Interesting article, witty and paradoxical. However, the analysis Groys - at least in part, that describes the modern artist - can be applied only to certain parts of modern art (it's an expression I use is not in the sense of "Contemporary Art", but in the sense of "art, which is nowadays "), which is understandable: Groys first man clan.
And if certain events in the art world confirm the theory Groys, others, not less numerous - refute it.
Anyway, nice to see that Groys took up what he really knows how to do - indulge in scholasticism, using art as merely a pretext for his brilliant, arbitrarnyh and sterile theories (even if he himself would never agree with this definition). Sami things he is not interested - it seems that he simply did not see, apparently, that's why he prefers art, which can be described by mobile phone.
In the words of his friend, the artist "to truly understand a work means to buy it - and not write about it," boiling optimism, I would have responded much less triumphant "to truly understand a work means to write it" (my spleen today
).