EGON MARCH INSTITUTE - theothea

THE STATUS AND FUNCTION OF ART THEORY

Misko Suvakovic

'Art theory' is the name we give to speech and language which denote art. To give an answer to the
question "What is art?" is to determine the framework of the speech and language in which this
answer is given. To state that art theory is the speech and language whose denotation is art, is to
determine art theory as a linguistic or discursive activity. To determine art theory as a linguistic or
discursive activity is point out aspects of language and discourse whose denotation is art:
1. 'Art theory' which is determined as a linguistic or discursive activity is a system for communicating
information inside the 'world of art' and between the world of art and other 'worlds'. The relation between
art theory and art is conceived as the relation between production and the consumer's response to this
production , i.e., to its products through which the production is determined as a semantic production.
2. 'Art theory', when determined as a linguistic or discursive activity, is a system of languages of different
degrees. The matter concerns a metalinguistic determination of 'art theory'. 'Art theory' is the language
or discourse whose level (content) is one or several languages, i.e. the metalanguage which we call 'art
theory' is a language about some individual language which we call the language of art or of language or
of discourses on the 'world of art', art institutions, art movements, schools or individuals. The structure of
the metalanguage is relative and open. Wittgenstein wrote that every language has a structure of which
nothing can be said in that particular language, but that another language can exist which deals with the
structure of the first, and that it then has a new structure, and that this hierarchy of languages is perhaps
limitless. The second degree discourse is a metalanguage, thanks to which terms, concepts and aspects
of the first degree language or discourse can be examined and their uses and references explained. The
language or discourse used in examining and analyzing the second degree discourses, their uses and
references belongs to the third degree discourse. The discourse of the third degree is called
metalanguage. In the Modernist sense, the hierarchy of the metalanguage is a legitimate order, while in
the Postmodernist sense there is no talk of hierarchy, but of the various registers of metalanguage.
3. Apart from being a system of communicating information, 'art theory,' as a linguistic or discursive activity
has other functions: it creates atmosphere or the constitutive linguistic framework in the production of
art, it explains, directs and evaluates; Arthur Danto writes:
To see something as art, requires that which the eye cannot discover - the atmosphere of art theory, the
knowledge of art history: a 'world of art'.
Apart from its informational and explanatory functions, 'art theory' creates space for the flourish of the
generative powers of language. 'Art theory' can have productive powers just like art practice.
4. As a linguistic or discursive activity 'art theory' is based on 'natural' languages (Serbo-Croatian,
Hungarian, English, Chinese, French, Russian). Within the framework of 'natural languages' art theory
develops specific 'dialects' or 'artificial specialist languages'. Art theory 'dialects' are often based on the
terminology of specific languages (slang) of the art world or other contexts (science, ideology, rock,
punk, religion). 'Artificial specialist languages' in art theory are created by transferring the terminology,
concepts and references from various disciplines (logic, linguistics, semiotics, psychology, philosophy)
into the language or discourses of art theory. The transferring of terminology, concepts and references
from original disciplines to art theory takes place along with a gradual transformation (Marcelin Pleynet)
of these disciplines and the terms, concepts and references as well.
5. As a linguistic or discursive activity 'art theory' is open with regard to the media. In other words, it can be
communicated through speech, text, diagrams, plans, film, exhibitions, i.e., a combination of all the
above mentioned mediums. In the specific case of art theory, i.e. an artist's theory, it can be determined
through the production of works of art (theoretical objects) which are in the function of the debate on art
or some of its aspects.
6. As a linguistic or discursive activity 'art theory' possesses certain powers in the concrete social context. It
is introduced into political, economic and educational systems as a mechanism for transforming the
material of the picture (art product) with regard to meaning and value.
7. As a linguistic or discursive activity, 'art theory' emerged at a certain period in language or discourse. Art
theories have their individual and joint histories which coincide, or don't, with the histories of other
disciplines (philosophy, sociology, linguistics, semiotics).
To conclude, the term 'art theory' conceals a number of linguistic or discursive activities, which
under the cover of a unique continuum conceal heterogeneous and heteronomous interests,
articulations, forms of communication and types of explanation, in different relations to their
denotations, i.e. art. The term 'art theory' denotes and covers terms such as: art history, criticism,
sociology of art, psychology of art, art semiotics, the science of art, art philosophy, aesthetics,
artist's theories.
Pgina 1

EGON MARCH INSTITUTE - theothea

Research and analyses of art theory in the twentieth century postulated at the very beginning, the
problem of determining art theory as the theory of art. The initial task faced by art theory is to
determine and conceptualize its specific status and functions. For example, aesthetician Joseph
Margolis concludes that the definition of 'art' depends on the manner in which we have determined
the meaning of aesthetics. We come across similar demands in other examples linked to the
founding and activities of art theory. Art theory discourses show how they came to be, how they
relate to other theories and how they function with regard to the work of art and the world of art.
The mechanism of self-reflection and the foundation of language and the discourse on art as art
theory, have a very complex branching. Two orientations are important with regard to our debate:
1. The orientation of art theory towards research, analysis and the explanation of art, i.e. the foundation of
cognitive, conceptual and explanatory aspects of art theory. The matter concerns its epistemological
character.
2. The orientation of art theory to the translating, reading and production of the semantic framework of a
work of art and art as a historical or paradigmatic situation. The matter concerns its productive, creative
or simulative character.

