Theory Art and Post-Theory Art as Conceptual Art Methods For Relational Hypotheses And Critical Analyses Both Within and Beyond Traditional Western Thought Systems

Adam Daley Wilson

J.D., Stanford Law School, Stanford California; B.A., International Relations,University of Pennsylvania; Conceptual Artist, Engage Projects Gallery, Chicago, United States

adam.daley.wilson@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

This paper researches whether and how Theory Art, an emergent conceptual art form across visual art, music, literature, and other artistic disciplines, might serve as an method for integrating existing methodologies of inter-disciplinary research, hypothesis-making, and critical analysis, both in and beyond the traditional social sciences of the West, by creatively blending elements of artistic and philosophical traditions across cultures, thought systems, and time periods, to observe, propose, critique, and preserve human theories, arguments, and narratives, including theories conveyed through spoken-word storytelling. The paper first provides an academic research survey as a foundation to measure the intellectual rigor of Theory Art’s emphasis on construction of meaning by the audience-viewer-listener-reader, rather than by the artist-creator alone. The paper then evaluates Theory Art relative to other artistic movements to date. The paper then measures Theory Art in relation to traditional Western social sciences, including economics and other quantitative social sciences, to measure the actual degree and scope of Theory Art’s interdisciplinary nature and theoretical foundations. The paper then proposes several observable standards and elements that appear to indicate Theory Art is a new form of Conceptual Art, including in relation to, and distinct from, traditional Conceptual Art as well as Post-conceptual Art, Postminimalism, Postmodernism, and Neoconceptual Art. By integrating a wide survey of relevant cross-cultural researchers and theorists, from multiple societies and time periods, this research paper is a first attempt to analyze Theory Art’s substantive elements as an artistic discipline. This paper is also a first attempt to measure Theory Art’s intellectual and methodological rigor, in order to assess whether Theory Art’s potential as a method for interdisciplinary research, hypothesis-making, and critical analysis of human theories both within and beyond traditional Western social sciences. The paper concludes that Theory Art offers new theory-communication methodologies that have new implications for art, and cultural discourse, not only in Westerns cultures but all cultures worldwide. Finally, this research paper is intended as a foundation allowing future researchers to develop hypotheses by which to test not just the rigor of Theory Art itself, but also any given work that may be made by an artist-creator.

Keywords: Theory Art, Post-Theory Art, Conceptual Art, Art Theory, Philosophy of Art, Intellectual History of Art Theory

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper attempts to survey the relevant Western social sciences and their primary academic and theoretical research to date in order to prepare an method of evaluation for whether Theory Art can be measured by objective standards, or identified by objective elements, with respect to Theory Art’s 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.

Theory Art’s multifaceted approach draws 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).

2. METHODS AND FRAMEWORKS FOR EVALUATING THEORY ART

A. Intellectual Foundations of Theory Art

The theoretical and intellectual history foundations of Theory Art can be traced to several sources. One foundation is Derrida’s deconstruction theory, which emphasizes the role of the viewer or reader in creating meaning (Derrida, 1967). An additional foundation 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 exist 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. See infra.

Further 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. 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.

C. Theory 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 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).

This paper proposes 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 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).

D. Theory Art and Conceptual Art

Prior theorists have observed how Theory Art has foundations in Conceptual Art and its responses, Postconceptualism and Neoconceptualism, including when manifested as text-based conceptual art (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).

E. Theory 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 the 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).

F. Theory Art In Visual Art

Performance art emphasizes the rigor of the artist-conveyor’s theory and the relevance of the receiver-viewer’s role in interpretation (Schechner, 2003). Asemic writing, using text-like markings devoid of substantive content, relies on primacy of the receiver-viewer to interpret meaning (Twombly, 1979). These applications of Theory Art’s fundamental creator-receiver-interpretative models by Derrida and Krauss, supra, conceptually relate to leading theories in the Western social science theories of Piaget and Bandura in the field of psychology, which explore the active role of the observer in constructing meaning through engagement and interaction as influenced by internal and external psychological inputs (Piaget, 1952; Bandura, 1977).

Pope.L’s performative works (Pope.L, 2000), Twombly’s paintings with asemic writing in both abstract expressionism and personal writing systems (Twombly, 1979), and Wilson’s pure text semiotic theories filed in public courts of law (Wilson, 2023) are examples of these practices as precursors of Theory Art. In Theory Art itself, the above elements may be tested to evaluate whether they in fact create a framework or method that allows critique to broaden and diversify, given their invitation to any given viewer to actively labor in the creation of meaning, including critique, including collectively applied to a culture, society, or the human species.

