Groys, Boris - The Weak Universalism

8/12/2019 Groys, Boris - The Weak Universalism

1/12

Boris Groys

The WeakUniversalism

In these times, we know that everything can bean artwork. Or rather, everything can be turnedinto an artwork by an artist. There is no chance ofa spectator distinguishing between an artworkand a simple thing on the basis of thespectators visual experience alone. Thespectator must first know a particular object tobe used by an artist in the context of his or herartistic practice in order to identify it as an

artwork or as a part of an artwork. But who is this artist, and how can he or shebe distinguished from a non-artist if such adistinction is even possible? To me, this seems afar more interesting question than that of howwe can differentiate between an artwork and asimple thing. Meanwhile, we have a long tradition ofinstitutional critique. During the last fewdecades, the role of collectors, curators,trustees, museum directors, gallerists, artcritics, and so forth has been extensively

analyzed and criticized by artists. But whatabout the artists themselves? The contemporaryartist is clearly an institutional figure as well.And contemporary artists are mostly ready toaccept the fact that their critique of artinstitutions is a critique from within. Today, theartist could be defined simply as a professionalfulfilling a certain role in the general frameworkof the art world, a world that is based as anyother bureaucratic organization or capitalistcorporation on the division of labor. One canalso argue that part of this role is to criticize theart world with a goal to make it more open, moreinclusive, and better informed, and because ofthat also more efficient and more profitable. Thisanswer is certainly plausible but at the sametime not really persuasive.

1. De-professionalizing ArtLet us remember Joseph Beuys well-knownmaxim: Everybody is an artist. This maxim hasa long tradition, going back to early Marxism andthe Russian avant-garde, and is therefore almostalways characterized today and was alreadycharacterized in Beuys time as utopian. This

maxim is usually understood as an expression ofa utopian hope that, in the future, the mankindthat currently consists predominantly of non-artists becomes a mankind consisting of artists.Not only can we now agree that such a hope isimplausible, but I would never suggest that it isutopian if the figure of the artist is defined thisway. A vision of the world completely turned intothe art world, in which every human being has toproduce artworks and compete for the chance toexhibit them at this or that biennial, is by nomeans a utopian vision, but quite dystopian in

fact, a complete nightmare.

e-fluxjournal#15

a

pril2010BorisGroys

TheWeakUnivers

alism

01/12

12.20.10 / 04:03:42 UTC


2/12

Joseph Beuys performing Sonne statt Reagan in 1982.

Now it can be said and, indeed, it wasoften said that Beuys had a Romantic, utopianunderstanding of the figure and role of the artist.And it is also often said that this Romantic,utopian vision is pass. But this diagnosis doesnot seem very persuasive to me. The tradition inwhich our contemporary art world functions including our current art institutions wasformed after the Second World War. This

tradition is based on the art practices of thehistorical avant-garde and on their updatingand codification during the 1950s and 1960.Now, one does not have the impression that thistradition has changed a lot since that time. Onthe contrary, through time it has become moreand more established. The new generations ofprofessional artists find their access to the artsystem predominantly through the network of artschools and educational programs that havebecome increasingly globalized in recentdecades. This globalized and rather uniform art

education is based on the same avant-gardecanon that dominates other contemporary artinstitutions and that includes, of course, notonly avant-garde art production itself but alsothe art that was made later in the same avant-garde tradition. The dominant mode ofcontemporary art production is the academicized

late avant-garde. That is why it seems to me thatto be able to answer who is the artist one shouldfirst of all turn back to the beginnings of thehistorical avant-garde and to the role of theartist as it was defined at that time. All art education as with education ingeneral has to be based on certain types ofknowledge or a certain mastery that is supposedto be transmitted from one generation to

another. Thus, the question arises: what kind ofknowledge and mastery is transmitted bycontemporary art schools? This question, as weall know, produces a lot of confusion now. Therole of the pre-avant-garde art academies waswell enough defined. There, one had to do withthe well-established criteria of technicalmastery in painting, sculpture, and othermedia that could be taught to the art students.Today, the art schools partially return to thisunderstanding of art education especially inthe field of new media. Indeed, photography,

film, video, digital art, and so forth requirecertain technical skills that art schools canteach. But of course art cannot be reduced to thesum of technical abilities. This is why we now seethe reemergence of the discourse on art as aform of knowledge a discourse that becomesunavoidable when art comes to be taught.

