offers a point of entry for understanding a societal shift that also has aesthetic implication. She posits that the mistrust of television, even during the perestroika period, meant that what was broadcast was taken with great skepticism, as television was seen as an ideological tool of Soviet propaganda, an attitude that led to the perception of the 1991 artistic prank as unreal in the first place. In 1999, however, the coincidental broadcasting of real carnage in the parliament building left a huge mark on the collective psyche. Not only was the economy stable enough for Armenians to follow the broadcast on their own TVs without the interruption of power cuts, but they had grown accustomed now to taking televised representation as the real event. Concerns with the body, violence, and sex entered the work of artists after the televised attack, and the use of video within the artistic realm doubly conflated representation with the real. Writing an art historical account of a period of political transition, in addition to the epistemological difference of attempting to do so while using the dominant vocabulary of the Western art historical discourse, remains an unresolved challenge for all of us in the field. As a first attempt at historicizing recent alternative artistic practice in Armenia, Harutyunyan’s The Political Aesthetics of the Armenian Avant-Garde is an impressive venture, and highly informative on artistic practices of the twenty-year period in question. If seen as a long-term historical unfolding of contemporary artistic practice in Armenia, it arrives at its true subject matter in its last chapter, specifically in Harutyunyan’s discussion of Kareyan’s installation and video work. If it is the gradual emergence of an antiSoviet consciousness that defines Armenian contemporary art through the period that Harutyunyan scrutinizes, the exorcism of the Soviet is perhaps completed at the end of the book with Kareyan, with claims neither for the vanguard nor for autonomy, but for a more modest, open-ended approach outside the purview of the Leninist historical time, an approach that embraces unresolved tension—which in itself could be seen as evidence of the contemporary.

中文翻译：

---

在下面编织一个，将两个编织在一起：利用诱惑的政治

为理解同样具有审美意义的社会转变提供了一个切入点。她认为，即使在改革时期，对电视的不信任也意味着对广播的内容持极大怀疑态度，因为电视被视为苏联宣传的意识形态工具，这种态度导致人们认为 1991 年的艺术恶作剧是首先是不真实的。然而，在 1999 年，议会大楼里巧合的真实大屠杀的广播在集体心理上留下了巨大的印记。不仅经济足够稳定，亚美尼亚人可以在不中断断电的情况下通过自己的电视观看广播，而且他们现在已经习惯于将电视转播视为真正的事件。在电视袭击之后，对身体、暴力和性的关注进入了艺术家的作品，并且在艺术领域中使用视频将再现与真实混为一谈。除了试图在使用西方艺术史话语的主要词汇时尝试这样做的认识论差异之外，撰写政治转型时期的艺术史记述仍然是我们在该领域的所有人的未解决的挑战。作为将亚美尼亚最近的另类艺术实践历史化的第一次尝试，Harutyunyan 的《亚美尼亚先锋派的政治美学》是一项令人印象深刻的冒险，并且对所讨论的 20 年期间的艺术实践提供了丰富的信息。如果被视为亚美尼亚当代艺术实践的长期历史展开，它在最后一章中达到了其真正的主题，特别是在 Harutyunyan 对 Kareyan 装置和视频作品的讨论中。如果说在 Harutyunyan 审视的时期，逐渐出现的反苏意识定义了亚美尼亚当代艺术，那么对苏联的驱魔也许在本书结尾与 Kareyan 完成，既不要求先锋也不要求自治，而是列宁主义历史时期范围之外的更温和、开放的方法，一种包含未解决的紧张局势的方法——这本身就可以被视为当代的证据。