The utility of these broader conceptions of the existing Conceptual Art and Postconceptual Art frameworks of performative art, asemic writing, and pure text semiotic writing is corroborated by the anthropological theories in the Western social sciences that posit the inherently interpretive nature of cultural artifacts, myths, and narratives in relation to the cognitively and emotionally complex interplay for humans regarding physical-symbols, idea-symbols, meaning, and societal relevance and influence (Geertz, 1973); Clifford, 1988).

G. Modern Economic Theory and Theory Art

Data-based and math-based economic theories have significant implications for testing and evaluating artistic and other measures of Theory Art, particularly in understanding the value and exchange of art-as-idea, art-as-theory, and art-as-argument. Smith, supra, posited that labor itself is a source of value, which can be extended to the labor of thought and creativity in Theory Art based upon research in the social sciences indicating that intellectual and creative labor contribute, as the creation of quantifiable and measurable intellectual property, to the intrinsic value of a given artwork or series of artworks (Smith, 1776).

This perspective is supported by economic theories and concepts of creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1942), reflecting the measurable innovation of Theory Art in challenging and redefining artistic, cultural, political, and economic norms. Similarly, Keynes’s macroeconomic theories on aggregate demand can be related to the consumption of not just of art generally and the art world’s market dynamics, but also the consumption of theories communicated through Theory Art, because Keynes’s theories have utility for understanding both the broader economic market within which Theory Art operates as well as the broader cultural and political markets in which it operates and potentially influences (Keynes, 1936). Related economic theories on the distribution of wealth and resources further assist potential models for evaluating and measuring Theory Art in relation to how art both reflects and critiques broader socio-economic dynamics, including distribution models (Stiglitz, 2002).

H. Psychology and Theory Art

Western psychological and medical psychiatric theories also provide frameworks and methodologies for understanding and evaluating both cognitive and emotional engagement with Theory Art. Freud’s (1900) exploration of the unconscious mind relates to the introspective and interpretive nature of Theory Art on the basis of his theory that the unconscious drives portions of the creation and interpretation of external stimuli including artistic visual, musical, literary, performative, and pure text works (Freud, 1900). Jung’s conceptual theories of archetypes and the collective unconscious can be seen in, and applied to, the universal and species-wide themes often explored in Theory Art, because they both highlight the commonality within and across the species, including shared human histories, narratives, myths, symbols, and objective experiences that exist and resonate across cultures (Jung, 1921). Bandura’s social learning theory also corroborates the role of observation and interaction in the reception of Theory Art because it illustrates how audiences learn and interpret through engagement with stimuli, including with artworks (Bandura, 1977).

Western psychology’s and neuroscience’s research on universal human cognitive biases also contributes to Theory Art. For example, Kahneman’s work on cognitive biases in relation to rational and irrational decision-making processes is relevant to understanding how audience-receivers may perceive, interpret, and misinterpret layered meanings within Theory Art works, including text-abstract works with both semiotic and asemic writing (Wilson, 2023), given that prevailing cognitive bias research provides tools for an objective, testable means to evaluate Theory Art through universal psychological, neuro-psychological, and neurological mechanisms in the brain, including universal shared thought-system biases, that underlie human thought and action: Interpretation, communication, miscommunication, evaluation, judgment, and subsequent responsive acts at the individual and collective level of the species. (Kahneman, 2011).

I. Anthropology and Theory Art

Anthropological theories in the Western social sciences, particularly modern theories, provide an additional framework for understanding and evaluating Theory Art’s potential cultural and cross-cultural utility for conveying information across cultural, political, religious, and language barriers. Malinowski (1922) and Boas (1940) emphasized the importance of cultural context in interpreting human behavior, which relates to how Theory Art may be received and understood, given that cultural context is observed to shape not only behavior but also cognitive interpretation of meaning from both subjective and objective information, including works presented or considered to be art (Malinowski, 1922, Boas, 1940).

Structuralism theory by Lévi-Strauss (1966) is also useful in frameworks and methods used to understand and evaluate Theory Art because, by recognizing the deeply rooted structures underlying a particular culture’s practices, norms, assumptions, and acts, structuralism can assess Theory Art’s layered and interconnected meanings. (Lévi-Strauss 1966) In addition, Geertz’s (1973) interpretive anthropology, which emphasizes comprehensive description and foundational interpretation of cultural symbols, is also seen in the simplistic-complex narratives present in Theory Art, supra, because it invites, but does not require, the receiver-interpreter’s deep curiosity and deep engagement with the express and symbolic content of the artwork (Geertz, 1973). More recently, Appadurai’s (1996) anthropology theories in the context of globalization, cultural flows, and geographic border-barriers may be used to evaluate Theory Art as a possible transporter, or even smuggler, of ideas, theories, and exchanges across the world without transactional costs, similar to global financial and monetary theories allowing the free-flow of capital, but not human labor or human intellectual capital, across borders (Krugman, 1979).