02/12

12.20.10 / 04:03:42 UTC


3/12

Funeral of Malevich.

Malevich teaching class, 1925.

12.20.10 / 04:03:42 UTC


4/12

Now the claim that art is a form ofknowledge is by no means new. Religious art hada claim to present the religious truths in a visual,pictorial form to a spectator who could notcontemplate them directly. And traditionalmimetic art pretended to reveal the natural,everyday world in a way in which the commonspectator could not see it. Both of these claimswere criticized by many thinkers, from Plato to

Hegel. And both were endorsed by many others,from Aristotle to Heidegger. But whatever onecan say about the corresponding philosophicalbenefits and drawbacks, both of these claimsabout art being a specific form of knowledgewere explicitly rejected by the historical avant-garde together with the traditional criteria ofmastery connected to these claims. Through theavant-garde, the profession of the artist becamede-professionalized. The de-professionalization of art has putthe artist in a pretty awkward situation, because

this de-professionalization is often interpretedby the public as a return of the artist to a statusof non-professionalism. Accordingly, thecontemporary artist begins to be perceived as aprofessional non-professional and the artworld as a space of art conspiracy (to useBaudrillards term).1The social effectiveness ofthis conspiracy would appear to present amystery only decipherable sociologically (see thewritings of Bourdieu and his school).

However, the de-professionalization of artundertaken by the avant-garde should not bemisunderstood as a simple return to non-professionality. The de-professionalization of artis an artistic operation that transforms artpractice in general, rather than merely cause anindividual artist to revert back to an original stateof non-professionality. Thus the de-professionalization of art is in itself a highlyprofessional operation. I will later discuss therelationship between de-professionalization andthe democratization of art, but I should beginwith how knowledge and mastery are needed inorder to de-professionalize art in the first place.

2. The Weak Signs of the Avant-gardeIn his recent book The Time That Remains,Giorgio Agamben describes using the exampleof Saint Paul the knowledge and masteryrequired to become a professional apostle.2Thisknowledge is messianic knowledge: knowledgeof the coming end of the world as we know it, ofcontracting time, of the scarcity of time in whichwe live the scarcity of time that annuls everyprofession precisely because the practicing ofevery profession needs a perspective of longuedure, the duration of time and the stability of

the world as it is. In this sense, the profession ofthe apostle is, as Agamben writes, to practice

the constant revocation of every vocation.3Onecan also say, the de-professionalization of allprofessions. Contracting time impoverishes,empties all our cultural signs and activities turning them into zero signs or, rather, asAgamben calls them, weak signs.4Such weaksigns are the signs of the coming end of timebeing weakened by this coming, alreadymanifesting the lack of time that would be

needed to produce and to contemplate strong,rich signs. However, at the end of time, thesemessianic weak signs triumph over the strongsigns of our world strong signs of authority,tradition, and power, but also strong signs ofrevolt, desire, heroism, or shock. Speaking aboutthe weak signs of the messianic, Agambenobviously has in mind weak messianism aterm introduced by Walter Benjamin. But one canalso remember (even if Agamben does not) thatin Greek theology, the term kenosischaracterized the figure of Christ the life,

suffering, and death of Christ as a humiliation ofhuman dignity, and an emptying out of the signsof divine glory. In this sense, the figure of Christalso becomes a weak sign that can be easily(mis)understood as a sign of weakness a pointthat was extensively discussed by Nietzsche inThe Antichrist. Now I would suggest that the avant-gardeartist is a secularized apostle, a messenger oftime who brings to the world the message thattime is contracting, that there is a scarcity oftime, even a lack of time. Modernity is, indeed,an era of the permanent loss of the familiarworld and of traditional conditions of living. It isa time of permanent change, of historical breaks,of new ends and new beginnings. Living withinmodernity means to have no time, to experiencea permanent scarcity, a lack of time due to thefact that modern projects are mostly abandonedwithout being realized every new generationdevelops its own projects, its own techniques,and its own professions to realize those projects,which are then abandoned by the followinggeneration. In this sense, our present time is nota postmodern but rather an ultramodern time,

