View of The Artist as an Exemplary Consumer

Boris Groys

The A rtist as an Exemplary A rt Consumer

T h e c u r r e n t p h ilo so p h ic a l, o r th e o re tic a l re flectio n o n c o n te m p o ra ry a rt is d o m in a te d by th e d isc o u rse a b o u t th e e n d o f a rt a n d th e e n d o f a rt history.

O f c o u rse , it is by n o m ean s a new d ev elo p m en t. B ut th e re actio n o f to d ay ’s a r t w o rld to th a t m essag e is relatively new a n d th e re fo re o f in tere st. T h e firs t a p p e a r a n c e o f th is d is c o u rs e in th e 70s a n d 80s was still m e t w ith re je c tio n , o r a t least w ith so m e k in d o f sorrow by th e d efen d ers o f trad itio n al a r t values. In o u r tim e th e se sorrow s, n o stalg ia a n d d is a p p o in tm e n ts are a lm o st c o m p le te ly g o n e . Q u ite on th e contrary, the news a b o u t th e e n d o f a rt provokes in d ie a rt w orld a kind o f o p en jubilation . T h e artistic com m unity seem s to b e fa sc in a te d a n d e le c trifie d by this d isco u rse a n d e m b ra ces it eag erly a n d enthusiastically. A t th e sam e tim e every a tte m p t to d e fe n d an d re sc u e a r t th e o re tic a lly is d o o m e d to b e m e t by th e a rt co m m u n ity with a c e rta in d isp leasu re . T h e r e is so m eth in g p ec u lia r a b o u t this suicidaljoy, th a t n e e d s to b e ex p la in e d .

A ctually, if asked a b o u t a rt, p hilo so p h y tells us tim e a n d again th a t a rt b e lo n g s to th e past, th a t a r t is d ea d , an d th a t we are a t th e e n d o f a rt a n d o f a r t h is to ry . P la to a lre a d y s ta te d th is in h is d ia lo g u e s , as h e s o u g h t to d e m o n stra te th a t poets d o n ’t know w hat they say and th a t only a p h ilo so p h er ca n sp ea k u n d e rs ta n d a b ly a b o u t tru th . A nd H eg el re p e a te d it o n ce m o re - in a very d ire c t m a n n e r - in his fam ous »Lectures o n Aesthetics:« A rt belongs to th e p a st b e c a u se only p h ilo so p h y is able to free th e tru e c o n te n t o f a rt fro m a specific, finite, o bjectified, artistic form th a t isolates this tru e c o n te n t fro m th e p u b lic, c re a tin g an ae sth etic distance b etw een th e artw ork an d its re c ip ie n t. P hilo so p h y , o n th e contrary , erases this d istan ce an d m akes tru th im m e d ia te ly a c c e ssib le to th e r e c ip ie n t, b e c a u se p h ilo s o p h y p ro c e e d s th ro u g h self-negation a n d is th ere fo re able to overcom e every concrete, finite fo rm . As D escartes h as alre ad y show n, th e n eg a tio n o f all th o u g h ts is also a t h o u g h t , th e a b s o lu te d o u b t b e in g a p a r t, a n d e v e n a f o u n d a tio n , o f p h ilo so p h ic a l th in k in g . It m ean s th a t p h ilo so p h y b eco m es in d estru ctib le, a b s o lu te , in fin ite , so th a t th e self-reflective m o v e m e n t o f p h ilo s o p h ic a l th o u g h t m akes every c o n c re te a n d finite form o f tru th obsolete.

T his is why th e re is a d ee p -ro o ted philosophical trad itio n o f a rt bashing.

T h e lib ra ry a n d th e m u s e u m a re especially p re fe rr e d o bjects o f in te n s e

c o n te m p t fo r th e m ajo rity o f p h ilo s o p h ic a lly m in d e d a u th o rs . R o u sseau a d m ire s th e d e s tru c tio n o f th e fa m o u s a n c ie n t L ib ra ry o f A le x a n d ria , G o e th e ’s F au st is ready to sign a c o n tra c t w ith th e devil to esc ap e th e lib rary - a n d n o t to be o b lig ed to re a d all th e b o o k s a c c u m u la te d in sid e o f it, etc.

But, o f co u rse, th e re is also a stro n g p h ilo s o p h ic a l tra d itio n o f d e fe n d in g a r t a g a in st p h ilo so p h y w hich c u lm in a te s in N ie tz s c h e ’s w ritin g s: T h e r e P hilosophy is accused o f b ein g iconoclastic, ascetic, in to le ra n t a n d o b sessed with the id ea o f d e a th . C haracteristically, in this tra d itio n th e d e fe n c e o f a r t fu n c tio n s sim ultaneously as a d e fe n c e o f th e fin ite a g a in st th e in fin ite , o r as a d e fen ce o f th e form s o f this w orld a g a in st th e ir d e s tru c tio n in th e n a m e o f the philosophical truth. H e re we can w atch th e relatively clea r fro n ts b etw een pro-art a n d anti-art philosophical options. P ro-art m ean s pro-finite, pro-form , a n d a n ti-a rt m ean s pro-infinite.

H ow ever, this trad itio n al co n stellatio n is co m p letely c h a n g e d since th e e m e rg e n c e o f the historical avant-g ard e a t th e b e g in n in g o f this c e n tu ry , because avant-garde a r t was con ciev ed fro m th e b e g in n in g as a n an ti-a rt, as a p ro te st ag ain st a rt an d , actually, as a (at least, sym bolical) d e s tru c tio n o f art. T h e a r t o f th e avant-garde in te rn a liz e d th e p h ilo s o p h ic a l c ritiq u e o n art: it a tte m p te d to escap e its s e p a ra te n e s s , to tr a n s c e n d its o b je c tifie d , com m odified status, to overcom e its a lien atio n , to erase th e aesth etic d istan ce betw een th e artw ork an d its spectator. T h a t is why now it is n o lo n g e r possible to d e fe n d c o n te m p o ra ry a rt using th e tra d itio n a l th e o re tic a l leg itim a tio n o f a rt u n d e rs to o d as a sum o f th e fin ite, e m p iric a lly e x p e rie n c e a b le fo rm s.

T h e re is n o use in d e fe n d in g a rt as a rt, if a r t b e c a m e itself a stru g g le a g a in st art; an anti-art.

