Post-Contemporary Art: Comparisons To, and Distinctions From, Post-Theory Art and Theory Art
ABSTRACT
This research paper examines whether and how Theory Art and Post-Theory Art may be distinguishable from Post-Contemporary Art, sometimes called “PoCo Art,’ where each may be seen as an emergent responsive art form to their respective predecessors Contemporary Art and Conceptual Art across visual art, music, literature, performative art, and other artistic disciplines. The paper proposes several observable and objective standards and elements that appear to distinguish Post-Contemporary Art from Theory Art and Post-Theory Art, including in their broader contexts of Contemporary Art in the past century, historical Conceptual Art in the past two centuries, as well as Post-conceptual Art, Postminimalism, Postmodernism, and Neoconceptual Art in the last seventy-five years. By researching, analyzing, and integrating a wide survey of relevant cross-cultural researchers and theorists, from multiple societies and time periods, this research paper is a first attempt at an interdisciplinary level to analyze distinctions between these potential art movements that are emerging simultaneously and that objectively have a multiplicity of art history and philosophical elements shared between them.
Keywords: Post-Contemporary Art, Theory Art, Conceptual Art, Art Theory, Art History, Social Sciences
- INTRODUCTION
This paper attempts to survey the relevant Western social sciences and their primary academic and theoretical research to date in order to prepare a method of evaluation for whether Post-Contemporary Art, Theory Art, and Post-Theory Art can be measured, compared, and distinguished by objective standards, or identified by objective elements, in particular in relation to Theory Art’s apparent ability to create, critique, document, and even protect human syntheses of existing and future artistic, philosophical, and interdisciplinary mediums, including theories, developed by humanity to date. Conceptual Theory Art, or Theory Art for short, is seen across artistic genres, from the visual arts to music to literature, and from performance to film to poetry, with Theory Art’s multifaceted approach drawing primarily, but not exclusively, on the intellectual lineages of Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction theories, Roland Barthes’s semiotics theories, and Rosalind Krauss’s postmodernist critique theories (Derrida, 1967; Barthes, 1967; Krauss, 1985).
In this context, Post-Contemporary Art appears to be distinguishable in several respects. Post-Contemporary Art may be said to focus not on evaluations of past movements, but rather on a prospective, or forward-looking philosophy and aesthetic objectively observed to have a nexus between the human, the global, and the reconstructing of both. It may also be said to posit a philosophy or ethos that aesthetic experience is an experience that is universal across all humanity. It may also be said to have an emphasis on removing human-made boundaries and integrating technological advances in media to achieve this philosophy. In contrast, Theory Art may be said to focus on the viewer’s or listener’s or reader’s role in interpreting and constructing meaning from not singular ideas but rather the relative connections amongst many ideas, and prior theories, through the documenting, proposing, testing, and critique of theories that are themselves expressed in various forms of art and various art media, from visual to musical to literary to plain text. In turn, Contemporary Art can also be distinguished from Post-Theory Art, which appears able to both observe and respond to art movements of the past as well as observe and posit more open-ended interpretations for the prospective forward future without being bound to specific theories, intellectual frameworks, goals, or objectives. For example, if it may be said that Hito Steyerl (2013) discusses the implications of digital technology on art in a forward human ethos perspective, which would align with the Post-Contemporary Art ethos of exploring the pervasive influence of digital culture in relation to humanity, Theory Art and Post-Theory Art might in contrast result in works that both quantify this and take it to abstraction, by reducing Steyerl’s implications to their core points and then integrating them in a broader abstract and conceptual theory to propose how Steyerl’s points relate and connect to other theories, including those one might never think to connect or relate.
The research paper now explores additional distinguishing elements given the above context.
