While looking at a number of works by young NYC artists he moved from one open tab to the next, when bang, he came upon something real and new, eureka, it was his own website, with thumbnails ablazing.
After all, it was mostly distraction painting for super market prices. The idea was to get the artist away from thinking and making work about the present. At all costs. But all eras have collapsed into the present say the MOMA.
Art is dynamite, he said, and for this reason, is in the hands of power.
The lure of money had created, what he called, 'look at me painting', that twisted, contorted and did backflips, in order to attract that money. Money was a motivator, there was no denying that, but, as a motivator in creating art, it was, at best, restricting. As Groys had said, what if the art of the market was akin to totalitarian art produced in systems such as communist Russia, or nazi Germany.
Morally bankrupt art was everywhere, especially so it seemed, in music. Or rather that which was called pop. He then picked up a book and read:
"One example, which is a quite absurd but also common phenomenon, is that radical art is nowadays very often sponsored by the most predatory banks or arms traders and completely embedded in rhetorics of city marketing, branding, and social engineering. For very obvious reasons, this condition is rarely explored within political art, which is in many cases content to offer exotic self-ethnicization, pithy gestures, and militant nostalgia.
I am certainly not arguing for a position of innocence. It is at best illusory, at worst just another selling point. Most of all it is very boring."
It was the 'is very boring' part which got him, and of course he disagreed. It had been something he'd thought about before, if you open up a space of ethicality does it then follow that the work will be dead, boring, moribund, again, he thought not.