J. Linguistics and Theory Art

Western linguistic theories provide additional frameworks for the objective understanding and evaluation of artworks made within Theory Art, particularly substantive (as distinct from asemic) works employing meaningful language and text that is intended for and capable of transmission for communication as opposed to pure interpretation. Saussure’s semiotics theories (Saussure, 1916) Chomsky’s syntactic structure theories (Chomsky, 1957) provide social science and linguistic methodologies for measuring how language and its use by humans shapes and distorts thought and meaning, which is central to hypotheses within Theory Art’s text-based practices, including the disputed question in neuroscience and linguistics of whether humans need to use language in order to reason and think.

Related to this, Whorf’s (1956) linguistic relativity theory posits that a culture’s language influences both perception and cognition, suggesting that the language used in Theory Art’s text-based works, including pure text document works, both shapes and is shaped by how audiences interpret and understand its messages, given that different linguistic structures can lead to different interpretive outcomes, including miscommunication and misunderstanding (Saussure, 1916; Chomsky, 1957; Whorf, 1956).

In turn, related to this, Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) theoretical work on metaphors in the context of formal linguistics provides further methodological and evaluative tools for analyzing Theory Art as a concept, and individual works within it, as to how metaphorical language can alter, enhance, or confuse prevailing structures in theories and conceptual frameworks, including as can be seen in the layered meanings and complex narratives of Theory Art expressed through both layers of metaphors and literal layers of painted words on canvas (Wilson, 2018) to offer connections between traditionally disparate ideas and concepts kept apart by Western thinking systems requiring formal nexus and logic (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980).

K. American Law and Theory Art

Human legal theories and legal system structures also provide a conceptual framework for analyzing the objective validity and robustness of theories communicated through Theory Art. Human statutory law and jurisprudential theories also play a role in both protecting and allowing the destruction or concealment of acts of Theory Art in the public sphere. Holmes’s (1897) exploration of the judicial process and Cardozo’s (1921) examination of judicial decision-making provide a basis for understanding how legal contexts, and cognitive theories of legal logic and legal reasoning, with their underlying assumptions, influence the reception, legitimacy, and protection of works of Theory Art (Holmes, 1897, Cardoza, 1921).

Social science theories of interpretation and ambiguity in the context of legal doctrines and legal rights also provide a framework for analyzing and critiquing both Theory Art and works within it, as well as their legal status. Dworkin’s (1977) theories on legal interpretation and judicial decision-making, and Rawls’s (1971) theories on Western principles of justice, both highlight the ethical and philosophical dimensions underlying Western legal reasoning and Theory Art (Rawls, 1971; Dworkin, 1977). Subsequent developments in American legal theory also provide methodologies for evaluating Theory Art, including feminist theory (Mackinnon, 1989). Theories relating to the critique of judicial adjudication are also relevant here (Kennedy, 1997). At the level of classical constitutional theory, both the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the United States Constitution (1787) also inform analyses of Theory Art and its works through their stated establishment, at least in text, of norms of equality and justice (Publius, 1788), as recently critiqued in text-based Theory Art works placed within the American judicial system through public filings (Wilson, 2023).

L. International Law and Theory Art

Critical analysis of Theory Art through legal theories and legal structures requires application not just of American law but also international law and legal frameworks beyond the English-American constitutional rubric. Kelsen’s (1945) theories on the general principles of international law, as well as Lauterpacht’s (1933) examinations of the functions and limitations of law and rules in the international community of nations, both provide a foundation for analyzing Theory Law under broader jurisprudential philosophies including from different cultural, economic, and religious norms. (Lauterpacht, 1933; Kelsen, 1945). More recently, Cassese’s (2005) theories and evaluations of international law and human rights provide additional jurisprudential-philosophical frameworks for considering, protecting, and failing to protect works derived from Theory Art. More recently still, Shaw’s (2008) comprehensive analysis of international law and Crawford’s (2012) proposed principles of public international law each provide methodologies by which to understand how legal rules and their underlying assumptions and premises influence the creation, distribution, and reception of art within and across cultures, including artworks within Theory Art, particularly works that identify and critique the differences and contradictions between different legal systems and standards (Shaw, 2008; Crawford, 2012).