2. METHODS AND FRAMEWORKS FOR EVALUATING POST-CONTEMPORARY ART IN RELATION TO THEORY ART AND POST-THEORY ART
A. A Comparison of Philosophical, Intellectual, and Aesthetic Foundations
Post-Contemporary Art’s philosophical and intellectual foundations may be said to derive from, and respond against, the philosophies, intellectual traditions, and art histories that underlie notions of the “modern” and the “contemporary” in that Post-Contemporary Art posits that such terms are by their nature constrained, in that they are limited to their time period, on the one hand, and are also limited by defined aesthetic boundaries. Post-Contemporary Art notes that the “modern” and the “contemporary” are reactive, not forward looking, because they are ultimately both a critique of a relatively limited bandwidth of human expression — just the classical European tradition and its constructive philosophy. Worse, Post-Contemporary Art would seem to argue, the “modern” and the “contemporary” are also trapped by their time and era because each places a heavily-weighted focus on capturing the transient moment of the present in a given culture or society. (In comparing Post-Contemporary Art to Theory Art and Post-Theory Art, infra, it appears that it could be argued that Post-Contemporary Art also places undue weight on capturing the transient moment, albeit the transient future moment, and also has the limitation of being focused only on a human-centric ethos, but that is for discussion below.)
Post-Contemporary Art’s philosophy seems also to derive from a reaction against the role of Modernism, Postmodernism, and Contemporary Art, in that Post-Contemporary Art holds that all of these follow the narrow and constrained tradition of mere deconstruction and questioning, while Post-Contemporary Art holds, for itself, an emphasis on creating a forward human ethos and future global ethos, including in relation to goals of reconstruction of the human aesthetic. More broadly, the intellectual and philosophical foundations of Post-Contemporary Art are those that place greater value on disciplines including the humanities that extend, broaden, and are pluralist, reflecting different cultures and their modes of thinking, rather than a linear path of development arising only from Western thought systems. Perhaps emblematic of its forward-human-aesthetic, and emblematic of its current status, Post-Contemporary Art is often referred to simply as “PoCo” Art, where PoCo may be understood as desiring to builds upon knowledge from all eras, not just the past century; and affirmatively places values upon elements, rather than remaining a neutral vehicle for the artist, particularly those elements PoCo believes to be necessary for a better human-centric future, including empathy without qualification or limitation.
In contrast, the theoretical and intellectual history foundations of Theory Art can arguably be traced to several more traditional sources, and, in contrast to Post-Conceptual Art, none of them are necessarily focused on aesthetics or particular ethos or a solely human-centric view. This makes sense given that Theory Art and Post-Theory Art are clear descendants not of Contemporary Art, but rather of Conceptual Art. One visible foundation is Derrida’s deconstruction theory, which emphasizes the role of the viewer or reader in creating meaning (Derrida, 1967). An additional foundation of Theory Art is Barthes’s concept of the “death of the author,” which supports the Derrida element by positing that meaning is constructed by the audience, not the creator (Barthes, 1967).
Another foundation is observed in Krauss’s critiques and studies of postmodernism, which questioned and expanded traditional social science understandings of the artist-creator in relation to viewer-listener-receiver interpretation, including to allow for the data showing the increasingly accepted empirical reality that there exists a multiplicity of meanings and interpretations resulting from any one act of communication, artistic or otherwise (Krauss, 1985). These three foundations of Theory Art conceptually reference contemporary social science research, theories, and recent data from the field of linguistics, including the accuracy and inaccuracy of language, and the communication-miscommunication distinction discussed later in this paper. This appears to be distinct and distinguishable from what appear to be intended purposes or aims of Post-Contemporary Art. Is it that Post-Contemporary art is substantive, in that it conveys a particular bandwidth of ideas, while Theory Art and Post-Theory Art are procedural, providing a mechanism or a vehicle by which to create, transmit, receive, and interpret a limitless scope of theories and thought-actions in response to them? To see whether this potential distinction holds, see infra.
Additional Western philosophical foundations for theory Art are found in Wittgenstein’s work on the limitations and structures of both human language and human thinking because the work builds on the above and theorizes about observed philosophical and practical difficulties in accurately transmitting and receiving linguistic communication because language inherently contains ambiguities and accuracy limitations (Wittgenstein, 1953).
Still further Western philosophical foundations for Theory Art can be traced back to Hegel’s and Descartes’s philosophical inquiries into the fundamental nature of thought and language, which also provide the foundation for elements seen in Theory Art given that they provide a theoretical basis and methodology for understanding the complex interactions between language, meaning, and the Western reasoning system in that their theories emphasize the importance of developing conceptual frameworks and logical structures as a method for understanding human cognition and its limitations (Hegel, 1807; Descartes, 1641). These philosophical theories, at their broadest and most conceptual, are parallel to the economic theories of Smith’s proposal that labor, including intellectual and creative labor, not just physical labor, is a source of human and economic value (Smith, 1776). This may be seen in another element of Theory Art, which posits that the value of an artists’ labor is not just in the capacity of their role as artist-creator-maker, but also in their role as artist-creator-thinker. Contemporary art theorists and artists have now applied the above research and theories to evaluate Theory Art in the context of Western social sciences, including Smith’s work in economics and the value of labor (Smith, 1776, Wilson, 2021).
