According to the philosopher, art criticism, the artist and professor of media theory Boris Groys, the old Soviet propaganda as an excellent example of the ruthless, but effective advertising campaign. «The entire country and the whole system was one product in one package - he said. - How to bottle Coca-Cola».

Efimovich Boris Groys, who was born in 1947 in East Berlin, is well acquainted with all the realities of the Soviet system. He studied philosophy and mathematics at the Leningrad University (from 1965 to 1971), five years in Leningrad, Scientific Officer, then moved to Moscow where he immersed himself in the head with the «informal» artistic life. He became the author of the term «Moscow Conceptualism». In 1981 Groys emigrated to Germany, where he received the degree of candidate of sciences at the University of Münster. Since Groys positions itself as an expert on postmodern art pozdnesovetskogo period, as well as on the Russian avant-garde. He was the author of many books, including «Utopia and exchange (Style Stalin)», «Ilya Kabakov: The man who uletevshy into space from his apartment» and «Art Power».

Now Groys taught in the city of Karlsruhe in the south-west Germany and in New York. In the world of art it is known as the curator and creator of «videokollazhey». November 17, he read the New School of Design Parsons (Parsons the New School for Design) lecture on the theme of «Art in the Age of Democracy». The event took place in a series of lectures, which take place in the college in memory of an outstanding teacher John MacDonald Mouret (John McDonald Moore). Recently, representatives of the site ARTINFO.com have a Groys interview. He explained that he thinks about the brand «Obama», on «samodizayne» and that the Prada for the art-world is the same as the parliament for democracy.

Question : In the promotional materials of the lectures at Parsons says that you will talk about art and democracy, the difference between art and design and the relationship between aesthetics and theory of conspiracy. Could you briefly tell us what the main points you will be affected?

Boris Groys : So, which is really interested in me - a state of art and politics.

In his lecture, I refer to the famous passage from an essay by Walter Benjamin (Walter Benjamin) «A work of art in an era of technical reproducibility», where he conducts the border between estetizatsiey policy and the politicization of art. Estetizatsiya policy - what we now would call «branding», or design, which represents a policy as something charms. It is the same concept as the «Company Performance» Guy Deborah (Guy Debord). Politics becomes a way of glamor people, which leads to fascism and war.

On the other hand, the politicization of art - a way to get rid of all this, and act, guided only by political goals beyond aesthetics, beyond art, beyond the limits of charm, away from the spectacle. The question here is: Is this possible?

Today, policies to «estetizirovatsya», art is not required, because other than art, we have a mass culture, mass media and other forms of production, but it also means exactly what the art followed a policy on its own territory, and may criticize it with the «aesthetic» means. Yet estetizirovat something - it means to discredit it.

Take, for example, Obama. All those who want to say anything bad about Obama, saying that he showman - well, they «estetiziruyut» it. And those who want to say about Obame something good, they say that it is «real».

call something «estetizirovannym» - then consider that something fundamentally bad. «Estetizirovannye» phenomenon may be tempting, or charms, as many think, but rather, they provoke mistrust and suspicion.

W. : Is there a difference between «estetiziruemym» and «possessing aesthetic qualities»?

BG : The difference is, but only who is «estetizatsiey». Something can be «estetizirovano» before it reaches the consumer, but something «estetiziruetsya» by the consumer.

W. : In an interview with the magazine Art Lies You said «Art as a rule, it is nothing other than a failed or poorly functioning design ». Could you explain?

BG : Let us remember what we call art history: it began in the late XVIII and early XIX century, when such museums as the Louvre and the British Museum. If you go to these museums, you'll see that the collection of works of art - this is actually a collection of design. Pay attention to the collection of furniture, or religious statues or icons or portraits - it is not art, and design types. This applies even to the XX century. The real art of XX century was the design - think of Russian constructivism and the school production of Bauhaus, that is, it is to create images for the new society. That shows in museums and galleries - the elements of the design, and we consider them art.

W. : you want to say that the design predates the arts?

BG : Yes, design is an art historical predecessors.

W. : and art there is to criticize and iznichtozhat design?

BG : Let's start with the fact that art is part of design - part design for a new life, new society, a new aesthetic vision. But art can also demonstrate the ambiguity of design. If we want to create a new society, a new religion, even a new product, it means that we have a new vision. We have the ideas and the future. But at some point the future is lost, and what remains of it - is an art. Remember , and Russian Constructivism, and Bauhaus: their images and objects are elements of excellent projects to improve the world, but at the same time they are just a combination of squares and triangles. And nothing more. This means that projects have failed, not having realized. Art includes success and failure. A design will certainly be successful. But art - the art of XX century, contemporary art - is able to recognize failure. The main theme of modernist art as art and postmodernism, and contemporary art, - the failure. It is virtually impossible the creation of art - the art of consistently demonstrates this inability, the failure of his own project. Art - the flip side of design, the flip side of utopia.