M. Western Political Theory and Theory Art

Finally, classical Western political theory (distinct from the political theories of any one country or party) provide a final analytical and conceptual modality through which to objectively evaluate elements of Theory Art. Hobbes’s (1651) exploration of social contract theory and Locke’s (1690) principles of individual rights provide a basis for understanding both the rights of the Theory Art artist as well as the ‘rights’ that Theory Art theories may themselves possess, independent of the creator or the receiver. (Hobbes, 1651; Locke, 1690).

Theories of individual autonomy and individualism at the individual, group, and country level, in relation to traditional notions of social agreements and the governmental structures that arise from them, both public and private, are seen in both these political theories of human relationships as well as in art across cultures and times attempting to document, understand, and influence them. In addition, Rousseau’s (1762) political theories on direct democracy and Mill’s (1859) theories of liberty also demonstrate frameworks in the political science context allowing examination of Theory Art and its works as a function of political freedoms, lack of political freedoms, and societal and governmental structures separate from formal legal regimes, supra (Rousseau, 1762; Mill, 1859).

3. CONCLUSION

This paper provided initial social sciences research on whether and how Theory Art, an emergent conceptual art form across visual art, music, literature, and other artistic disciplines, might serve as an method for integrating methods of interdisciplinary research, hypothesis-making, and critical analysis by blending elements of artistic and philosophical traditions across cultures, thought systems, and time periods, in order to observe, propose, critique, and even preserve human theories, arguments, and narratives, including theories conveyed through spoken-word storytelling.

The paper first provided an examination of construction of meaning by the audience-receiver, rather than by the artist-creator alone. The paper then evaluated Theory Art relative to other artistic movements to date.

The paper then measured Theory Art in relation to the Western social sciences to measure the degree and scope of Theory Art’s interdisciplinary nature and theoretical foundations. The paper then proposed observable standards and elements that appear to indicate Theory Art is a new form of Conceptual Art, including in relation to, and distinct from, traditional Conceptual Art as well as Post-conceptual Art, Postminimalism, Postmodernism, and Neoconceptual Art.

As such, this research paper is a first attempt to analyze Theory Art’s substantive elements as an artistic discipline. The paper is also a first attempt to identify frameworks within existing interdisciplinary methodologies of the Western social sciences to measure Theory Art’s intellectual and modality rigor, in order to assess Theory Art’s potential as a method for interdisciplinary hypotheses-making and critical analyses of human theories, both within and beyond traditional Western social sciences.

The paper concludes that, under existing social science frameworks and evaluation methods, Theory Art does offer new theory-communication methodologies that have new implications for art and cultural discourse not only in Westerns cultures but potentially in many or all cultures worldwide. This paper also concludes that the researched frameworks individually and collectively provide a foundation for future researchers and scholars to develop more specific hypotheses by which to test not only the concepts and theories of Theory Art itself, but also any given work that may be made by an artist-creator for receiver-audiences to receive and interpret across cultures and time.

REFERENCES

Alexander, V. D. (1996). Pictures at an Exhibition: Conflicting Pressures in Museums and the Display of Art. American Journal of Sociology.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press.

Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press.

Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values. Wiley.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall.

Barthes, R. (1967). The Death of the Author. Aspen Magazine.

Baumol, W. J. (1986). Unnatural Value: Or Art Investment as Floating Crap Game. The American Economic Review.

Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, Experimental, and Theoretical Aspects. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Benjamin, W. (1936). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung.

Bleuler, E. (1911). Dementia Praecox or the Group of Schizophrenias. International Universities Press.

Boas, F. (1940). Race, Language, and Culture. University of Chicago Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss. Basic Books.

Cage, J. (1961). Silence: Lectures and Writings. Wesleyan University Press.

Cardozo, B. N. (1921). The Nature of the Judicial Process. Yale University Press.

Cassese, A. (2005). International Law. Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton.

Clifford, J. (1988). The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. Harvard University Press.

Collins, R. (1975). Conflict Sociology: Toward an Explanatory Science. Academic Press.

Crawford, J. (2012). Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. Oxford University Press.

Davis, M. (1959). Kind of Blue. Columbia Records.

Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy.

Derrida, J. (1967). Of Grammatology. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Duchamp, M. (1917). Fountain.

Durkheim, E. (1893). The Division of Labor in Society. Free Press.

Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press.

Eagleton, T. (1996). Literary Theory: An Introduction. University of Minnesota Press.

Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon Books.

Freud, S. (1900). The Interpretation of Dreams. Macmillan.

Freud, S. (1905). Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. Basic Books.

Frey, B. S., & Pommerehne, W. W. (1989). Art Investment: An Empirical Inquiry. Southern Economic Journal.

