Misko Suvakovic

THE STATUS AND FUNCTION OF ART THEORY

'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.
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 différend) 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.
- J.F. Lyotard "Le différend", 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.