T his vision o f the new, avant-garde a r t as a d e s tru c tio n o f th e o ld a rt, is ex p ressed pow erfully a n d p arad ig m atically in a s h o rt b u t im p o rta n t te x t o f Kasim ir M alevich e n title d ‘O n th e M u se u m ’ (fro m 1919). A t th a t tim e th e new S ov iet g o v e r n m e n t fe a re d t h a t th e o ld R u ssia n m u s e u m s a n d a r t collections co uld b e destroyed th ro u g h th e civil w ar a n d th ro u g h th e g e n e ra l collapse o f th e state institu tio n s a n d ec o n o m y , so th e P arty trie d to se c u re a n d save th ese collections. In his p a p e r M alevich exp resses a p ro te s t a g a in st this pro-m useum policy o f Soviet pow er a n d calls o n th e state n o t to in terv e n e o n b e h a lf o f th e old a rt collections b ec au se th e ir d e s tru c tio n o p e n s th e p a th to new art. In p artic u la r, M alevich writes:

»Life knows w hat it is d o in g , a n d if it is striv ing to destro y , o n e m u st n o t interfere since by h in d e rin g we are b locking th e p a th to a new c o n c e p tio n o f life th a t is b o rn w ithin us. In b u r n in g a c o rp se we o b ta in o n e g ra m o f pow der: accordin gly th o u san d s o f graveyards c o u ld b e a c c o m m o d a te d o n a single chem ist’s shelf. We can m ake a concession to conservatives by o fferin g

The Artist as an Exemplary Art Consumer

th a t th e y b u r n all p a s t e p o c h s , sin ce they a re d e a d , a n d set u p a sin g le p h a rm a cy .« F u rth e rm o re , M alevich gives a c o n c re te ex a m p le o f w hat h e m e a n s : » T h e a im ( o f th is p h a rm a c y ) will b e th e sa m e , ev en if p e o p le e x a m in e th e p o w d e r fro m R u b en s a n d all his a rt - a m ass o f ideas will arise in p e o p le , a n d will b e o ften m o re alive th a n actual re p re se n ta tio n (an d take u p less ro o m ).« ’

T h e act o f b u rn in g a rt becom es art. A nd the ashes o f th e b u rn t artworks are p ro c la im e d to b e aesthetically m o re in te re stin g th a n th e b u r n t artw orks them selves. B u t if th e d e s tru c tio n o f a r t is a rt — an d even b e tte r a rt - th e n a r t as su ch b ec o m e s in d e stru c tib le a n d infinite. T h e fam o u s »Black Square«

o f M alevich, u n d e r s to o d as th e trace o f a destroyed, b u r n t artw ork, has th e sam e fu n c tio n as th e C a rte sia n rad ical d o u b t in p hiloso ph y. A rt b eco m es a b so lu te b e c a u se it in c lu d e s its n e g a tio n in itself. Such an in fin ite a rt n ee d s n o p ro te c tio n , n o th eo re tic al defen ce a n d n o institutional security any m ore.

(B ak u n in : d e s tru c tio n is cre a tio n .)

O f co urse, we know th a t th e struggle o f the historical avant-garde against a rt a n d against a r t institutions was n o t quite successful. T h e a rt system seem ed to b e stable e n o u g h to b e ab le to re c u p e ra te every k in d o f anti-art. F or m any this in sig h t m e a n t a d e e p d is a p p o in tm e n t a n d a k in d o f in n e r resig n atio n . T h is e x p la in s w hy th e c o n te m p o ra ry , post-avant-g ard e, in te rn a tio n a l a r t c o m m u n ity re a c te d to th e p ro c la m a tio n s o f th e e n d o f a r t with re lie f a n d joy. T h e d re a m o f th e avant-garde now seem s to be realized after all - w ith ou t a n d b e y o n d any fu r th e r in d iv id u al strugg le to m ake this d re a m co m e tru e.

A n d h e lp cam e again from philosophy as a crid q u e o f th e n o tio n o f creativity.

T o q u o te so m e ex am p les: A rth u r D a n to proclaim s th e e n d o f a rt in a tr u e H e g e lia n m a n n e r. H e arg u es th a t to d ay ’s a r t m ad e its own d efin itio n its m a in su b ject, a n d , th e re fo re , a r t a tta in e d th e d e g re e o f self-reflection w h ic h u s e d to b e th e p riv ile g e o f p h ilo so p h y a lo n e , so th a t th e fu rth e r, h is to r ic a l, c re a tiv e d e v e lo p m e n t o f a r t b e c o m e s im p o ssib le . T h e on ly possibility w hich is le ft to us, is to use o r co n su m e the vocabulary o f existing a r t form s. T h e re fo re , th e a rtist loses his o r h e r privileged p o sitio n vis-à-vis th e a r t sp ec ta to r. T h e a rtist stops b ein g a c re a to r a n d b eco m es m erely a u ser o f art.

T h e a r t th e o r e tic ia n s in f lu e n c e d by th e F re n c h p o s t-s tru c tu ra lis t d is c o u rs e also p u t in q u e s tio n th e w hole c o n c e p t o f artistic a u th o rs h ip , p r o d u c tio n a n d c o n tr o l - o f c o u rse , in a very d iffe re n t m a n n e r. In this p e rsp e c tiv e , th e a r t system , th e la n g u a g e o f a r t a n d th e la n g u a g e o f a r t d e sc rip tio n d e c o n s tru c t them selves: th e re is n o possibility to d ifferen tiate in 1 Kasimir Malevich, ‘On the Museum’, in: Kasimir Malevich, Essays on Art, NewYork 1971,

pp. 68-72.

a clear-cut m a n n e r betw een the p ro d u c tiv e a n d th e re p ro d u c tiv e , b etw e en th e creative an d th e repetitive. So th e re is also n o n e e d , a n d n o possibility, any m o re o f a n individual, h ero ic, av an t-g ard isd c g e stu re o f re v o lt a g a in s t art. T h e c o n te m p o ra ry artist, in a way, j u s t co n su m e s a n d follows this self­

d estru c tiv e logic o f th e a r t system , u s in g re p ro d u c tiv e a r t te c h n iq u e s to d e m o n stra te th e am b ivalence o f th e n o tio n o f creativity. T h e th e o re tic a l fo u n d a tio n o f the closed, exclusive a r t system seem s to b e d e stro y e d by this d ec o n stru ctiv e a rg u m e n ta tio n . A rt seem s to b e free a t last - in fin ite , o p e n , o m n ip re se n t, always at o u r disposal a n d n o t im p ris o n e d any m o re in sid e th e c o n fin e d space o f a m useum . T h e d iffe re n c e b etw e en th e a rtist a n d th e spectator, o r betw een the in sid er a n d th e o u ts id e r o f th e a r t system b e c o m e s irre le v a n t: b o th a re m e re u s e r a n d r e p r o d u c e r o f th e a lr e a d y k n o w n possibilities o f m aking art. Everybody is an artist.

B ut, o f c o u rse , a t th e sam e tim e we a r e w a tc h in g th e a c c e le r a te d d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e globalized, p ro fessio n aliz ed a r t system all a r o u n d th e w orld. A n d we are also w atching th e a c c e le ra te d c o n s tru c tio n o f new a r t m u s e u m s , p r im a r ily o f m u s e u m s f o r c o n t e m p o r a r y a r t. T h e i n n e r c o n tra d ic tio n betw een these two p arallel d ev e lo p m e n ts is to o obvious — a n d th e suspicion of hypocrisy a n d cynical m a n ip u la tio n arises. (T h e p o lem ics a g a in s t c o n t e m p o r a r y a r t, w h ic h B a u d r i l l a r d p r a c t i c e s n o w , is v ery ch a rac te ristic in this resp ect.) A n d it is p recisely this c o n tra d ic tio n th a t I w ould like to discuss now.

