- 编辑推荐 -
·杜尚的《泉》、马勒维奇的《黑方块》、蒙德里安的格子画……这些艺术作品的创新究竟有何意义？它们的文化价值究竟从哪儿来？
·著名艺术评论家、策展人鲍里斯•格罗伊斯为我们创设了一个广阔的思考空间，使一系列关于神圣和世俗（什么才算是文化？）、传统和断裂（文化如何进入档案库？），以及时尚和历史之间关系的话题得以展开。
·格罗伊斯擅长将不同的哲学传统（从法国后结构主义到现代俄罗斯哲学）融入他具有启示意义的分析中，这些问题直指当今文化生产的核心，展现出他极其宽广的思想维度。
- 内容简介 -
本书探讨了当代文化发展中一个极为关键的议题：创新。不论是理论家、作家还是艺术家都不断被要求去创造新的东西。但是“新”这个概念本身已经彻底发生了变化。“新”的定义只能以它和现存的和旧有东西之间在某个文化中的关系来确定。一件艺术作品的价值是由它和其他艺术作品之间的关系，而不是以它和文化以外的现实之间的关系所决定的。这就意味着在文化中，创新其实是一种重估价值的过程，从本质上说，创新是一种经济层面上的运作过程。而每个希望参与到社会生活中去的人都在参与这种价值交换。
对格罗伊斯来说，创新是一种对文化的否定式适应。艺术品和文化传统之间的关系及其在多大程度上可以否定性来适应传统成为了评价艺术作品的主要标准。因此，世俗和日常的领域如今可以进入文化档案库。一个最好的例子就是杜尚的现成品。本书通过对新与旧、日常和文化之间辩证关系的探讨，展现了艺术和理论是如何获得文化价值的过程。

One of the most influential voices in contemporary cultural theory on how to make it new
As ideas move from one context to another, something new is created. This continuous shifting of the line that separates the valuable from the worthless, culture from profanity, is at the centre of Boris Groys's investigation.

当今的艺术往往以揣测为源：艺术展现的只是日常的表象，人们总在琢磨其背后隐匿的秘密。只有某种诡谲的、色彩斑斓的画面才会彻底唤起我们的注意。鲍里斯?格罗伊斯在他这部伟大的著作中，向我们解释了揣测怎样在不同的媒介中起作用，以及为什么自马勒维奇与杜尚以来，人们总是在为“现代艺术中究竟何为艺术，何为俗物”这类问题争论不休。艺术是值得人们去揣测的东西，就好比将一把铲雪锹或者一小撮米放在博物馆中一件广受认可的艺术品旁边，任由人们去讨论，这就一定会引起揣测。这类争论的有趣之处在于，它可能为在物质上有限的艺术作品开启了一个潜在的可以无限反思的空间。通过这本书，鲍里斯?格罗伊斯论证了艺术与媒介间广泛的现象学，同时也把其先前一本著作《论新事物》中的一些论题进行了拓展。

The public generally regards the media with suspicion and distrust. Therefore, the media's primary concern is to regain that trust through the production of sincerity. Advancing the field of media studies in a truly innovative way, Boris Groys focuses on the media's affect of sincerity and its manufacture of trust to appease skeptics. Groys identifies forms of media sincerity and its effect on politics, culture, society, and conceptions of the self. He relies on different philosophical writings thematizing the gaze of the other, from the theories of Heidegger, Sartre, Mauss, and Bataille to the poststructuralist formulations of Lacan and Derrida. He also considers media "states of exception" and their creation of effects of sincerity -- a strategy that feeds the media's predilection for the extraordinary and the sensational, further fueling the public's suspicions. Emphasizing the media's production of emotion over the presentation (or lack thereof) of "facts," Groys launches a timely study boldly challenging the presumed authenticity of the media's worldview.