because it is the time in which the scarcity oftime, the lack of time, becomes increasinglyobvious. We know it because everybody is busytoday nobody has time. Throughout the modern era, we saw all ourtraditions and inherited lifestyles condemned todecline and disappearance. But neither do wetoday trust our present time we do not believethat its fashions, lifestyles, or ways of thinkingwill have any kind of lasting effect. In fact, themoment new trends and fashions emerge, weimmediately imagine that their inevitable

disappearance will come sooner rather thanlater. (Indeed, when a new trend emerges, the

e-fluxjournal#15

a

pril2010BorisGroys

TheWeakUnivers

alism

04/12

12.20.10 / 04:03:42 UTC


5/12

Franois de Nom (French, ca. 1593-after 1644), St. Paul Preaching to the Athenians, Pauline shrine in Veria, Greece.

first thought that comes to ones mind is: buthow long will it last? And the answer is alwaysthat it will not last very long.) One can say thatnot only modernity, but even and to a muchgreater degree our own time, is chronicallymessianic, or, rather, chronically apocalyptic. Wealmost automatically see everything that existsand everything that emerges from theperspective of its impending decline and

disappearance.The avant-garde is often associated withthe notion of progress especially technologicalprogress. Indeed, one can find many statementsby avant-garde artists and theorists directedagainst conservatives and insisting on the futilityof practicing old forms of art under newconditions determined by new technology. Butthis new technology was interpreted at least bythe first generation of avant-garde artists notas a chance to build a new, stable world, but as amachine promising destruction of the old world,

as well as the permanent self-destruction ofmodern technological civilization itself. Theavant-garde perceived the forces of progress aspredominantly destructive ones. Thus the avant-garde asked whether artistscould continue to make art amid thepermanentdestruction of cultural tradition and the familiar

world through the contraction of time, which isthe main characteristic of technologicalprogress. Or, put differently: How can artistsresist the destructiveness of progress? How canone make art that would escape permanentchange art that would be atemporal,transhistorical? The avant-garde did not want tocreate the art of the future it wanted to createtranstemporal art, art for all time. One

repeatedly hears and reads that we need change,that our goal also in art should be to changethe status quo. But change isour status quo.Permanent change isour only reality. And in theprison of permanent change, to change thestatus quo would be to change the change toescape the change. In fact, every utopia isnothing other than an escape from this change. When Agamben describes the annulment ofall our occupations and the emptying of all ourcultural signs through the messianic event, hedoes not ask how we can transcend the border

that divides our era from the coming one. Hedoes not ask this question because the ApostlePaul does not ask it. St. Paul believed that anindividual soul being immaterial would beable to cross this border without perishing, evenafter the end of the material world. However, theartistic avant-garde did not seek to save the

05/12

12.20.10 / 04:03:42 UTC


6/12

Screenshot of Andy Warhols Facebook page.

soul, but art. And it tried to do so by means ofreduction by reducing cultural signs to theabsolute minimum so that they could besmuggled across the breaks, shifts, andpermanent changes in cultural fashions andtrends.

This radical reduction of artistic traditionhad to anticipate the full degree of its impendingdestruction at the hand of progress. By means of

reduction, the artists of the avant-garde beganto create images that seemed to them to be sopoor, so weak, so empty, that they would surviveevery possible historical catastrophe. In 1911, when Kandinsky speaks in On theSpiritual in Art about the reduction of allpainterly mimesis, all representation of the world the reduction that reveals that all paintings areactually combinations of colors and shapes hewants to guarantee the survival of his vision ofpainting through all possible future culturaltransformations, including even the most

revolutionary ones. The world that a paintingrepresents can disappear, but the paintings owncombination of colors and shapes will not. In thissense, Kandinsky believes that all imagesalready created in the past or to be created in thefuture can also be seen as his own paintings because regardless of what the images were,

are, or could be, they necessarily remaincombinations of certain colors and shapes. Andthat relates not only to painting, but also to allother media including photography and cinema.Kandinsky did not want to create his ownindividual style, but rather used his paintings asa school for the spectators gaze a school thatwould allow the spectator to see the invariablecomponents of all possible artistic variations,

the repetitive patterns underlying the images ofhistorical change. In this sense, Kandinsky doesunderstand his own art as being timeless. Later, with the Black Square, Malevichundertakes an even more radical reduction of theimage to a pure relationship between image andframe, between contemplated object and field ofcontemplation, between one and zero. In fact, wecannot escape the black square whateverimage we see is simultaneously the blacksquare. The same can be said about thereadymade gesture introduced by Duchamp

whatever we want to exhibit and whatever wesee as being exhibited presupposes this gesture. Thus we can say that avant-garde artproduces transcendental images, in the Kantiansense of the term images that manifest theconditions for the emergence and contemplationof any other image. Art of the avant-garde is the

