The essay inquires about the historical condition of representation in our present while invoking the modern experience of the sublime and landscape as the medium of that experience. Can the sublime as the experience of the subject confronted with the very limits of representation be extended to our late capitalist conditions of mediatized representations? What constitutes “a landscape” as the site of the experience of the sublime in late capitalism? The essay addresses these questions through a renewed discussion of Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Technological Reproducibility” (1936) by focusing on the discussion of the aura and the decay of the aura in relation to landscape. In the wake of the failure of a transformative praxis to bring about a new social order, the technologically hyper-mediated engagement of man with nature under the conditions of extreme alienation and reification results in the production of the aesthetics of destruction experienced as “supreme pleasure”. In the age of the atomic bomb and technological hyper-mediation, the singularity of the moment of the experience of the sublime is multiply reproduced. The essay ends with an analysis of Werner Herzog’s 1992 film Lessons of Darkness as an example of rendering cinematically the aura’s survival under the conditions of its decay in the burning oil fields of Kuwait. Capitalism’s “desert of the real”, as the vast desert in Kuwait in Herzog’s film, is precisely the landscape in relation to which the subject attempts to represent that which evades representation (the event, nature, capitalism, and so on).

The document presents two separate articles with the same title –“What is Hamasteghtsakan Art” – by artist Arman Grigoryan and art critic Nazareth Karoyan, published in Armenia in 1994 and 1996 respectively. Translated from Armenian and introduced by Angela Harutyunyan both articles have been formative for the development of contemporary art in Armenia. While presenting diverging views on the meaning of hamasteghtsakan (translated as collectively created), the concept was circulated as a definition for a broad range of post-medium artistic practices in late Soviet and post-Soviet Armenia. These practices formed an oppositional discourse to both Socialist Realism and Armenian National modernism. Harutyunyan's introduction locates the texts in a broader context of artistic institutional transformations in the late 1980s and early 1994 in Armenia.

The Introduction to the Special Issue entitled Art Periodicals, Historically Considered sketches an outline of the advent of periodicals in the context of the Enlightenment demand for the public use of reason, and situates the emergence of art periodicals in the context of the advent of autonomous art since the 19th century. The article introduces the contributions to the Special Issue and opens up a way to reposition the question of critique in today's art publishing.

The two texts presented here were written by members of conceptual artists' group ACT operating in Armenia in 1994–1996. The group developed affirmative artistic actions and exhibitions to support the constitution of the new state based on the principles of liberal democracy and market capitalism. Its conceptual interventions and actions, both in conventional spaces of exhibition, but also on the street and in the already dysfunctional factories, were often formally minimal and austere, but almost always prescriptive in terms of offering a model of political and aesthetic participation.

The article situates video art produced in Armenia in the late 1990s and early 2000s in the framework of larger social transformations from modern to post-modern society. It explores the ways in which the paradigm shift in media representations in Armenia affected art production and reception. By critically examining theories of video art as developed in the context of the Euro-American academia and their applicability to historically specific contexts, the article argues that the late 1990s brought about a rapid shift in the relationship between the real and representation in which media images were perceived as more real than “reality” of everyday non-mediatized experiences.