2009-10-20
PSA_112
Q: "Why would art creators concern themselves with theory and philosophy? Should not art inherently express some unquantifiable values that these language bound disciplines can not quite pin down? If language can accurately define the values contained in art, why make art? Is theory a weapon AGAINST art? Is an artist's survival contingent on adopting a counter-theory weapon as defense (offense)? Can an artist "just make art", or do we have to read and talk all this crap just to to survive?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
the answer lies in the tacit assumption of a hierarchy between art and theory, both are merely tangible puppets manipulated from the ethereal planes of meaning. If an artist is truly seeking some "meaning" through the creative act, can theoretical considerations accelerate this search?
ReplyDeletedoes theory have the ultimate goal of destroying itself? (and consequentially anything it touches?)
ReplyDeleteDoes the spiral of language swallow meaning like a black hole? Does the spiral of meaning expel language through centrifugal force? Is theory by nature reductionist and is truth by nature infinitely expansive?
ReplyDeleteTheory slowly chips away at art. Unopposed, art will become dust in the winds of oblivion. Can the rock chip the chisel?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Robert-Storr-Most-theory-has-little-bearing-on-art/19605
ReplyDelete