In d e e d , I w ould arg u e th a t th e d isco u rse a b o u t th e p re s u m e d c o llap se o f the a r t system - the e n d o f art, o r th e e n d o f a r t h isto ry — follows fro m a set o f to o sim plistic p re su p p o sitio n s c o n c e rn in g th e re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th e a rtist a n d th e sp e c ta to r, w hich, in a very tra d itio n a l m a n n e r , is still in te rp re te d by this discourse as th e o p p o s itio n b etw e en th e p r o d u c e r a n d th e co n su m er. T h e artist is the p ro d u c e r o f art, th e sp e c ta to r is th e c o n s u m e r o f art. T h e a rt system is p ro d u c in g art, th e p u b lic o u ts id e th e a r t system is c o n su m in g art. If th a t w ould be th e case, th e co llap se o f th e m y th o f artistic creativity sh o u ld really entail the co llap se o f th e a r t system as such . B u t I w ould sugg est th a t tod ay’s artist is n o t a p ro d u c e r b u t a n ex e m p la ry , m o d e l c o n su m e r o f art. T h e c o n te m p o ra ry a rtist do es n o t p ra c tic e th e p ro d u c tio n , b u t th e ostensive co n su m p tio n o f art, a n d th e a r t system is tra n s fo rm e d now in to a place w here such ostensive c o n su m p tio n is d e m o n stra te d . A ccordingly, th e c o n te m p o ra ry a rt sp ec ta to r d oes n o t c o n s u m e a r t p ro d u c ts p ro d u c e d by th e a rtis t. In s te a d , h e c o n s u m e s th e e x e m p la ry a r t c o n s u m p tio n - p ra cticin g th e c o n su m p tio n o f se c o n d d e g re e .

A ctually, the p u re d e stru c tio n o f a r t th a t M alevich was s p e a k in g a b o u t is also a k in d o f e x tre m e c o n s u m p tio n a n d , a c c o rd in g ly , it m u s t also b e

The Artist as an Exemplary Art Consumer

ex p lic it a n d ostensiv e if it seeks to be art. A vant-garde a r t has p ra ctise d a k in d o f p e r m a n e n t p o tla tc h : T o derive th e g re atest fam e th e artist sh o u ld b e m o st ra d ic al in th e sym bolic d e stru c tio n o f art. B ut M arcel Mauss has alread y show n th a t such a radical potlatch needs a special place an d a special sp e c ta to rsh ip to b e effective. T h e historical avant-garde has tran sform ed th e a r t system — an d , prin cipally, th e a rt m useum - in to such a place o f ostensive p o tla tc h , o f sy m b o lic d e s tr u c tio n a n d se lf-d e stru c tio n o f art. F ro m th e p e rsp e c tiv e o f th e avant-garde, th e m u seu m need s o ld a r t only inso far as th e k n o w led g e o f o ld a r t is necessary to d e m o n stra te h e r e an d now w hat is sym bolically sacrificed by avant-garde itself.

T o b e su re , in o u r tim e th e m useum e x te n d e d its space to ac cep t all kin d s o f ostensive c o n su m p tio n strategies, n o t only the strategies o f sacrifice a n d d e stru c tio n . I will try to d escrib e now this new role o f th e m useum , an d o f th e a r t system in g e n e r a l, u sin g th e e x a m p le o f p h o to g ra p h y in its re la tio n s h ip to tra d itio n a l p ain tin g .

In fact, a t th e e n d o f th e tw entieth century, p h o to g rap h y finally becam e esta b lish e d n o t j u s t as a re c o g n iz e d a rt form b u t also as a lead in g o ne. T h e l a r g e - f o r m a t p h o t o g r a p h i c im a g e is to d a y in c re a s in g ly r e p la c in g th e tr a d i t i o n a l p a i n t in g o n th e w alls o f g a lle rie s , p riv a te c o lle c tio n s a n d m u seu m s. T h e m atter-o f-factn ess w ith w hich th e switch from p a in tin g to p h o to g ra p h y h a s b e e n re c e n tly c a rrie d o u t is w itnessed p rim arily by th e n o n c h a l a n t way in w h ic h c o n te m p o r a r y p h o to g r a p h y is a ssu m in g th e tra d itio n a l tasks o f p a in tin g w hich p a in tin g itself is n o lo n g e r able to fulfil.

T h e p a i n t e d im a g e h a s g ra d u a lly c o lla p se d u n d e r th e se lf-d estru ctiv e strateg ie s a n d re p e a te d sacrifices by the historical avant-garde. T h e c h a n g e o f m e d ia re sc u e d th e tra d itio n o f the pictorial im age a n d tran sp o se d it in to th e n ew h isto ric era. P h o to g ra p h y today do es in fa ct d o every th in g th a t p a in tin g d id in th e n in e te e n th century. P hotograph y shows us u rb a n life an d life in n a t u r e , p e o p l e ’s fa ces a n d t h e ir n a k e d b o d ie s , o u r ow n liv in g e n v iro n m e n t, a n d ex o tic cu ltu re s, w ealth a n d fashion, m isery an d war. It is n e ith e r a fra id to a p p e a r critical, accusatory, schoolm asterly, n o r to seem s e n tim e n ta l, d ec o rativ e, o r aesthetically fascinating. W h e n we now discuss th e w ork o f a n in d iv id u a l p h o to g ra p h e r, we usually te n d to be c o n c e rn e d w ith its c o n te n t, w ith th e p h o to g ra p h e r’s re la tio n sh ip to th e o b ject show n, as w as c o m m o n in a r t c r itic is m b e f o r e th e rise o f a v a n t- g a rd e . T h e p h o to g ra p h ic im age is alm ost com pletely im m u nized against th e accusation o f b e in g m e re kitsch. T h e p h o to g ra p h ic im age th a t in du lg es in everything th a t is fo rb id d e n to th e p a in te d im age evidenty feels n o sh am e a b o u t this, a n d d o es n o t fin d itse lf in a situ atio n o f having to p ro d u c e som e ad d itio n al apology. P h o to g ra p h ic im ages are effortlessly successful in b ein g a c cep ted

in to co llec tio n s th a t w ould q u ite d e fin ite ly re je c t a c o m p a r a b le p a in te d im age. M any o f G e rh a rd R ic h te r’s p ictu re s d e m o n s tra te this p ro b le m . I f th e p h o to g ra p h ic realism o f th e sixties c o u ld still b e see n as a strateg y to raise th e status o f p h o to g ra p h y in m useum s a n d a r t g alleries, p a in tin g to d ay on ly survives w h en it cam ouflages itself as p h o to g ra p h y .