06/12

12.20.10 / 04:03:42 UTC


7/12

Andy Warhol, Empire, 1964.

art not only of weak messianism, but also ofweak universalism. It is not only an art that useszero signs emptied out by the approachingmessianic event, but is also the art thatmanifests itself through weak images imageswith weak visibility, images that are necessarily,structurally overlooked when they function ascomponents of strong images with a high level ofvisibility, such as images of classical art or mass

culture.The avant-garde denied originality, since itdid not want to invent but to discover thetranscendental, repetitive, weak image. But, ofcourse, every such discovery of the unoriginalwas understood as an original discovery. And, asin philosophy and science, to maketranscendental art also means to makeuniversalist, transcultural art, because crossinga temporal border is basically the sameoperation as crossing a cultural border. Everyimage made in the context of any imaginable

culture is also a black square, because it willlook like a black square if it is erased. And thatmeans that to a messianic gaze it alwaysalready looks like a black square. This is whatmakes the avant-garde a true opening for auniversalist, democratic art. But the avant-gardes universalist power is a power of

weakness, of self-erasure, because the avant-garde only became so universally successful byproducing the weakest images possible. However, the avant-garde is ambiguous in away that transcendentalist philosophy is not.Philosophical contemplation and transcendentalidealization are operations thought to beeffectuated only by philosophers forphilosophers. But the avant-gardes

transcendental images are shown in the samespace of artistic representation as other inphilosophical terms empirical images. Thusone can say that the avant-garde places theempirical and transcendental on the same level,allowing the empirical and transcendental to becompared in a unified, democratized, uninitiatedgaze. Avant-garde art radically expands thespace of democratic representation by includingin it the transcendental, which was previouslythe object of religious or philosophicaloccupation and speculation. And that has

positive, but also dangerous aspects.From a historical perspective, the images ofthe avant-garde offer themselves to aspectators gaze not as transcendental images,but as specific empirical images manifestingtheir specific time and the specific psychology oftheir authors. Thus, the historical avant-garde

07/12

12.20.10 / 04:03:42 UTC


8/12

Poster for an exhibition of Joseph Beuys and Andy Warhol presented by Lucio Amelio, Naples, 1980.

12.20.10 / 04:03:42 UTC


9/12

simultaneously produced clarification andconfusion: clarification, because it revealedrepetitive image patterns behind the changes inhistorical styles and trends; but also confusion,because avant-garde art was exhibited alongsideother art production in a way that allowed it to be(mis)understood as a specific historical style.One can say that the basic weakness of theavant-gardes universalism has persisted until

now. The avant-garde is perceived by todays arthistory as a creator of art-historically strongimages and not of weak, transhistorical,universalist images. In this way, the universalistdimension of art that the avant-garde attemptedto reveal remains overlooked, because theempirical character of its revelation has eclipsedit.

Even now, one can hear at exhibitions ofavant-garde art: Why should this painting, letssay by Malevich, be here in the museum if mychild can do it and maybe even does? On the

one hand, this reaction to Malevich is, of course,correct. It shows that his works are stillexperienced by the wider public as weak images,notwithstanding their art-historical celebration.But, on the other hand, the conclusion that themajority of the exhibition visitors draw from thiscomparison is wrong: one thinks that thiscomparison discredits Malevich, whereas thecomparison could instead be used as a means ofadmiring ones child. Indeed, through his work,Malevich opened the door into the sphere of artfor weak images in fact, for all possible weakimages. But this opening can be understood onlyif Malevichs self-erasure is duly appreciated ifhis images are seen as transcendental and notas empirical images. If the visitor to Malevichsexhibition cannot appreciate the painting of hisor her own child, then neither can this visitortruly appreciate the opening of a field of art thatallows the paintings of this child to beappreciated.

