Go straight to the main content



murmurART

art advisory - looking for something specific or help in finding work by early career artists. contact info@murmurart.com
Review Aug 13 2010 « | »
Boris Groys at the ICA Philosopher, essayist and art critic Boris Groys argues for subordination of the economy to politics at the ICA

Jack Brindley

Jazz accompanied the entrance of expectant faces whilst hand held fans rattled, shifting hot air until the arrival of the speaker. The buoyancy of the crowd seemed a strange pre-text for a lecture by renowned philosopher, essayist, art critic, and media theorist, and for this occasion internationally acclaimed expert on late-Soviet postmodern politics.

Groys' appearance muted the throng of punters. Aware of the undeniably vast intellect, fans were replaced with miniature recording devices ready to capture his 'collage of thoughts' on his newly published book The Communist postscript. The outset was simple and agreeable; economy is determined by money and politics by language.

Groys pinpointed Soviet philosophy as a shift from the specific control of society by its economy to the democratic and equal medium of language. He argued that this founded equality enabled power and the critique of power to operate on the same platform. Although an admirable statement in its apparent autonomy, I couldn't seem to remember Soviet Communism ever having such a liberal luster, and I was further surprised not to hear any mention of a hierarchy within language.

Admittedly, dogmatic reality is not essential to philosophy, however Groys' logic seemed to be confused and often misleading. Groys marked his territory through a series of paradoxes, claiming them to be not only essential in giving scope for ideas but are in fact the way we as humans think and function. It is true that bold statements instigate thought, but I found myself fiddling with sketched, rubbed-out and re-drawn ideas.

His argument was hard to follow by lacking a punch line. Communism was described as both logical and illogical. When logic was described as 'a lack of contradiction', I was left wondering whether to rationally or irrationally follow his argument. In neglecting a 'one-sided' position we were then led by Groys through a labyrinth of contradictions and statements, fascinating but confused.

Referencing a wide range of political, cultural and philosophical positions Groys posed an elaborate argument. Yet It is difficult to imagine a Communistic rule as being opposite to a totalitarian logic, and it is harder still to abide Groys' contradictory statements as a formalized reasoning. Although the content was captivating, it is hard to pass judgment on his theories when he assumes both sides. Perhaps this 'collage' of thoughts could be rearranged.

Boris Groys spoke at the ICA on Wednesday, 22nd July. The ICA website can be found here

Robin Froggatt-Smith

"A curator in Berlin was showing me around. So what kind of art do you exhibit? I asked, 'material art,' he said. And what about immaterial art? I asked. 'Oh, immaterial art is often very heavy and very expensive.'" In a hot theatre, Boris Groys laughed (relaxed, apparently) at his own anecdote. He spoke with a remarkable gentleness, which was how I knew that this was post-communism.

Groys' lecture to the ICA audience on Wednesday, 22nd July, was a sort of unofficial The Communist Postscript-101; he compelled the audience to further reading, but, if communism's second-coming is nigh, then more than just the sympathetic ICA-goer are going to need to do some revision.

Groys began with Karl Marx's final Thesis on Feuerbach: "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." It was a helpful beginning because we all know the words, and because my own enthusiasm for Marx is rooted in his The German Ideology, another text of the same vintage.

It is my opinion that a good explanation must be clear on its essentials. I don't consider it contrarian to pick apart Groys' fine points, isolated from the body of his work. In fact, I think it's necessary for Groys' proposed 'kingdom of language' - if Groys' society is to be healthy and critical in a linguistic medium, it must surely understand his essentials.

Groys spoke 95 percent around Postscript and two essentials grated.

It is not Groys' fault that the credit crunch and ensuing crisis have almost rubber-stamped his conception of a contracted and suppressive Western capitalist system. Nevertheless, it sounded like high-street-soap-box gloss.

Second, Groys' argument that 'language is a more effective medium of equality than money.' I wish it were. Marx wrote in 1845: 'life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things [like, he adds, procreation]. The first historical act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life itself.'

He identifies the pre-linguistic and yet social nature of control over one's own material existence. This does not escalate directly to sub-prime residential mortgage-backed securities. Furthermore, sidelining these basics in a so-called 'Kingdom of language' is misleading. Marx's words better prefigure our western capitalist situation in which, if statements are commodities (Groys' phrase), then their lack of value is encapsulated in the recurring theme of the starving writer.

    Comments

Add Comments

  • CAPTCHA Image