T im e a n d again, th e co n tin u o u sly in c re a sin g p re s e n c e o f p h o to g ra p h y a n d m edia a rt (video an d cinem a installations, interactive a rt using c o m p u te r, o r In te r n e t, etc.) in m u seu m s is r e g a r d e d as a sy m p to m o f th e m u s e u m loosing its autonom y, its altern ativ e statu s vis-à-vis m e d ia -d o m in a te d p u b lic life. Som e co m m e n ta to rs saw this crisis q u ite positively — as a c h a n c e fo r th e m u seu m to b ec o m e m o re o p e n , m o re accessible to th e b r o a d e r p u b lic, a n d m o re in te g r a te d in th e m a in stre a m m e d ia la n d s c a p e . B u t m a n y o th e r s d e p lo re d this d ev elo pm ent: they saw th e d a n g e r o f th e m u se u m lo o sin g its in d e p e n d e n c e a n d its ow n v alu e a n d to b e c o m e m e re ly a p a r t o f th e com m ercialized e n te rta in m e n t industry as a k ind o f D isneyland fo r th e b e tte r ed u c a te d . B u t in any case, the re p ro d u c tiv e p ra ctices o f p h o to g ra p h y w ere said to p ro v id e c le a r p r o o f th a t th e tr a d itio n a l claim s o f a r t h is to ry a re illu so ry b e c a u s e th e s e p ra c tic e s m a k e it p a r tic u la r ly e v id e n t t h a t th e p ro d u c tio n o f im ages is by n o m ean s a m ysterious pro cess re q u ir in g a w o rk o f genius to b e accom plished.

T his is w hat D ouglas C rim p has claim ed in his w ell-know n essay ‘O n th e M u s e u m ’s R u in s ’, w ith r e f e r e n c e to W a lte r B e n ja m in : » T h r o u g h re p ro d u c tiv e tech n o lo g y p o stm o d e rn is t a r t d isp e n se s w ith th e a u ra . T h e fiction o f th e creatin g su b ject gives way to th e fra n k co n fisc atio n , q u o ta tio n , e x c e rp ta tio n , a c c u m u la tio n a n d r e p e ti tio n o f a lre a d y e x is tin g im a g e s.

N otions o f originality, au th en ticity a n d p re s e n c e , essen tial to th e o r d e r e d discourse o f th e m u seu m , are u n d e r m in e d .« 2 So, a c c o rd in g to C rim p , th e n ew a r t te c h n i q u e s d isso lv e th e m u s e u m ’s c o n c e p t u a l fr a m e w o r k s , co n stru cted as they are o n the fiction o f subjective, individual creativity, b rin g th em in to disarray th ro u g h th e ir re -p ro d u ctiv e p ra c tic e , a n d u ltim ate ly le a d to the m u se u m ’s ru in . A nd rightly so, it m ig h t b e a d d e d , fo r th e m u s e u m ’s discourse is purely ideological: it suggests a re p re s e n ta tio n o f th e h isto rical, u n d e rs to o d as a tem p o ra l ep ip h an y o f creative subjectivity, in a p lace w h e re in fact th e re is n o th in g m o re th an an in c o h e r e n tju m b le o f artifacts, as C rim p asserts w ith re fe re n c e to Foucault. T h u s C rim p , like m an y o t h e r a u th o rs , re g a rd s an y c ritiq u e o f th e tra d itio n a l, e m p h a tic c o n c e p tio n o f a r t as a critiq u e o f a r t as in stitu tio n , in c lu d in g th e in s titu tio n o f th e m u se u m , an in stitu tio n w hich is allegedly p u rp o r te d to leg itim ize itself p rim arily o n th e

2 Douglas Crimp, On the Museum’s Ruins, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press 1993, p. 50f.

The Artist as an Exemplary A rt Consumer

basis o f this purely ideological - a n d at th e sam e tim e o u tm o d ed - conception o f art.

I t is in d isp u ta b le th a t th e rh e to ric o f u n iq u e n e ss has d e te rm in e d th e t r a d i t i o n a l a r t h is to r ic a l d is c o u rs e fo r a lo n g tim e . It is n e v e rth e le s s q u e s tio n a b le w h e th e r it in fa c t p ro v id es a decisive le g itim a tio n fo r th e m u sealiza tio n o f a r t so th a t a critiq u e o f this disco urse co u ld a t the sam e tim e fu n c tio n as a c ritiq u e o f th e m u seu m as in stitu tio n . I w ould say, o n th e co n tra ry , th a t precisely a t th e historical m o m e n t w hen th e artw ork looses its im m e d ia te ly re c o g n iz a b le , visual o th ern e ss in co m p ariso n to a m ere th in g o r to a tech n ically p ro d u c e d m e d ia im age, th e m u seu m b eco m es absolutely in d is p e n s a b le fo r o u r ability to reco g n ize a n d a p p re c ia te a rt as art. A n d in d e e d , th e a fo re m e n tio n e d ac celerated d ev elo p m en t a n d th e pro liferatio n we have w itn essed in th e re c e n t d ecades o f m useum s o f all kinds, above all, o f » m u se u m s o f m o d e r n art« o r » m useum s o f c o n te m p o ra ry art«, have p aralleled precisely th e ac celerated erasure o f th e visible differences betw een th e artw ork a n d th e p ro fa n e o b ject (D ucham p is, o f course, th e b est exam ple o f th is), o r b e tw e e n th e individually p ro d u c e d artw ork a n d th e technically p ro d u c e d m e d ia im age - an erasu re systematically p e rp e tra te d by the various av a n t-g ard e s o f this c e n tu ry . T h e less th e artw o rk d iffers visually fro m a p r o f a n e o b je c t o r a te c h n ic a lly p r o d u c e d im a g e , th e m o re n e c e ssa ry b e c o m e s th e clea rly d ra w n d is tin c tio n b etw een th e a r t c o n te x t a n d th e p ro fa n e , everyday, n o n -m u se u m co n te x t o f its o c c u rre n c e . Precisely at the p o in t w h e n an artw o rk looks like a »n orm al thing« o r like a m ed ia im age - su ch an artw o rk re q u ire s a d iffe re n t co n tex tu a liza tio n by th e m useum .

T h e se lf-d e s tru c tiv e , a n ti-a rt stra te g ie s o f th e a rtis tic av a n t-g a rd e , u n d e r s to o d as th e e lim in a tio n o f th e visual d iffe ren c e b etw een th e artw ork a n d th e p ro fa n e th in g o r th e m e d ia im age, th e re fo re lead directly to th e b u ild in g -u p o f m u se u m s w hich sec u re this d iffe ren c e institutionally. In o u r age, we n o lo n g e r have any way o f d iffe re n tia tin g betw een a rt a n d no n-art, e x c e p t by re fe re n c e to th e m u seu m . Far from subverting a n d d eleg id m izin g th e m u se u m as in s titu tio n , th e critiq u e of th e e m p h a tic co n c e p tio n o f a rt th e r e f o r e p ro v id e s th e a c tu a l th e o re tic a l f o u n d a tio n fo r th e in s titu tio ­ n a liz a tio n a n d m u se a liz a tio n o f c o n te m p o ra ry art. F or th e very reaso n th a t p h o to g r a p h y a n d m e d ia p r o d u c ti o n c o n s titu te s in th e c o n te x t o f o u r c o n te m p o ra ry c u ltu re a w idespread, im personal a n d m any-faceted practice, o n e in w hich every in d iv id u a l artistic ac h ie v em en t is p o ten tially swallowed u p , th e in d isp en sab ility o f th e m u seu m co n te x t holds tru e fo r p h o to g rap h y , video a n d c o m p u te r a r t as well.