Fried, M. (1967). Art and Objecthood. Artforum.

García Márquez, G. (1967). One Hundred Years of Solitude. Harper & Row.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books.

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday.

Grampp, W. D. (1989). Pricing the Priceless: Art, Artists, and Economics. Basic Books.

Hadid, Z. (2004). Zaha Hadid: Complete Works. Thames & Hudson.

Habermas, J. (1962). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (1981). The Theory of Communicative Action. Beacon Press.

Hart, H. L. A., & Sacks, A. M. (1958). The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law. Foundation Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1807). Phenomenology of Spirit.

Henkin, L. (1996). International Law: Politics, Values and Functions. Springer.

Higgins, R. (1994). Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It. Oxford University Press.

Holmes, O. W. Jr. (1897). The Path of the Law. Harvard Law Review.

Holzer, J. (1982). Truisms.

Judd, D. (1965). Specific Objects.

Jung, C. G. (1912). Psychology of the Unconscious. Moffat, Yard and Company.

Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychological Types. Princeton University Press.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kelsen, H. (1945). General Theory of Law and State. Harvard University Press.

Kennedy, D. (1997). A Critique of Adjudication (fin de siècle). Harvard University Press.

Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Macmillan.

Klamer, A., & Zuidhof, P. W. (1999). The Values of Cultural Heritage: Merging Economic and Cultural Appraisals. Economics and Cultural Heritage.

Klein, M. (1932). The Psycho-Analysis of Children. Hogarth Press.

Kosuth, J. (1969). Art After Philosophy.

Kraepelin, E. (1919). Dementia Praecox and Paraphrenia. Livingstone.

Krauss, R. (1985). The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths. MIT Press.

Krugman, P. (1979). Increasing Returns, Monopolistic Competition, and International Trade. Journal of International Economics.

Krugman, P. (1991). Geography and Trade. MIT Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.

Laing, R. D. (1960). The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness. Penguin Books.

Lauterpacht, H. (1933). The Function of Law in the International Community. Oxford University Press.

LeWitt, S. (1967). Paragraphs on Conceptual Art. Artforum.

Locke, J. (1690). Two Treatises of Government. Awnsham Churchill.

Lucas, R. E. (1976). Econometric Policy Evaluation: A Critique. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy.

Lyotard, J.-F. (1979). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester University Press.

MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Harvard University Press.

Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Routledge.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). The Communist Manifesto. Penguin Books.

Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics. Macmillan.

Mead, M. (1928). Coming of Age in Samoa. William Morrow.

Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. John W. Parker and Son.

Mills, C. W. (1956). The Power Elite. Oxford University Press.

Moulin, R. (1987). The French Art Market: A Sociological View. Rutgers University Press.

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.

Piketty, T. (2013). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.

Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. HarperCollins.

Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. International Universities Press.

Pope.L, W. (2000). The Great White Way.

Posner, R. A. (1973). Economic Analysis of Law. Little, Brwn and Company.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.

Ricardo, D. (1817). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. John Murray.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin.

Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). The Social Contract. Marc-Michel Rey.

Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone Age Economics. Aldine-Atherton.

Samuelson, P. A. (1947). Foundations of Economic Analysis. Harvard University Press.

Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Harcourt, Brace & Company.

Saussure, F. de. (1916). Course in General Linguistics. McGraw-Hill.

Schechner, R. (2003). Performance Theory. Routledge.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Harper & Brothers.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.

Simmel, G. (1903). The Metropolis and Mental Life. Free Press.

Singer, L. (1981). The Utility of Art versus the Utility of Knowledge. Journal of Cultural Economics.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. Macmillan.

Smith, A. (1776). The Wealth of Nations. W. Strahan and T. Cadell.

Solow, R. M. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. W. W. Norton & Company.

Szasz, T. (1961). The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct. Harper & Row.

Throsby, D. (1994). The Production and Consumption of the Arts: A View of Cultural Economics. Journal of Economic Literature.

Turner, V. (1969). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Aldine de Gruyter.

Twombly, C. (1979). Cy Twombly: Paintings and Sculptures 1951–1974. Whitney Museum of American Art.

Velthuis, O. (2005). Talking Prices: Symbolic Meanings of Prices on the Market for Contemporary Art. Princeton University Press.

Weber, M. (1905). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Scribner.

Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press.

Wilson, Adam Daley. (2018). Species Anasognosia.

Wilson, Adam Daley. (2021). This Is Text-Based Art.

Wilson, Adam Daley. (2024). This is Theory and Post-Theory Art.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell Publishing.

Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House.