如果世界上所有的事物被认为是美学经验的来源，那么艺术不再具有优势地位。相反，来源于主体和世界之间的艺术和曾经给艺术合法地位的任何美学话语必须也必定服务于削弱它。继鲍里斯•格洛伊斯近作《艺术力》和《共产主义后记》之后，本书试图避免使用具有牢固地位的美学和艺术的社会理解——它们总是承担观者和消费者的位置。让我们重新考虑艺术生产者的位置，不要问艺术像什么，或者从哪里来，以及它为什么存在第一位置。收录于《走向公众》之中的文章引发诸多思考，尤其是在当下存在的如何使个人和公众对艺术品的认知协调共处的两难问题上更是如此。为了理解公众表达形式对个人利益形式的影响，放宽视野，思考两者各自存在的局限极为必要。

If all things in the world can be considered as sources of aesthetic experience, then art no longer holds a privileged position. Rather, art comes between the subject and the world, and any aesthetic discourse used to legitimize art must also necessarily serve to undermine it. Following his recent books Art Power and The Communist Postscript, in Going Public Boris Groys looks to escape entrenched aesthetic and sociological understandings of art—which always assume the position of the spectator, of the consumer. Let us instead consider art from the position of the producer, who does not ask what it looks like or where it comes from, but why it exists in the first place.

在这个世界上，艺术有自己的力量，它在今天全球政治中发挥的力量和曾经冷战时期政治舞台上具有同样的力量。著名理论家鲍里斯·格洛伊斯提出：艺术几乎是无力的商品，受到艺术市场上接纳和排除命运的影响。在《艺术力》这本书中，格洛伊斯根据艺术意识形态的功能审视了现代和当代艺术。格洛伊斯写道：艺术品以两种方式生产并呈现在公众面前：作为商品的艺术和作为政治宣传工具的艺术。在当代艺术界里，作为政治宣传工具的艺术功能很少受到关注。
作者在论证在当代艺术话语中，接纳有政治目的的艺术时，他认为艺术在集权主义、社会主义和后共产主义统治下制作出来。他也认为：今天主流的西方艺术，在众多的国际展览、双年展和艺术节上，产生和展示出来，根据意识形态的宣传规则，他发现这样的行为越来越多。格洛伊斯论证：当代艺术通过直接反抗挪用偶像破坏的姿态来展示它的力量，同时通过图像和批判的图像定位。在《艺术力》中，作者审视了这种根本的挪用，现代艺术品中自相矛盾的作品生产出来。

這個權威性的概述將當代藝術——其美學策略、機構和驅動力——座落在現代主義革命、城市主義、新技術和後共產主義時代更深層次的背景下。葛羅伊斯結合了啟發性的分析與哲學的問題，直達今日的文化生產核心。—─伊沃納．布雷茲維克（Iwona Blazwick）倫敦白教堂藝廊（Whitechapel Gallery）館長
藝術力：衝突之間的權力平衡與協商
葛羅伊斯的論辯方式，既非哲學也非純粹美學，而是以現實為基礎的思想推演，因而包含廣闊（美學策略、藝術中的新、美術館、策展、藝術評論、藝術文件、作者權、都市生活、數位藝術、電影、後共產主義時代等），讀來相當引人入勝。《藝術力》一方面從現代藝術的歷程出發，重新檢視前衛藝術的任務與其偶像破壞在當今究竟如何可能；另一方面，也從深陷在藝術市場與當代藝術體制中的藝術實踐，勾勒出一條足以與社會其他勢力抗衡的藝術之力。也許正是因為見證過蘇聯超級大權力的衰敗過程，葛羅伊斯相信觀念主義之後的時代，宗教、政治、藝術之間終將會有一種新的平衡。
《藝術力》分成兩個部分，第一部分針對當代藝術體制與公眾間的命題，第二部份涵蓋戰爭、希特勒的藝術理論、共產主義社會的藝術、以及西方多元主義視野下的後共產主義等主題。共15篇專論，收錄葛羅伊斯在2000年到2007年間發表於期刊或是論壇上的重要論文。