FINAL COMMENTARIES
COMMENTARY (1)
It is customary today to study 'art theory' under the name of 'art history', and this results in a
number of 'unfortunate consequences': the reduction of theoretical consideration to historical
schematism, the unpreparedness of 'art HISTORY students' in dealing with the current
(contemporary) world of art, the abandoning of theoretical methodological, descriptive and
interpretative methods, an identification with traditional humanistic schematism in specifying
sciences, etc. This is why we urge a turnabout in the order (hierarchy) of studies. This means the
following: (a) the basic theoretical discipline on art is 'art theory' - by art theory we are not thinking
of the hierarchy in humanistic sciences subjected to the 'philosophy of history', but the registers of
various productive, descriptive and interpretative discourses, (b) art theory is constituted as a
'discursive institution' which collects (registers, places in index registers) various discourses and
sciences on art from criticism to aesthetics, and (c) art theory is constituted as a form of 'textual
production', and this means: as a form of writing (and speech) on art in the contemporary world
and in art history.
COMMENTARY (2)
Therefore, the world of art NOW differs from the worlds and histories designed by humanistic
discourses. Briefly, the world of art NOW is a world of differences! In Lyotard's sense, schism (le
diffrend) denotes a clash without the possibility of a solution. The schisms of Modernism and
Postmodernism are drastically open today, and that is what we are talking about here! The
dialectics of Modernism and Postmodernism differ from the dialectics of movements at the turn of
the twentieth century (various isms and arts). The dialectics of change of twentieth century isms
and arts is analogous to the syntagmatic time axis of consecutive changes (isms follow isms, and
arts follow arts). In the high Modernist interpretation this is an evolutionary change, in the radical
Modernist or the avant-garde variants this is a catastrophe (cataclysm, rupture, end, death) of a
paradigm during the emergence of a new-other one. For example, with regard to early
Postmodernism, Oliva's transavant-garde para-revolution or Dante's end of art which took place in
Conceptual art through the transformation of art (object) into theory (or, put in Hegelian terms, the
spirit), is characterized by an awareness of the end of history and a transitional (trans)
posthistorical epoch. On the contrary, the Postmodernist interpretation at the beginning of the
Nineties, shows that the logic of consecutive evolutions or catastrophes or posthistorical
schematizations is just one of the models or pragmatic strategies in setting up a hierarchy of power
in the base or the superstructure of art systems. In other words, there is talk of the dialectics
interwoven between Modernism and Postmodernism. The idea of interweaving can be allegorized
to Lacan's 'turning of the screw' (Jacques Lacan, Shoshana Felman). A turn of the screw annuls
(makes obvious) all opposition in the division of power (history = modernism and posthistory =
postmodernism). Modernism and Postmodernism become discursive (interpretative, narrative) in
the allegory on the 'turning of the screw" and mutually changeable, in fact, indivisible, the same is
happening in the case of traditional psychoanalytical pairs of opposites: the exorcist and the
obsessed, the doctor and the patient, disease and cure, the symptoms and the proposed
interpretation of symptoms.
LITERATURE:
- L. Wittgenstein, "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus", Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1955.
- A. Danto "The Artworld", The Journal of Philosophy LXI, 1964.
- J, Derrida, "Of Grammatology", John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1974.
- L. Marin, "Elementi za slikovnu semiologiju", Dometi no. 7-9, Rijeka, 1981.
Pgina 2

EGON MARCH INSTITUTE - theothea

- J.F. Lyotard "Le diffrend", Les Editions de Minuit, Paris, 1983.

- M. Pleynet, "Slikarstvo i 'strukturalizam'" taken from "Ogledi o savremenoj umetnosti", Museum of
Contemporary Art, Belgrade, 1985.
- V. Burgin, "The End of Art Theory/Criticism and Postmodernity", Humanities Press International
INC, Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1987.
- J. Margolis (ed.), "Philosophy Looks at the Arts - Contemporary Readings in Aesthetics (third
edition), Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1987.
- _. Felman, "Okretaj interpretativnog zavrtnja", "Polja", no. 357 and 359-360, Novi Sad, 1988-89.
- N. Bryson, M. A. Holly, K. Moxey (ed.), "Visual Theory - Painting and Interpretation", Polity
Press, Oxford, 1991.
- S. Kemal, I. Gaskell (ed.), "The Language of Art History", Cambridge University Press, New York,
1991.
- C. Harrison, P. Wood (ed.), "Art in Theory 1900-1990, An Anthology of Changing Ideas", Basil
Blackwell, Oxford UK, Cambridge USA, 1993.
- R. Krauss, "The Optical Unconscious", The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, London, 1993.

http://www.iflugs.hdk-berlin.de/emi/suvakovic/safath.htm

Pgina 3