In th e » m u seu m o f c o n te m p o ra ry art« sim ple o b jects o r techn ically p ro d u c e d m e d ia im ages are p ro m ised the longevity a n d th e re co g n itio n they

d o n o t enjoy in life itself. T his p ro m ise is all th e m o re valid a n d c re d ib le th e less th e s e o b je c ts » d ese rv e« e n d u r a n c e , th e less s p e c ta c u l a r a n d ex tra o rd in ary they are. T h e m o d e rn m u se u m p ro claim s its n ew E v ang elium in th e first place n o t for th e exclusive, a u ra tic w ork o f g e n iu s, w hich in th e w orld a t large has never h ad any real tro u b le fin d in g th e re c o g n itio n it seeks, b u t ra th e r fo r th e insignificant, th e trivial, a n d th e everyday, w h ich w o u ld otherw ise p erish in the reality o u tsid e th e m u s e u m ’s walls. T h e m u se u m o f co n te m p o ra ry a r t is, in a way, a c o n tin u a tio n o f th e C h ristia n m issio n o f saving, o f re c u p e ra tin g th e w orld, p ra c tic e d u n d e r th e c o n d itio n s o f th e m o d e rn secularization a n d a t th e sam e tim e e x p a n d e d to m e re th in gs.

So if an artist says - as th e m ajority o f m o d e rn artists h ave said - th a t h e o r she wants to b re a k o u t o f th e m u se u m , to go in to life itself, to b e re a l a n d to m ake a truly living a r t a n d n o t a d e a d o n e , it o n ly m e a n s th a t this artist w ants his w orks to b e c o lle c te d , b e c a u s e th e o n ly p o ssib ility to b e co llec te d is to tra n sc e n d th e m u se u m , a n d to go in to life in th e se n se o f m aking so m e th in g d iffe re n t from th e alread y co llected . T h e m u se u m is like a ch u rc h in this respect: initially you have to b e sinful to b e c o m e a sain t la te r o n - otherw ise you re m a in ju s t a p lain , d e c e n t p e rs o n w ith n o c h a n c e o f m ak in g a c a re e r in th e archives o f G o d ’s m em o ry . T h a t is why w h e n you w ant to free yo u rself from th e m u seu m , you b e c o m e s u b je c te d in th e m o st radical way to the logic o f collecting.

Actually, if the m useum ever is to d isintegrate, th e n th e very o p p o rtu n ity fo r a rt to show th e n o rm al, th e everyday, th e trivial as n ew a n d d iffe re n t, a n d in this sense as exciting, will b e lost, b e c a u se th e h isto ric a l e x p e rie n c e teaches us th a t in o rd e r to assert itself successfully o u tsid e th e m u seu m walls,

»in life itself,« a r t m u st b re a k its c o n n e c tio n w ith th e b an a lity o f everyday e x p e rie n c e a n d b e g in to re p e a t th e classical, m y th o lo g ic a l p a tte r n s a n d e sta b lish e d a r t form s. T h e successful ( a n d d e se rv e d ly so) m ass c u ltu ra l p ro d u c tio n o f o u r tim e is c o n c e rn e d w ith alien attacks, w ith m yths o f th e apocalypse an d re d em p tio n , with h e ro e s en d o w ed w ith s u p e rh u m a n pow ers, a n d so forth. All o f this is certainly fascinating a n d instrucdve, b u t a t th e sam e tim e it keep s re p e a tin g th e re p e rto ire o f im ag es a lre a d y c o lle c te d in th e archives a n d m useum s o f o u r cu ltu re . So o n c e in a w hile, o n e w o uld like to b e able to see so m e th in g n o rm a l, so m e th in g o rd in a ry , s o m e th in g b a n a l, so m e th in g n o t yet collected as well. In o u r c u ltu re , this wish c a n b e g ra tifie d only in th e m useum o f co n tem p o rary art. In so-called life, o n th e o th e r h a n d , only th e ex tra o rd in a ry a n d a t th e sam e tim e re p e titiv e is p re s e n te d to us as a possible o b ject o f o u r ad m ira tio n .

So if today th e d e b a te a b o u t w h e th e r p h o to g ra p h y is a r t o r n o t seem s totally re d u n d a n t, we owe this new situ a tio n solely to th e fu r th e r e x te n sio n

The Artist as an Exemplary Art Consumer

o f th e m o d e m a rt m u seu m as an insdtution . A p h o to g ra p h m ade with artistic in te n t n o lo n g e r n e e d s to d iffe r visibly from an o rd in a ry p h o to g ra p h in o r d e r to b e re c o g n iz e d as art. T oday th e d ifferen ce is p ro d u c e d by th e act o f p u ttin g it in to th e m u se u m w hich is sufficient to m ove th e p h o to g ra p h in to th e d o m a in o f art. T h e d iffe re n c e b etw een artistic a n d n o n -artistic p h o to g ra p h y is th u s re p la c e d by th e d iffe ren c e betw een th e m u seu m an d n o n -m u se u m co n te x t. T h is accordingly m eans th a t th e old q u estio n o f how a p h o to g ra p h sh o u ld lo o k in o rd e r to qualify as artistic is n o lo n g er relevant.

C ertainly, th e re are m an y g ra d atio n s betw een a m useu m a n d everyday space th a t a re o f cru cial im p o rta n c e fo r the re la tio n sh ip b etw een collection an d p h o to g ra p h . T h e m o re m u se u m -o rie n te d a co llectio n is, th e m o re it can allow itse lf to c o n ta in o rd in ary -lo o k in g p h o to g ra p h s with n o ex plicit claim to artistic value.

T ra d itio n a l p a in tin g is p ro d u c e d as a re su lt o f th e p a in te r’s physical efforts. A n d every ind ividual p a in tin g bears the traces o f this physical labour.

F ro m this th e re arises th e im pressio n o f an in tim ate lin k betw een c re a to r a n d w ork: th e in d iv id u a l p ic to ria l im age displays m a te ria l a n d physical fe a tu re s th a t a re re c o g n iz a b le as a d ire c t e x te n s io n o f th e body, as th e irre d u c ib le »han d « o f th e p a in te r, o r a t least can be tak en as recog nizable a c c o rd in g to th e eth o s o f th e pain tin g . In this sense o n e is ju stifie d in saying

— a n d this h as in d e e d b e e n said o fte n e n o u g h - th a t particularly in th e e ra o f in d u s tria l p ro d u c tio n , w hich erases th e indiv id u ality o f th e in d u strial w o rk er in th e finished p ro d u c t an d thus alienates his work, only a rt is capable o f o v erco m in g this a lien a tio n an d o f allowing the individuality o f its p ro d u c e r to o b ta in re c o g n itio n . F ro m this we gain the im p ressio n th a t th e artist holds a p riv ile g e d p o sitio n in society as so m e o n e w ho, exceptio nally, p erfo rm s w ork fro m w hich h e is n o t alien a te d .