B. Post-Contemporary Art: Comparisons And Distinctions Relative To Theory Art and Post-Theory Art
Taken to its logical conclusion, Post-Contemporary Art may be said to represent, or at least espouse, a breaking away from traditional aesthetic and intellectual foundations, in order to avoid reactive traditional responses to the past. Instead, it looks forward, prospectively, including by embracing new media and technologies to create meaning that is centered, or perhaps re-centered on purely human ethos (Levi, Gharib, and Shridel, 2005).
In contrast, the structural elements of Theory Art and Post-Theory Art remain, ultimately, deeply rooted in existing global philosophical and theoretical frameworks, and primarily Western thought frameworks. Not as to the substantive pieces of art, music, and literature, and not as to the substantive theories, but as to the architecture of Theory Art and Post-Theory Art itself, as a neutral vehicle without substantive preferences that asks only that the artist-creator and the receiver be curious as to how individual ideas, facts and observations might relate to each other — or to entirely different areas of human knowledge or natural phenomena. This may explain why the core concept of Theory Art may not be seen as any substantive ethos or response, but rather as a procedural mechanism, based on the established art history and art theory concepts that acknowledge and accommodate this: The active engagement of the recipient-viewer-listener-reader in constructing meaning.
As distinguished from Post-Conceptual Art, Post-Theory Art in particular seems to turn away from any particular subject matter content as being related to the movement, and instead seems to turn towards, or lean into, the artist’s and viewer’s transcending any one theory at all, thereby presenting art-music-literature not only without any predetermined meanings, but also in ways that allow for fully fluid interpretations that need not be dependent on Western thought systems or Western philosophy for comprehension and enjoyment. If Post-Contemporary Art has something to say about certain things (that is, having a particular type of “speech,” Theory Art seems to provide a sidewalk on which to speak, and a structure by which to express oneself, and Post-Theory Art seems to provide a sidewalk that is guaranteed not to have any time-place-manner restrictions on “speech,” and, more importantly provides a sidewalk that is in no way beholden to Western languages, Western thought-systems, and Western philosophy which, of course, is but one of the several ways in which the world thinks (Baggini, 2018).
That said, objective similarities between Post-Theory Art, Theory Art, and Post-Contemporary Art may be found in areas of common ground. For example, when Rosalind Krauss (1999) discusses what may be called the post-medium condition, this appears central to an understanding of both Post-Contemporary Art’s break from traditional media constraints as well as, at the same time, the more fluid approach that Post-Theory Art takes in relation to the more structured theoretical frameworks of Theory Art. Perhaps even more importantly, and more interestingly, Post-Contemporary Art, Post-Theory Art, and Theory Art all reference unique ways to blend universal approaches of science, primarily the scientific method, into there frameworks. From there the differences reappear. For example, Post-Contemporary Art then turns to value-laden content, such as current issues in globalized culture, and the value of sustainability, while Post-Theory Art and Theory Art place no thumbs on any scales, leaving artists and audience to use the intellectual framework of these movements to engage in observation, hypothesis, and (at least artistic) testing about anything, and any value, without attachment to any one ethos, goal, or agenda (Wilson, 2024).
C. Disciplines Informing Theory Art
In the discipline of music, John Cage’s and Miles Davis’s respective theoretical experimentations with audience-listener interpretation through music performances, including silence and improvisation, are additional foundations for Theory Art and Post-Theory Art given that both Cage and Davis emphasized the role of the audience in the creation of meaning, reflecting Theory Art’s hypothesis that labor value derives not just from the artist-creator-composer, but also from the labor value of the receiver-listener-viewer-interpreter (Cage, 1961; Davis, 1959).