Art has its own power in the world, and is as much a force in the power play of global politics today as it once was in the arena of cold war politics. Art, argues distinguished theoretician Boris Groys, is hardly a powerless commodity subject to the art market's fiats of inclusion and exclusion. In Art Power, Groys examines modern and contemporary art according to its ideological function. Art, Groys writes, is produced and brought before the public in two ways—as a commodity and as a tool of political propaganda. In the contemporary art scene, very little attention is paid to the latter function; the official and unofficial art of the former Soviet Union and other former Socialist states, for example, is largely excluded from the field of institutionally recognized art, usually on moral grounds (although, Groys points out, criticism of the morality of the market never leads to calls for a similar exclusion of art produced under market conditions).
Arguing for the inclusion of politically motivated art in contemporary art discourse, Groys considers art produced under totalitarianism, Socialism, and post-Communism. He also considers today’s mainstream Western art—which he finds behaving more and more according to the norms of ideological propaganda: produced and exhibited for the masses at international exhibitions, biennials, and festivals. Contemporary art, Groys argues, demonstrates its power by appropriating the iconoclastic gestures directed against itself—by positioning itself simultaneously as an image and as a critique of the image. In Art Power, Groys examines this fundamental appropriation that produces the paradoxical object of the modern artwork.

The contemporary world, argues Boris Groys, was made possible by the downfall of historical communism. At the same time, today's political and aesthetic strategies - from a unified Europe to political Islam and contemporary mass culture - all bear the imprint of communist heritage. The renowned art critic and philosopher Boris Groys explores this post-communist condition through a radical and disturbing account of Soviet philosophy. He argues that communist revolution is the transcription of society from the medium of money to the medium of language - a linguistic turn at the level of social praxis. From Plato's philosopher-king onwards, philosophers have dreamt of ruling society through the mastery of language. Groys claims that the end of Soviet communism sets this dream free for new attempts to organize society through language, the medium of equality.

Traditional philosophy, claims Boris Groys in this provocative new work, promised to satisfy the desire for knowledge. But why should I bother with knowledge and philosophy at all? What motives lead me to such a project? Antiphilosophy in its various guises is directed not against this or that particular philosophy but against the philosophical project itself. That project is now interpreted as a symptom of frustration, a lack of true vitality, or of the product of an unjust society. Asked why we should want philosophy the answer is no longer a theory but rather an appeal and a command: Live dangerously! Change the world! Think rhizomatically! And then you will know. Groys explores these questions and answers via figures as varied as Bakhtin, Benjamin, Derrida, Heidegger, Junger, Kierkegaard, Kojeve and Nietzsche.

From the ruins of communism, Boris Groys emerges to provoke our interest in the aesthetic goals pursued with such catastrophic consequences by its founders. Interpreting totalitarian art and literature in the context of cultural history, this brilliant essay likens totalitarian aims to the modernists' goal of producing world transformative art. In this new edition, Groys, revisits the debate that the book has stimulated since its first publication.

Cosmism emerged in Russia before the October Revolution and developed through the 1920s and 1930s; like Marxism and the European avant-garde, two other movements that shared this intellectual moment, Russian Cosmism rejected the contemplative for the transformative, aiming to create not merely new art or philosophy but a new world. Cosmism went the furthest in its visions of transformation, calling for the end of death, the resuscitation of the dead, and free movement in cosmic space. This volume collects crucial texts, many available in English for the first time, by the radical biopolitical utopianists of Russian Cosmism.
Cosmism was developed by the Russian philosopher Nikolai Fedorov in the late nineteenth century; he believed that humans had an ethical obligation not only to care for the sick but to cure death using science and technology; outer space was the territory of both immortal life and infinite resources. After the revolution, a new generation pursued Fedorov's vision. Cosmist ideas inspired visual artists, poets, filmmakers, theater directors, novelists (Tolstoy and Dostoevsky read Fedorov's writings), architects, and composers, and influenced Soviet politics and technology. In the 1930s, Stalin quashed Cosmism, jailing or executing many members of the movement. Today, when the philosophical imagination has again become entangled with scientific and technological imagination, the works of the Russian Cosmists seem newly relevant.