W. : And what attitude to this is a conspiracy theory?

BG : If a thing has already become an object of design, it gives the viewer a suspicion that it is bad, because if it was good, then it was not necessary that «makeweight» - design. If [in the relationship between man and thing. - Ed. ] cut the mediator, then people begin to suspect that there lies some manipulation, the interests or policies, or perhaps even dangerous. Therefore, they seek to destroy the surface of the object, find the crack.

This is a strategy of modernism. The challenge of modernism - to break up the surface of things. It begins with Cubism and Constructivism - in fact, all the artistic trends of XX century shows the destruction of things. Why so? Artists do not do so because they are angry or aggressive. This is because the surface of the object, «undergo» design provokes distrust and suspicion. They [the artists-modernists. - Ed. ] are looking for failure, the cracks on the surface.

W. : If the design creates a conspiracy theory, which gives the top art, what gave rise to the very design?

BG : Design grew from a religious understanding of nature. Assuming that the nature - this design, created by God, then you can take the place of God and begin to invent your own design.

W. : If you choose to continue the analogy, which is a source of art?

BG : Philosophy, metaphysics, even a negative religion. Desire to see things through and through, in order to identify their hidden essence.

W. : You also said that the art - the most democratic of institutions. Why?

BG : You may ask why the radical modern art of the XX century is not very popular. I think this is because the interests that it represents - imaginary or virtual. Politics is always some interest groups - the different segments of the population, different associations, different character. But what constitutes the essence of «black box» Malevitch or [works. - Ed. ] Dushan (Marcel Duchamp)? None. Malevitch even said that he did not like their work. It provides some opportunity imaginary interest, false desire. He opened the democratic space that goes beyond the existing reporting system, outside of such concepts as «nation», or «state»; and a window open to them - is a window into the future. This is a vision beyond the «modernity», is, in my opinion, that makes art unique.

W. : explain more in detail as it relates to democracy.

BG : The thing is that [art. - Ed. ] opens the way to something that goes beyond the usual interests . It gives the person a chance to get acquainted with what is outside the existing system of representations, and to say: «I do not submit it all, I was introduced Duchamp». It allows you to be above all the existing systems, including the now dominant democratic system.

W. : Can art be in any kind of design? You irritate «sleeky» art?

BG : Yes and no. All, of course, depends on the context. If you create a design within the art, as Warhol (Andy Warhol) and Jeff Koons (Jeff Koons), it is from the outset perceived as irony. [Such works. - Ed. ] c the outset, conceived as a failed design. This is not a real design project, so I'm in it I do not see any problems.

Of course, any art can be used as a design, without a difference, you are a designer or a collector, or director of a museum, or just a person who wants to decorate his apartment and buying works of art. Art can be used in a variety of ways, including and not as an art. But in this case this is not the creation of the artist, it's your creation.

W. : What you say about the artists who have a recognizable style? Are their works of design?

BG : Yes, [their creativity. - Ed. ] turns into what I call «samodizayn», or branding, which people like themselves. People here that do: they hide in masques and invent a «second body», artificial body. Some, like Duchamp, did so very openly. Again, some of the artists style is constantly changing and ever-changing themselves, creating a «floating body», uncertain nature.

In any case, the most interesting here is that we are, without doubt, also use these strategies «samodizayna» ... As we speak, behave like, dresses like ...

W. : What do you think about the main idea of the exhibition «democracy itself has become a brand name», which is now in college Parsons?

BG : Democracy, no doubt, has become a brand, because it is designed. All that writing is the design. We have the so-called democratic design, and it has the tradition dates back to Ancient Rome - all of these Senate, Congress, and so on. If we see that these phenomena are available, we think: «Oh, this is democracy». The same thing happens when we see people in black clothes from Prada or Yamamoto and think: «Oh, this is art-world».

W. : But is the brand «Democracy» this democracy?

BG : Yes, it is still a democracy, but you have to remember that this is a brand. If you have a form, if you have a brand that some people are automatically excluded from it. They are excluded because they did not look like the Democrats. And that is why I say that the art of modernism, the art of XX century more democratic than any political system. It offers opportunities to people who do not look like the Democrats, identify themselves as part of society. Now comes the following: people look at any country and said: «Do they wear? On whether it is the designer? Do they have the parliament? Do they have the judicial system, as in America or France? »If all of these questions the answer« yes », then, that a democratic country.

I think that the problem of democracy today is that it has evolved into a system of easily recognized signs, and because of that people acquire the tendency to deny democracy to what is not habitually.

Source: artinfo.com