In the discipline of architecture, Hadid’s contemporary architectural designs, which challenge conventional architecture and design forms, are a further foundation to Theory Art, which posits that theories that challenge traditional boundaries and assumptions of human thought systems constitute art, no matter the subject matter of the meaning and no matter how expressed in medium or form (Hadid, 2004). At its broadest, a related space-form foundation of Theory Art is also seen in the work of Arendt, who, as part of broader research and theories, examined historical facts and posited theories relating to observed failures of intellectual, cultural, religious, ethical, and moral frameworks (Arendt, 1958).
In the disciplines of literature and poetry, García Márquez’s works are a foundation of Theory Art by using the creative form of pure text writing to communicate to the global audience-reader-interpreter through narratives, theories, and observations, all at the same time, including the theory of magic realism to explore new theories relating to the nature of human reality, human thought systems, and human belief systems (García Márquez, 1967). Such literary forms may be seen, conceptually, in Theory Art’s hypothesis that both intellectual content and emotional content can be communicated simultaneously and received simultaneously even in an empirical reality in which due to ambiguity there exists a growing multiplicity of meanings and interpretations (Eagleton, 1996). As both linguistics and the philosophy of linguistics, Chomsky’s linguistic theories are a foundation to Theory Art as well because they posit that language structures influence human cognitive processes as well as human emotional responses and the preservation or degradation of norms studied by the social science fields of sociology, economics, and political science.
D. Comparison with Post-Contemporary Art:
Post-Contemporary Art seems different. While Theory Art agnostically looks to, as background, concepts from disciplines such as music, architecture, and literature to emphasize audience engagement and the complexity of meaning, Post-Contemporary Art appears to more directly focus on how these disciplines interact with modern technology and global culture to create new forms and expressions about where global culture and sustainability should go. Post-Theory Art further expands this distinction by encouraging interpretations that are not confined in any way to any single discipline or theoretical construct, promoting a more open-ended experience for the receiver-viewer-listener-reader than Post-Contemporary art. When Bourriaud (2002) explores how art can manipulate, or at least alter, existing cultural products, this seems to align more with Post-Contemporary practices, by engaging directly with current cultural contexts, and seems to align less with Post-Theory Art and Theory Art — this can be a theory expressed through Theory Art and Post-Theory Art, but it doesn’t have to be, because the artist-creator is not constrained by value-laden limitations or agendas, and, more importantly, says Theory Art and Post-Theory Art, neither is the receiver-interpreter. If one were to imagine the artistic sidewalk of free speech, both Post-Contemporary Art and Post-Theory Art are on it — with Post-Contemporary Art espousing value-based views in a broad range of subjects, and Theory Art espousing the connections and relations between everything, across values, cultures, perspectives, and times.
E. Theory Art, Post-Contemporary Art, and Postmodernism
Postmodernism’s own historical emphasis on the multiplicity of creator-meanings and receiver- interpretations causes Postmodernism to be central to the conceptual framework of Theory Art. Specific to Postmodernism, Krauss’s work on postmodernism in the art history and art theory contexts is corroborated by Weber, who prior to Krauss had theorized that the meaning-maker bifurcation of creator and receiver empirically allows for a more complex and nuanced understanding of artistic works across culture and language from the standpoint of sociology (Weber, 1905). This theory was further corroborated after Krauss when Goffman proposed that multiplicity in the context of social roles and identities was beneficial to societies in the aggregate (Goffman, 1959).
The above informs Theory Art, which posits that individuals construct and navigate their perceived and actual societal, cultural, and political realities through their interpretation of methods and heuristics received from external frameworks, including messages received not only through traditional language but also modes of art. Works by Wilson conceptually relate to this, positing that Theory Art, through its multiplicity of forms, can serve as a value-neutral method by which to convey and receive a multiplicity of human theories not just in one culture, but in a multiplicity of cultures, including through a multiplicity of interdisciplinary fields, including the social sciences, the physical sciences, and the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, testing, and revised hypothesis (Wilson, 2024).
One of this paper proposals is that Western social science models, including from the fields of economic theory and econometrics, such as those by Throsby and by Klamer and Zuidhof, can be used to test such a hypothesis because these economic analysis models can observe and assign quantitative numbers to the cultural values of artistic works relative to their utility as a medium for transmitting complex theories from one human to another in a time of machine intelligence (Throsby, 1994; Klamer and Zuidhof, 1999).