T h e c ritiq u e o f th e n o tio n o f creativity a n d o f th e c reatio n o f a special a u r a a r o u n d a r t th e r e f o r e also has a c e rta in p o litic a l c o m p o n e n t. T his c ritiq u e c o rre s p o n d s to th e d esire to d e th ro n e th e artist a n d set h im o n an e q u a l fo o tin g w ith o t h e r m o d e rn p ro d u c e rs. T h e d e m a n d s m ad e by th e h isto ric a l av an t-g ard e th a t p a in tin g sh o u ld reveal its te c h n iq u e a n d give u p any claim to b e in g a w ork o f genius initially h ad this very goal o f achieving parity b etw e en th e a rtist a n d th e in d u strial w orker. A m o ng th e Soviet avant- g a rd e o f th e tw enties, this d e m a n d re su lte d in artists show ing also d ire c t political solidarity w ith th e w orking class. A ccordingly, p a in tin g p ro d u c tio n in th e tw en tieth c e n tu ry (fro m M alevich a n d M o n d rian th ro u g h Albers an d Sol L eW itt to B uren) b ec a m e so form alized, m echanized an d depersonalized th a t all traces o f th e p a in te r ’s physical p re se n c e in th e p a in te d w ork w ere effaced a n d th e re su lt b e g a n to resem ble an industrial p ro d u c t. In this sense

geo m etrical ab stractio n can be in te rp re te d as a tra n s itio n a l stage b e tw e e n trad itio n al p ain tin g a n d p h o to g rap h y , as it is also c o n firm e d by th e p e rso n a l b io g rap h ie s o f artists such as R o d c h e n k o o r A lbers.

T h e q u estio n m u st now be asked w h e th e r o b lite ra tin g th e traces in th e w ork o f th e p a in te r’s physical p re se n c e , o f his o r h e r in d iv id u a l la b o u r d id in fact give th e artist parity w ith th e w o rker. In o th e r w ords, was it po ssib le to realize th e dem ocratic egalitarian d re a m o f th e m o d e rn e ra by d o in g away with the traditional concepts o f artistic creativity a n d o f th e artist-genius? A n d was it possible to tran scen d in this way th e in stitu tio n alized ae sth e tic d istan ce betw een artist a n d spectator? O n th e co n tra ry , th e e x a m p le o f p h o to g ra p h y shows th a t th e rem oval from a r t o f every re fe re n c e to physical la b o u r th a t has taken place in the tw entieth century has radically d ista n c e d the artist fro m in d u strial w ork a n d has m oved a rt n e a r to m a n a g e m e n t, p la n n in g , a n d - ultim ately - th e co n su m er. D irect physical w ork o n th e p ic tu re , w hich in th e past linked th e p a in te r to the in d u strial w o rk er, has largely b e e n e lim in a te d by p h o to g ra p h y a n d re p la ced by a series o f conscious, strateg ic, c o n tro lla b le decisions a b o u t how a w ork o f a r t sh o u ld look. T h e a rtist as p h o to g r a p h e r discloses a n d form alizes his te c h n iq u e s a n d em ploys th e m strateg ically so th a t h e m akes th e ir re p e titio n possible fro m th e o u tset. T h e m ystery o f th e u n iq u e a r tis t’s b o d y n o lo n g e r h in d e rs th e m e th o d o lo g ic a l o r te c h n ic a l re p e titio n o f his strategies. T h e a rtist’s eye is d ise m b o d ie d : a p u r e gaze, it n o lo n g e r works b u t only d ecid es, selects a n d c o m b in e s. If th e sim ilarity betw een p h o to g ra p h y a n d psychoanalysis, o n w hich B e n ja m in o n c e sp o k e, is valid, th e n surely first o f all in this re s p e c t it is m u c h e a s ie r to id en tify oneself with the psychoanalytically d isem b o d ied O e d ip u s th a n with th e G reek k in g O e d ip u s. In c o n te m p o ra ry p h o to g ra p h y , th e h is to ry o f p a in tin g is re p e a te d p h o to g rap h ic ally in a c o m p a ra b le m a n n e r - n o lo n g e r as a h isto ry o f gifted b odies b u t as a history o f in te lle c tu a l a ttitu d e s a n d strateg ie s o f a d isem b o d ied gaze. C onsequently, a r t m u seu m s today n o lo n g e r fu n c tio n as places in w h ich th e irre trie v a b ility o f th e h is to ric a l is p r e s e n te d , b u t as archives for storing various visual strategies th a t can b e b ro u g h t o u t o f storage an d re u se d by th e sp e c ta to r a t any tim e.

T h e p h o to g r a p h e r is a c tin g o n s o c ie ty ’s b e h a l f as a n e x e m p la r y consum er. T h e visual choices are prim arily m o d els fo r f u r th e r co n su m p tio n . W hat th e p h o to -artist offers to o u r gaze a re n o t so m u c h d e fin ite im ag es as the strategies th a t d efin e d th e ir selection. T h e p h o to g r a p h e r d o es n o t o ffer the works o f a rt to o u r gaze. Instead, th e p h o to g ra p h e r b rin g s us to see o th e r things w ith his o r h e r eyes. This c h a n g e o f a ttitu d e is re v e a le d p a rtic u la rily clearly in th e a lte rn a te status o f th e a rtis t as re g a rd s th e tim e e c o n o m y o f the gaze. T h e massive in v estm en t in w ork, tim e, a n d e n e rg y n e e d e d fo r th e

The A rtist as an Exemplary A rt Consumer

c re a tio n o f a tra d itio n a l w ork o f a rt was irritatin gly o u t o f p ro p o rtio n to th e term s u n d e r w hich this a rt was consum ed. A fter th e p a in te r has w orked h a rd a n d lo n g a t his p a in tin g , th e viewer co u ld con su m e it effortlessly a t a glance.

H e n c e th e su p e rio rity o f th e co n su m er, th e viewer a n d th e co llecto r over th e a r tis t-p a in te r as a s u p p lie r o f p ic to ria l im ages p ro d u c e d lab o rio u sly th ro u g h his physical effo rt. O n the contrary, p h o to g ra p h y does place the artist o n a n e q u a l fo o tin g , as I already said, n o t with th e w orker, b u t with th e c o n s u m e r a n d w ith th e collecto r, as th e artist too is now able to p ro d u c e im ages in an in sta n t w ith a sim ple click o f th e cam era. If m o re tim e is n e e d e d to take a p h o to g ra p h , th e n this is th e re su lt o f d e lib e ra te strategic p la n n in g - n o t in e sc a p a b le a n d o b lig ato ry as it was in the past. T h u s the p ro d u c e r of a p h o to g r a p h b e c o m e s e q u a l to th e s p e c ta to r w ith re s p e c t to th e tim e ec o n o m y o f th e gaze. L osing his physical individuality, th e p h o to -artist gains th e privilege o f th e a risto cratic gaze.

