In his essay (2009), Groys defends the role of art as political propaganda and calls for politically motivated art to be included in the discourse of modern art. Groys believes that art can be categorised either as a commodity on the art market or a tool of political propaganda.  While art historians and museum systems identify art with the market, they pay little attention to artworks that were created and distributed by political systems such as the Soviet government or other socialist states.  Groys wittily points out that while propagandist art is considered immoral and even perverted, nobody (officially) questions the morality of a urinal being presented as art (Duchamp’s Fountain). He thus concludes that the “balance of power between economy and politics in art has become distorted”. He insist that art is more powerful if produced outside the art market and in the context of politics.

Groys provocatively suggests that artists working for propaganda are truer to art than those who produce for the individual consumer. This is because every ideology, Groys writes, political or religious, has a vision or an image behind it, whereas the art market does not – it merely circulates images. Due to this lack of vision, the market is difficult to challenge through art, even by those who position themselves against the commodification of art. The market merely incorporates any criticising work and while some attributes may change, the concept remains unchallenged. For this reason Groys calls for more political art. He believes that any propaganda artwork is simultaneously an affirmation and a critique of an ideological system because it turns the vision of the future into something tangible and secular.

Nonetheless, Groys believes western modern and contemporary art is more than a powerless commodity and has a distinct ideological function. The majority of theoreticians hold that contemporary art is “radically pluralistic,” and thus impossible to discuss as a single phenomenon. However, Groys argues that the pluralism itself and the constant contradiction of other works is the common theme that unites all modern art. He says this trend is concerned with the balance of power, which is also a key concept of democracy. Groys notes that this type of art is increasingly assuming a position similar to propaganda in that it’s brought before a wide audience who are not potential buyers through various international exhibitions and festivals. By presenting a utopian power balance that politics fails to achieve, modern and contemporary art both affirms and critiques the democratic system, similarly to the functions of ideological art.

It’s brilliant how Groys identifies the common theme of modern art within its differences and links it back to modern ideology. A particularly interesting idea is that art can serve as an affirmation and a criticism of a political system simultaneously. Popular culture too, can be viewed as an ideological tool of capitalism, in that all members of society are inevitably exposed to it. However, it can also be seen as a critical parody of our society, by condensing and exaggerating various aspects. Obvious examples of this are animated series like The Simpsons and South Park. The idea that popular culture (like art) can be powerful rather than submissive is echoed in the works of popular culture theorists like Stuart Hall (1992), who suggest it can be used to win positions for minority groups, for example, by appropriating dominant tendencies, similar to how modern art has appropriated and thus reversed “iconoclastic” tendencies (that initially worked against it) by presenting itself as an image and a critique of an image at once.

---

References:

Groys, B. (2008) “Introduction.” Art Power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pp. 1-9.

Hall S. (1992). What is this “black” in black popular culture? in Popular culture and cultural theory: A reader. 4th ed. by Storey, J. (2009). Essex: Pearson.