Watch Elvis The Movie Free On Line With Kurt

I
A blog reader left a couple of anonymous comments in the entries for Boris Groys: The topology of contemporary art. First wanted to thank strongly by those words, including complex and fascinating questions. Questions for which there may not be conclusive answers. Best played directly both notes and then offer my views with the ambition that can add other points of view.

These are the two comments:

iconoclasm as an act of mass reproduction of the artwork traditional, which detracts from their "aura", following the concept of Benjamin, and therefore operates within the modern project but what about the relocation of the original works in museums? "Acquire a new" aura "in the museum institution and therefore acquire a semi-historical character because of the lack of its original context? Is not this "collecting" museum also part of the modern project and its iconoclasm despite being original works and not just reproductions of them?

By Anonymous on Boris Groys. The topology of contemporary art


The concept of "reauratización" implemented by Groys answered my previous question but only in the sense of postmodern art and not in the context of "modern project" by the aforementioned re-auratización original works belonging to the artistic tradition in place in a museum. Is not this museum acquisition totalitarian and fascist project that contradicts the thinking of Benjamin?

By Anonymous on Boris Groys. The topology of contemporary art

II
I would say definitely the original works to be relocated inside the museum, get a new "aura" even in the case of contemporary works, thanks to the semi-historical value decontextualized of which you speak.

The museum space is essentially auratic. An anonymous photograph that was a reproduction of a famous painting is convert ed , by the very fact of being located in the museum, in an image auratic (more in the sense that Groys speaks of "reauratización" that Benjamin made the use of the word). The viewer would end by asking what conception or approach led to the decision to include a regular play, say, Las Meninas in the museum space. The function itself works museum exhibit dedicated or with a particular stock cultural-auratic already contains a feature.

In a counterexample, and equally hypothetical, Duchamp's urinal, turned into a urinal in my apartment would no longer have any characters auratic. It would, indeed, unrecognizable as art even if I-a unknown, I have not been invested with the power to produce any kind of "aura" - insisting on me to ensure that it is a huge revolution in the visual arts. In the latter example the loss of aura would not have to do with the mechanical reproduction, but would be determined by the space in which the work is the return of the urinal for its initial function and reduced the anonymity of Marcel Duchamp.

Several weeks ago the Cuban artist Tania Bruguera announced the creation of a political party (or for) immigrants. It is possible that the party play some kind of activism, but apart from that play a role, it is difficult not to suspect that this is a work of art, since the initiative was a "visual artist", whose purpose is artistic just turn blur the boundaries between art and life. That is, the political party founded by Bruguera would have a share of "aura", without which the contemporary visual arts inevitably be diluted in the everyday. If Ralph Nader Shakira were those who had released a project is possible that the party had more fans and, obviously, more disclosure, but No one would suspect that would be a work of art. A rather unusual phenomenon is that the ability to turn auratic an object or a certain event, appears to relate to what he called "visual arts". Contemporary art, understood as an institution, it is a space of King Midas, who even managed to transform anything into gold.

There, he saw himself as Benjamin, auratización spaces. The museum, no doubt, but would not necessarily be specific cultural institutions or pre-established areas. Anywhere on the the artist involved could be owned, even briefly, by a character auratic. Altering the city space if an event hosted by Hans Haacke, or Christo. But if this is a car accident (unless it is presented as a specific artistic project.)

Collecting needs the "aura" of the exclusive work, irreproducible, author's name, the museum space. In this regard I would say yes. The acquisition of the museum has an authoritarian character. But, and this would be my question , do not need from the authoritarian sense, without which endangered the very existence of art? Dictatorships, fascism and totalitarianism are devastating and dehumanizing as social projects. But perhaps not entirely well in other areas. With the acquisitions of the museum this is one of the cases in which the authoritarian character would be salutary, if only because it stimulates the resistance and transgression . The concept of art contains a degree of auratización, whose deletion could involve perhaps the definitive inclusion of art in life. And this may not mean "living artfully" but on the contrary, a difficulty in recognizing alternative experiences, different, thinning and give it a poetic sense of the everyday.