22:50 EDT



as the holistic, totalizing space of an artwork.Anything included in such a space becomes apart of the artwork simply because it is placedinside this space. One might then say thatinstallation practices reveal the materiality andcomposition of the things of our world. Turningback to the beginning of my discussion, here liesthe critical, enlightening character of trulycontemporary art: while the commodities

produced by our civilization circulate on theglobal markets according to their monetary andsymbolic value Ð with their pure materialitymanifesting, at best, through their privateconsumption Ð it is contemporary art alone thatis able to demonstrate the materiality of thethings of this world beyond their exchange value.ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ×

Boris Groys (1947, East Berlin) is Professor ofAesthetics, Art History, and Media Theory at theCenter for Art and Media Karlsruhe and GlobalDistinguished Professor at New York University. He isthe author of many books, including The Total Art of

Stalinism, Ilya Kabakov: The Man Who Flew into Space

from His Apartment, Art Power , The Communist

Postscript, and, most recently, Going Public.

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 2 4

Ñ a



0 8 / 0 9

04.08.11 / 12:22:50 EDT



ÊÊÊÊÊÊ1Clement Greenberg, ÒAvant-Garde and Kitsch,Ó in Art inTheory 1900-1990, eds. CharlesHarrison and Paul Wood (Oxford:Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 543.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ2Ibid., 542.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ3Clement Greenberg, ÒThe Plightof Culture,Ó in Art and Culture(Boston: Beacon Press, 1961),

32.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ4Ibid.

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ5Ibid., 33.

e - f l u x j o u r n a l # 2 4

Ñ a



0 9 / 0 9

04 08 11 / 12 22 50 EDT

Groys Art and Money Article_226

Documents

Transcript of Groys Art and Money Article_226