T h e aristocracy traditionally personified the figure o f th e final co nsum er w h o h im s e lf n o lo n g e r p ro d u c e s a n y th in g . O nly in th e c o n te x t o f th e a risto cratic way o f life co u ld a r t th e re fo re achieve tru e p erfec tio n . O n e can even m a in ta in th a t n o th in g co u ld b ec o m e a r t unless it can be u sed by the aristo cracy sin ce it was a definitive, n o lo n g e r fu n c tio n a l usage. A ristocratic taste a c te d as a m o d e l fo r th e w hole o f society. By assum ing th e p ositio n o f th e p u re o b serv er, o f th e ab so lu te co n su m er, th e artist co m p en sates fo r the d e e p e s t tra u m a o f th e m o d e rn era, nam ely th e loss o f th e aristocracy. T oday we m ig h t visit a g re a t e x h ib itio n o r installation as p eo p le u sed to visit palaces o f th e aristocracy. T h e visitor is given access to art, b u t h e is n o t its actual co n su m e r. R a th e r h e takes as his m o d el a ce rtain m o d e o f c o n su m p tio n as d e m o n stra te d by th e artist in his exhibition, ju st as form erly the aristocratic way o f life ac te d as a m odel. T h e present-day a rt con sum er no lo n g er consum es the artist’s work, b u t ra th e r h e invests his own work into consum ing like an artist.

In o th e r w ords, th e a rtist has c h a n g e d sides. H e n o lo n g e r wants to be a w o rk e r p ro d u c in g o b jects th a t are th e n ex p o se d to th e gaze o f others.

In s te a d h e h as b e c o m e th e ex e m p la ry observ er, c o n su m e r a n d u se r w ho observes, evaluates, a n d takes in things th a t are p ro d u c e d by o thers. H e is a p e rs o n w h o fin d s a e sth e tic stim ulus a n d in te re st in alread y know n objects th a t o th e r p e o p le m ay p e rh a p s fin d dull a n d u n in te re stin g . This m ean s th a t th e a r ti s t c a n m a k e a n y th in g a e s th e tic a lly c o n s u m a b le , m ak e it to be c o n s id e r e d g re a t, fa s c in a tin g o r cool, to b e c a m e a n o b je c t o f a e s th e tic en jo y m en t. A rt b ec o m e s an o p e n h o rizo n , th e last fro n tie r o f th e m o d e rn econom y. C o n tem p o rary p h o to g rap h y shows th at everything can be an object o f d esire . C arl S c h m itt alre ad y n o ted : »T he passage fro m th e m etaphysical a n d m o ra l to th e e c o n o m ic goes by way o f th e aesthetic, a n d the passage o f

aesthetic co n su m p tio n an d enjoym ent, how ever su blim e, is th e m o st re lia b le a n d m ost c o n v e n ie n t way to e c o n o m iz e in te lle c tu a l life.«3 In th e fo rm o f p h o to g ra p h y , the artistic avant-garde b e c o m e s th e e c o n o m ic av a n t-g ard e - th e new aristocracy o f th e m o d e rn e c o n o m y w hich p u sh e s b ac k ev er f u r th e r th e fro n tiers o f th e d esira b le a n d c o n su m a b le .

T o b e sure, if th e p h o to g ra p h e r’s a ttitu d e is aristo cratic, his te c h n iq u e s - as befits o u r tim es - are ra th e r m o re b u re a u c r a tic o r, m o re a c cu ra te ly , ad m in istrativ e in n a tu re . T h e p h o to g r a p h e r c h o o se s, in c lu d e s, m o d ifies, edits, shifts, com bines, re p ro d u c e s, a rra n g e s, places in series, ex h ib its, o r puts aside. H e m an ip u lates p ictu res j u s t like m a n a g e rs o f th e la rg e m o d e rn co m p an ies m a n ip u la te all possible d a ta . A n d h e d o e s th a t w ith th e sam e objective: so th a t p o te n tia l cu sto m ers ca n gain a c e rta in vision, a c e rta in perspective.

T h u s o n e can say th a t th e p h o to -a rtist stan d s in th e sam e re la tio n s h ip to the m o d e rn co m p an y em ployee a n d his d a ta p ro c e ssin g activities as th e p a in te r a r tis t in e a rlie r tim es d id to th e fa c to ry w o rk e r a n d h is m a n u a l lab o u r. J u s t as th e p a in te r o f th o se tim es d e m o n s tra te d th e p ossibility o f re co rd in g th e traces o f individual physical la b o u r in his w ork, so th e p re se n t- day p h o to g ra p h e r lets th e aristocratic gaze e m e rg e in th e m o n o to n y o f d a ta p rocessing . T h e p h o to g ra p h e r is a c tin g like a b u re a u c r a tic in s titu tio n , a g o v e rn m e n t authority, o r a big b an k , b u t also as an u n iq u e in d iv id u al. T h u s h e establishes the subjective case w h e re it h a d seem in g ly d is a p p e a re d . A n d this is by n o m eans p u re ly ideological self-delusion o r th e a e s th e tiz a tio n o f a lie n a te d w ork. T h e d re a m o f invisibility, o f b e in g ab le to see ev e ry th in g w ith o u t o n e se lf b e in g seen, is o n e o f th e o ld e s t d re a m s o f m a n k in d . It is certainly p leasa n t to see, b u t it is o ften ex tre m ely u n p le a s a n t to b e seen. O u r r e la tio n s h ip to th e visual is d e te r m in e d as m u c h by s c o p o p h ilia as by sc o p o p h o b ia . P h o to g ra p h y , like m o d e r n b u re a u c ra c y , gives us a c e rta in prom ise, th a t o f affording p ro tec tio n fro m th e s tra n g e r’s gaze, b u t, o f co urse, only if we take u p a p o sitio n b e h in d th e c a m e ra , n o t in f r o n t o f it.

T h e m u seu m itself is n o t sim ply a n e u tra l a n d tra n s p a re n t m e d iu m fo r th e re p re s e n ta tio n o f art, b u t has its ow n opacity. E specially as m e d ia a r t takes u p re sid e n c e in th e m u seu m , th e m u se u m as a m e d iu m is p u t in to q uestion in a n u m b e r o f respects, a n d looses its a p p a r e n t tran sp a ren c y . F irst a n d forem ost, the b o rd e rs betw een th e individual artw o rk a n d th e ex h ib itio n space th e re b y b ec o m e p ro b le m a tic a n d will have to b e re n e g o tia te d .

I w ould like to c o n c lu d e this p re s e n ta tio n by d ra w in g y o u r a tte n tio n to ju s t th re e ways in w hich th e m u seu m is b e in g ca lle d in to q u e s tio n by th e

3 Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen, Berlin, Duncker und Homblot 1963, p. 83.

The Artist as an Exemplary Art Consumer

p re s e n c e o f m e d ia a r t in it. F irst o f all: m o re possibilities to m a n ip u la te the gaze to see th e w orld; to see th e o rd in ary in th e co n te x t o f m ed ia art.