F. Comparison with Post-Contemporary Art:
As discussed directly above, theory Art is heavily influenced by postmodernism’s focus on the multiplicity of meanings and the active engagement of the viewer. Post-Contemporary Art, in contrast, may be seen with more directness and focus to integrate these ideas within contemporary human themes such as human globalization and sustainability. Meanwhile, Post-Theory Art extends beyond postmodernism in a more fundamental way, by rejecting predefined interpretations altogether, encouraging viewer-listener-reader-recipients to create their own meaning without relying on any established theories. In other words, Post-Theory suggests that the audience need not have any theories, nor even like any theories, nor even care about the concept of theories, to receive and interpret a work of Theory Art or Post-Theory Art. Contrast this to Post-Contemporary Art, where thinkers such as Terry Smith (2009) provide a framework for understanding the complexities of global contemporary art, which is a hallmark of Post-Contemporary Art because it encapsulates a broad, global perspective, with implicit value judgments, neither of which required by Theory Art or Post-Theory Art — but which may be a theory artistically expressed through it.
G. Post-Theory Art, Post-Contemporary Art, and Conceptual Art
Art theorists have started to observe how Theory Art and Post-Theory Art both have clearly-traceable foundations in Conceptual Art and its responses of Postconceptualism and Neoconceptualism (Wilson, 2021). Conceptual art places the idea of a given work equal to or above the physical execution, medium, and aesthetic of the work (Kosuth, 1969). Theory Art extends this methodology by placing theories in a given work that connect a multiplicity of ideas, distinct from making a singular point, to create more robust and comprehensive understandings of human and physical theoretical concepts (LeWitt, 1967, Wilson 2024). At its broadest, the conceptual framework of Theory Art, with its emphasis on theories that relate many observations or data, is also seen across the Western social sciences, including in the macroeconomic theories of Keynes and Friedman, which prioritize theories at the systemic level to connect interactions to document and predict broader economic contexts rather than focusing on isolated observations or discrete data in isolation without context (Keynes, 1936; Friedman, 1962).
The conveyance of multiple ideas and relational theories about them, including art as text without visual elements, has been documented in the work of conceptual artists in the United States (Lewit, 1967; Holzer, 1982). Theory Art may be understood as distinct based on elements of language volume (the amount of written text), modality volume (multiplicity of artistic modalities and mediums of conveyance), and subject matter volume (multiplicity of substantive areas across human inquiry). These elements cause a transformation of the factual, theoretical, narrative, documentary, and formal argument components of a given Theory Art work into the recognizable form of the Western thesis and the concept of the abstract in Western social science research papers. At its broadest, this framework is informed by social theories such as Durkheim’s, which emphasize the interconnectedness of all societal elements in relation to the collective consciousness that arise from shared cultural facts, narratives, values, and norms (Durkheim, 1893).
H. Comparison with Post-Contemporary Art:
In contrast, Post-Contemporary Art, while also conceptually driven, may be seen to also incorporate emotions and feelings, including empathy and compassion, its exploration of the consequences of globalization and contemporary society on the individual and on the larger human ethos (Levi, Gharib, and Shridel, 2005). Post-Theory Art may be distinguished from the Post-Contemporary approach because it does not adhere to any single conceptual framework, nor to any particular substantive focus; artists can theorize about empathy, compassion, and consequences placed upon humanity, but they don’t need to. Compare Post-Theory Art and Theory Art on this variable, in contrast to Post-Contemporary Art, as to breadth and scope of open-ended explorations of meaning that transcends specific theories or ideologies. When Hal Foster (2015) analyzes the crisis within contemporary art and culture, to the extent he is right, he may be pointing also to a limitation within Post-Contemporary Art, in that Foster seems to be providing insight into relatively constrained bandwidth of the Post-Contemporary Art universe. As Foster might write, Post-Contemporary Art may be seen to still be engaging directly with contemporary social and political issues from a particular perspective (humanism, empathy, sustainability, globalization, equity) while Theory Art and Post-Theory Art provide only a methodology for creating art about such things, if the artist wants to — and if, and only if, the audience wants to interpret it that way.