Avant-garde art today remains unpopular bydefault, even when exhibited in major museums.Paradoxically, it is generally seen as a non-democratic, elitist art not because it is perceived

as a strong art, but because it is perceived as aweak art. Which is to say that the avant-garde isrejected or, rather, overlooked by wider,democratic audiences precisely for being ademocratic art; the avant-garde is not popularbecauseit is democratic. And if the avant-gardewere popular, it would be non-democratic.Indeed, the avant-garde opens a way for anaverage person to understand himself or herselfas an artist to enter the field of art as aproducer of weak, poor, only partially visibleimages. But an average person is by definition

not popular only stars, celebrities, andexceptional and famous personalities can be

popular. Popular art is made for a populationconsisting of spectators. Avant-garde art ismade for a population consisting of artists.

Wassily Kandinsky, Thirty (Trente), 1937. Oil on canvas.

3. Repeating the Weak GestureOf course the question arises of what hashappened historically to transcendentalist,universalist avant-garde art. In the 1920s, thisart was used by the second wave of avant-gardemovements as an allegedly stable foundation forbuilding a new world. This late avant-gardessecular fundamentalism was developed in the1920s by Constructivism, Bauhaus, Vkhutemas,and so forth, even if Kandinsky, Malevich, HugoBall, and some other leading figures of the earlyavant-garde wave rejected this fundamentalism.But even if the early generation of the avant-garde did not believe in the possibility of buildinga concrete new world on the weak foundation oftheir universalist art, they still believed that theyeffectuated the most radical reduction, andproduced works of the most radical weakness.But meanwhile we know that this was also anillusion. It was an illusion not because these

images could be made weaker than they were,but because their weakness was forgotten by theculture. Accordingly, from a historical distancethey seem to us to be either strong (for the artworld) or irrelevant (for everyone else). That means that the weak, transcendentalartistic gesture could not be produced once andfor all times. Rather, it must be repeated timeand again to keep the distance between thetranscendental and the empirical visible and toresist the strong images of change, the ideologyof progress, and promises of economic growth. It

is not enough to reveal the repetitive patternsthat transcend historical change. It is necessary

e-fluxjournal#15

a

pril2010BorisGroys

TheWeakUnivers

alism

12.20.10 / 04:03:42 UTC


10/12

to constantly repeat the revelation of thesepatterns this repetition itself should be maderepetitive, because every such repetition of theweak, transcendental gesture simultaneouslyproduces clarification and confusion. Thus weneed further clarification that again producesfurther confusion, and so forth. That is why theavant-garde cannot take place once and for alltimes, but must be permanently repeated to

resist permanent historical change and chroniclack of time. This repetitive and at the same time futilegesture opens a space that seems to me to beone of the most mysterious spaces of ourcontemporary democracy social networks likeFacebook, MySpace, YouTube, Second Life, andTwitter, which offer global populations theopportunity to post their photos, videos, andtexts in a way that cannot be distinguished fromany other conceptualist or post-conceptualistartwork. In a sense, then, this is a space that was

initially opened by the radical, neo-avant-garde,conceptual art of the 19601970s. Without theartistic reductions effectuated by these artists,the emergence of the aesthetics of these socialnetworks would be impossible, and they couldnot be opened to a mass democratic public tothe same degree. These networks are characterized by themass production and placement of weak signswith low visibility instead of the masscontemplation of strong signs with high visibility,as was the case during the twentieth century.What we are experiencing now is the dissolutionof the mainstream mass culture as it wasdescribed by many influential theoreticians: asthe era of kitsch (Greenberg), the cultureindustry (Adorno), or a society of spectacle(Debord). This mass culture was created by theruling political and commercial elites for themasses for the masses of consumers, ofspectators. Now the unified space of massculture is going through a process offragmentation. We still have the stars but theydont shine as bright as before. Today everybodywrites texts and posts images but who has

enough time to see and read them? Nobody,obviously or only a small circle of likemindedco-authors, acquaintances, and relatives at thevery most. The traditional relationship betweenproducers and spectators as established by themass culture of the twentieth century has beeninverted. Whereas before, a chosen few producedimages and texts for millions of readers andspectators, millions of producers now producetexts and images for a spectator who has little tono time to read or see them.

Earlier, during the classical period of mass

culture, one was expected to compete for publicattention. One was expected to invent an image

or a text that would be so strong, so surprising,and so shocking that it could capture theattention of the masses, even if only for a shortspan of time, what Andy Warhol famouslyreferred to as ones fifteen minutes of fame.