A prominent critic and theorist considers the criteria of value for collecting and storing works of art. In the world of contemporary art, "serious" art is produced primarily with the aim of being collected. As a result, today's art production differs significantly from contemporary forms of production that are primarily intended for consumption (and thus destruction.) A work of art, on the other hand, is not consumed; it is protected from use and consumption. How does a particular work of art deserve the right to be collected and preserved? In this book, Boris Groys considers the criteria of value for collecting and storing works of art, finding them not outside but within the collection and according to its inherent logic. Just as an individual artwork does not necessarily depict external reality, an art collection in its entirety does not depict external social contexts but follows its own, autonomous logic. Every collection aims at the most exhaustive representation of its specific topic. At the same time, every collection is limited in terms of space and capabilities for maintenance of its items. Ultimately, it is the tension between its goal and the limitations of its ability to achieve it that defines every collection, including art collections.

The Berlin Wall was coming down, the Soviet Union was dissolving, Communist China was well on its way down the capitalist path; the world was witnessing political and social transformations without precedent. Artists, seeing it all firsthand, responded with a revolution of their own. What form this revolution took--how artists in the 1980s marked their societies' traumatic transition from decaying socialism to an insecure future--emerges in this remarkable volume. With in-depth perspectives on art and artists in the former Soviet Union, the Balkans and Mitteleuropa, China, and Cuba--all from scholars and art critics who were players in the tumultuous cultural landscapes they describe--this stunningly illustrated collection captures a singular period in the history of world art, and a critical moment in the cultural and political transition from the last century to our own. Authors Ales Erjavec, Gao Minglu, Boris Groys, Peter Gyorgy, Gerardo Mosquera, and Misko Suvakovic observe distinct national differences in artistic responses to the social and political challenges of the time. But their essays also reveal a clear pattern in the ways in which artists registered the exhaustion of the socialist vision and absorbed the influence of art movements such as constructivism, pop art, and conceptual art, as well as the provocations of western pop culture. Indebted to but not derived from capitalist postmodernism, the result was a unique version of postsocialist postmodernism, an artistic/political innovation clearly identified and illustrated for the first time in these pages.

這本精彩的合集深入觀察前蘇聯、中歐、巴爾幹半島、匈牙利、斯洛維尼亞、南斯拉夫、古巴與中國的藝術與藝術家。揭露出面對時代巨變的藝術家如何記錄社會主義視野的枯竭、如何吸收如：構成主義、普普藝術與觀念藝術等藝術運動的典範及西方流行文化的挑釁。
柏林圍牆塌毀，蘇聯政權崩解，中國共產主義走上資本主義的路線，我們的世界見證了一場空前的政治與社會轉變。面對如此巨變，身處其中的藝術家以一種他們自己的革命作為回應。這場革命所採取的形式，也就是這些1980年代的藝術家如何記錄他們社會這段充滿創傷的過渡期，從日漸衰微的社會主義轉換成一個不安的未來，均於本書中一一浮現。這本精彩的合集是由學者或藝評家深入觀察前蘇聯、中歐、巴爾幹半島、匈牙利、斯洛維尼亞、南斯拉夫、古巴與中國的藝術與藝術家。他們都是其動盪文化風景中的參與者，所捕捉的是世界藝術史中一段從上個世紀到現代文化政治過渡期中一個重大的關鍵時刻。
這些作者關注的是各國藝術家對於這時期社會與政治挑戰的不同回應，而他們的文章也以一種清晰的模式，揭露出藝術家如何記錄社會主義視野的枯竭、如何吸收藝術運動（像是構成主義、普普藝術與觀念藝術）的典範以及西方流行文化的挑釁。內容著重的並非源自於資本主義的後現代主義（capitalist postmodernism），而是強調由此所形成的後社會主義的後現代主義（postsocialist postmodernism）之獨特視野。本書將首次清楚地定義與闡明此種藝術∕政治上的革新。