1. The m useum ’s lighting

T ra d itio n a lly , th e lig h t in a m u seu m com es from o u tsid e an individual artw o rk - a n d th e re b y m akes possible th e co n te m p la tio n o f this artw ork. In th e m u se u m a p e rfe c t day always prevails, even if the day in q u estio n is an artificial o n e. M ed ia a r t - in th e form o f video o r cin em a tic installatio ns - has o n th e o th e r h a n d , b r o u g h t n ig h t a n d tw ilight in to th e m useum . T h a t is p ro b a b ly th e m o st im p o rta n t effect o f th e m u sealizatio n o f th e m edia. T h e h o m o g e n e o u s , view er-friendly lig h tin g o f th e m o d e rn m u seu m has b e e n o b sc u re d . T h e lig h t’s p u rp o s e is n o lo n g e r to create th e o p tim u m viewing c o n d itio n s; th e ex h ib itio n space o f the m useu m becom es, so to say, baro q u e.

T h e m u se u m as a m u se u m o f m e d ia a rt is n o lo n g er th e locus o f ab so lu te visibility it o n c e was. In this m u seu m it is n ig h t, dark ness a n d invisibility th a t a re b e in g e x h ib ite d .

T h is raises m an y issues: fo r exam p le, w h at is th e status o f th e e n tire te c h n ic a l a p p a ra tu s w hich m akes m e d ia a r t possible? T h e q u estio n is, does this a p p a ra tu s b e lo n g to th e w ork, o r to th e te c h n ic a l e q u ip m e n t o f th e e x h ib itio n sp ac e? T h is q u e s tio n seem s to re m a in u n a n s w e ra b le in any g e n e ra l term s. (T h e canvas, fo r instance, is covered u p by th e p a in te d im age.

In th e case o f m e d ia a rt, th e im ag e b e a re r is n o t covered u p , b u t m erely p u t in to d a rk n ess, i.e. co v e red u p a n d n o t covered u p at th e sam e tim e.)

A n d above all, it is n o lo n g e r th e m u seu m lig h tin g th a t illum inates th e artw orks, it is now th e im ages them selves (video a n d c o m p u te r im ages) th a t b rin g th e lig h t in to th e m u se u m space. A ccordingly, o n e asks w h e th e r this lig h t b e lo n g s to th e artw o rk o r not. In fo rm e r days, m u seu m lig h tin g was th e sym bolic p ro p e rty o f th e viewer; it was in this ligh t th a t h e o r she viewed th e a rtw o rk . N ow , th e lig h t is b e c o m in g a p a r t o f th e w ork, a n d is th u s b e c o m in g o n e o f th e e le m e n ts c o n tro lle d by th e artist. W h a t is o c c u rrin g is a shift in lig h tin g m odalities, a shift in visibility a n d in th e c o n tro l o f visibility, a sh ift th a t is actually still b e in g insufficiently reflected u p o n .

(A nd o n e m o re thing: th e tristesse a n d a t th e sam e tim e th e intim acy o f th e d a r k e n e d m u se u m space. T h e m u seu m becom es d ark , d an g e ro u s a n d in tim a te in ste a d o f b e in g lig h t (e n lig h te n e d ) a n d p u b lic).

2. Time

C o n tro l o ver th e tim e o f c o n te m p la tio n is likewise b e in g passed fro m d ie visitor to th e artist. In th e classical m useum the visitor, th e viewer, exercises c o m p le te c o n tro l o ver th e tim e o f co n tem p latio n . H e o r sh e can in te rru p t

th e c o n te m p la tio n a t any tim e, a n d re tu r n , a n d go away again . T h e p ic tu re stays w here it is, rem ains u n m o v ed a n d m akes n o a tte m p t to flee th e view er’s gaze. T h e tra d itio n a l p ic tu re re m a in s self-identical o ver tim e. W ith m o v in g pictu res this is n o lo n g e r th e case. U n d e r n o rm a l c irc u m sta n c e s a fd m o r a video im p o se th eir own tim e o f c o n te m p la tio n u p o n th e viewer. W h e n we tu rn away from th e video, we miss so m e th in g . It is like w h a t h a p p e n s to us in life, w h ich can b e d e fin e d as th e p la c e in w h ich o n e m isses th e m o st im p o rta n t things. N ow th e m u seu m to o - e a rlie r, th e p la c e o f c o m p le te v isib ility - b e c o m e s a p la c e w h e r e w e c a n n o t c o m p e n s a t e a m is s e d o p p o rtu n ity to c o n te m p la te , to see; w h e re we c a n n o t r e tu r n a t an y tim e to see th e sam e we saw before.

A gain, a struggle fo r pow er arises b e tw e e n th e a rtist a n d th e sp e c ta to r, a struggle fo r c o n tro l over th e tim e o f c o n te m p la tio n .

3. Value

Actually, this th ird aspect has alre ad y b e e n d iscussed h e r e a t le n g th . T h e q u e stio n is, w hen does th e artistic value o f th e w ork c o m e in to b ein g ? W hen it is b e in g m ad e o r afte r it has b e e n e x h ib ite d fo r th e first tim e? T h is is p e rh a p s th e m ost difficult o f all o f th ese q u e stio n s - b u t th e m o st cru cial as well a n d yet, as o n e is fo rced to ad m it, alm o st an u n a n sw e ra b le q u e stio n .

W ell, now I com e to a b rie f c o n c lu d in g re m a rk . In o u r tim e th e a rtist has d isa p p e a re d as a u n iq u e in d iv id u al c re a to r b u t a t th e sam e h e has re- e m e rg e d as the su b ject o f th e aristo cratic gaze, as th e e x e m p la ry c o n su m e r.

A nd th e artist, as a m edia-ardst, h as also g a in e d m u c h g re a te r c o n tro l o ver the gaze o f th e spectator. Accordingly, th e a rt system o f today has by n o m ean s collapsed. R ath er, it has b e c o m e s tro n g e r a n d b e tte r o rg a n iz e d , so th a t it can fu n c tio n as th e place w here such an aristo cratic gaze ca n m a n ife st itself.

A n d tu rn in g back to th e re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n a r t a n d p h ilo so p h y , I w ould a rg u e th a t today’s p h ilo s o p h e r fu n c tio n s in a c o m p a ra b le m a n n e r as an exem p lary c o n su m er o f the lan g u ag e - a fte r h e h a d given u p all a tte m p ts to c reate new a n d o rig in al languages. W ittg e n ste in has alre a d y s o u g h t to elim in a te th e p h ilo so p h ic al d o u b t by th e specific u se o f o rd in a ry la n g u a g e . A nd recently, the discourse o f d e c o n stru c tio n ta u g h t us th a t we a re even n o t subjects o f o u r own d o u b t; ra th e r, this d o u b t o rig in a te d in th e la n g u a g e itself - a n d we a r e n e v e r a b le to r e t u r n to th is o r i g i n . So i f a r t b e c a m e p h ilo so p h ic al, p h ilo so p h y is now b e c o m in g n o w in cre asin g ly artistic. T h e tr a d itio n a l c o m p e titio n b e tw e e n a r t a n d p h ilo s o p h y c o m p e ls th e m to e x c h an g e th e ir places tim e a n d again.