But, at the same time, Warhol producedfilms like Sleepor Empire State Buildingthatwere several hours long and so monotonous thatnobody could expect spectators to remain

attentive throughout their entire length. Thesefilms are also good examples of messianic, weaksigns because they demonstrate the transientcharacter of sleep and of architecture that theyseem to be endangered, put in the apocalypticperspective, ready to disappear. At the sametime, these films actually do not need dedicatedattention, or any spectator at all in fact just asthe Empire State Building or a sleeping persondo not need any spectator. It is no accident thatboth of these films by Warhol function at theirbest not in a movie theater but in a film

installation, where as a rule they are shown in aloop. The exhibition visitor can look at them for amoment or maybe not at all. The same can besaid about the websites of the social networks one can visit them or not. And if one does visitthem then only this visit as such is registered and not how much time one has spent looking atthem. Contemporary arts visibility is a weak,virtual visibility, the apocalyptic visibility ofcontracting time. One is already satisfied that acertain image can be seen or that a certain textcan be read the facticity of seeing and readingbecomes irrelevant.

But of course the Internet can also become and partially has become a space for thestrong images and texts that have begun todominate it. That is why younger generations ofartists are increasingly interested in weakvisibility and weak public gestures. Everywherewe witness the emergence of artistic groups inwhich participants and spectators coincide.These groups make art for themselves andmaybe for the artists of other groups if they areready to collaborate. This kind of participatorypractice means that one can become a spectator

only when one has already become an artist otherwise one simply would not be able to gainaccess to the corresponding art practices.

Now let us return to the beginning of thistext. The avant-garde tradition operates byreduction producing in this way atemporal anduniversalist images and gestures. It is an art thatpossesses and represents the secular messianicknowledge that the world in which we live is atransitory world, subject to permanent change,and that the lifespan of any strong image isnecessarily short. And it is also an art of low

visibility that can be compared to the lowvisibility of everyday life. And it is, of course, not

e-fluxjournal#15

a

pril2010BorisGroys

TheWeakUnivers

alism

10/12

12.20.10 / 04:03:42 UTC


11/12

accidental, because it is primarily our everydaylife that survives historical breaks and shifts,precisely because of its weakness and lowvisibility.

Today, in fact, everyday life begins to exhibititself to communicate itself as such throughdesign or through contemporary participatorynetworks of communication, and it becomesimpossible to distinguish the presentation of the

everyday from the everyday itself. The everydaybecomes a work of art there is no more barelife, or, rather, bare life exhibits itself as artifact.Artistic activity is now something that the artistshares with his or her public on the mostcommon level of everyday experience. The artistnow shares art with the public just as he or sheonce shared it with religion or politics. To be anartist has already ceased to be an exclusive fate,becoming instead an everyday practice a weakpractice, a weak gesture. But to establish andmaintain this weak, everyday level of art, one

must permanently repeat the artistic reduction resisting strong images and escaping the statusquo that functions as a permanent means ofexchanging these strong images. At the beginning of his Lectures on

Aesthetics, Hegel asserted that in his time, artwas already a thing of the past. Hegel believedthat, in the time of modernity, art could no longermanifest anything true about the world as it is.But avant-garde art has shown that art still hassomething to say about the modern world: it candemonstrate its transitory character, its lack oftime; and to transcend this lack of time through aweak, minimal gesture requires very little time or even no time at all. !

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 ofStalinism, Ilya Kabakov: The Man Who Flew into Spacefrom His Apartment, and, most recently,Art Power.

e-fluxjournal#15

a

pril2010BorisGroys

TheWeakUnivers

alism

11/12

12.20.10 / 04:03:42 UTC


12/12

1Jean Baudrillard, The Conspiracyof Art: Manifestos, Interviews,Essays, ed. Sylvre Lotringer,trans. Ames Hodges (New York:Semiotext(e)/MIT Press, 2005).

2Giorgio Agamben, The Time ThatRemains: A Commentary on theLetter to the Romans, trans.Patricia Dailey (Stanford:Stanford University Press, 2005).

3Ibid., 68.

4Ibid., 10.

e-fluxjournal#15

a

pril2010BorisGroys

TheWeakUnivers

alism

12/12

Groys, Boris - The Weak Universalism

Documents

Transcript of Groys, Boris - The Weak Universalism