I. Theory Art, Post-Contemporary Art, and Minimalism
Minimalism’s focus on form and content purity and simplicity is also foundational to Theory Art. Minimalist-conceptual artists such as Duchamp (conceptualism) and Judd (minimalism) provided elements of the intellectual framework for Theory Art by distilling complex ideas into simple forms in different ways (Duchamp, 1917, Judd, 1965). Theory Art references minimalism’s focus on form and content simplicity but logically rejects simplicity as to connections and relationships between ideas and observed facts. This methodology can result in more nuanced and fundamentally accurate understandings of theoretical and abstract concepts (Fried, 1967). This methodology of simplistic-complex is broadly seen in the economic theories of simplification and systemic clarity (Schumpeter, 1942). Intellectual support for a simplistic-complex modality of Theory Art is also seen in the theories of Krugman, whose research and conclusions emphasized the importance of understanding underlying structures at a simple and commonsense level in order to understand complex economic phenomena at the national and globalization levels (Krugman, 1979).
J. Comparison with Post-Contemporary Art:
While Theory Art clearly draws from minimalism’s simplicity to focus on complex relationships and ideas, Post-Contemporary Art can use minimalism, but does not have to. And while Post-Theory Art, in turn, clearly moves beyond minimalism, when and where it wants, embracing complexity and ambiguity without the constraints of traditional minimalist ideals, Post-Contemporary Art is somewhat different. Achille Mbembe (2017) offers perspectives essential to understanding the global scope of Post-Contemporary Art because his work addresses global and colonial histories in ways that are less prevalent in the often more abstract discussions seen in Theory Art or Post-Theory Art. The theme appears here again: Contrast Theory Art’s focus on viewer engagement and interpretation, compared to Post-Contemporary Art’s integration of modern technology and global themes that have a human ethos in a value system (e.g., sustainability0, compared to Post-Theory Art’s embracing an even more fluid and open-ended approach than Theory Art, allowing for multiple interpretations without being bound by specific visual or textual elements. When, for example, thinkers like Donna Haraway (2016) examine new ways to view the human relationship with the earth and technology, it appears to align with Post-Contemporary Art’s thematic breadth of contemporary ecological sustainability and technological concerns, and it appears to show a distinction from the agnostic conceptual focuses of Theory Art and Post-Theory Art. Or, when thinkers like Julian Stallabrass (2004) discus the global commercialization of contemporary art, this also appears to align more with Post-Contemporary Art to the extent that it set forth, or assumes, certain values, where Theory Art or Post-Theory Art allow for such an approach, but by no means require it.
Theory Art’s focus on psychological engagement and cognitive interpretation contrasts with Post-Contemporary Art’s exploration of identity and societal norms through the lens of modern psychology. Post-Theory Art further explores these themes by allowing for a more open-ended psychological experience, free from the constraints of established theories or frameworks. Claire Bishop (2012) explores participatory art, highlighting trends prevalent in Post-Contemporary Art because it emphasizes the role of the audience in the creation of art, which contrasts with the more defined artist-audience boundaries in Theory Art and Post-Theory Art. As another example, when thinkers like Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev (2012) explored themes related to the intersection of art, technology, and political activism, this may be more the realm of Post-Contemporary Art, because, again, Post-Theory Art and Theory Art provide a framework for such discussions artistically, but, again, do not require any particular subject matter or perspective to be “Theory Art” or “Post-Theory Art.” These observations are not unique to this paper, as evidenced, at least conceptually, but thinkers such as Arjun Appadurai (1996), who has provided insights into the global influences on Post-Contemporary Art with respect to its emphasis on the global and transient nature of modern cultural exchanges, including through new technologies and new media, which are mediums, as distinct from the conceptual frameworks of Post-Theory Art and Theory Art, which are not mediums but conceptual vehicles that may be used not just in any medium of visual art (paint, installation, video, etc.) but also in any artistic discipline (visual, music, literary, poetry, film, short video, performance, dance, spoken word, storytelling, plain text document, etc.).
3. CONCLUSION
This paper has attempted to provide interdisciplinary research to help better understand the similarities between Post-Contemporary Art, Post-Theory Art, and Theory Art as set forth in, and best summarized in, the Abstract of this draft studio research paper.
August 2, 2024
Adam Daley Wilson
J.D., Stanford Law School; B.A., International Relations, University of Pennsylvania; Conceptual Artist, Engage Projects Gallery Chicago
