Theory Art and Post-Theory Art: Toward The Preservation of Human Theorizing In An Era of Artificial or “Empty” Intelligence
Introduction
Very broadly speaking, art has been understood across times, cultures, and continents as a reflection of human cultures, a repository of ideas, and an expression of individuality. These may be seen as accurate understandings and there is nothing wrong with them, so far as they go. With that said, these understandings about human art to date may be seen to be insufficient and incomplete — this paper proposes that our understanding of “art” to date fails to recognize the historical evidence of one of art’s most significant and enduring functions in humanity: Art’s — and artists’ — capacity to propose, document, critique, and preserve human theories within works of art, be they works of painting, music, literature, verse, film, spoken word, or anything that any of our various cultures worldwide have considered as “art.” In this paper, the undersigned author proposes that “theory art” may be a useful term for identifying and describing what the evidence in art history shows — that is, a category of art — a framework for understanding art to date (some art, not all, but some) that, across cultures and historical periods, engages in some way with what humans call theories.
The first part of this paper examines “theory art” as an evidentiary pattern found in art both historically and culturally without limitation to continents, countries or time. “Theory art” has nothing to do with subject matter or the type or nature of theory; it is agnostic. “Theory art” is, in someways, an additional useful “tag” or “label” by which to sort through humanity’s art to date. Some art, in addition to what it already is and is understood to be, is also, additionally, “theory art.” And some art is not. As such, “theory art” simply identifies and analyzes artworks from different periods and cultures in human history that may be interpreted as, whatever else it may have been doing, also engaging in some way with the human act of theorizing, whether it be a human theory about ourselves, or ourselves in relation to nature, or the stars, or our subconscious. Such “theory art” artworks arguably do not merely depict events, people, or ideas in isolation, but instead may be seen to propose, document, reflect, comment upon, criticize, or otherwise interact with broader connections and relationships, even cause and effect, or even theories as formal as a scientific hypothesis, of an equivalent — any piece of art in any medium or discipline embodying what humans might describe as a theory.
The second part of this paper introduces a second term, “post-theory art,” as a proposed additional category for contemporary and future artworks that, it is proposed, have two additional “tags” or “labels” in addition to whatever else we may perceive the artwork to be about, or be. First, this paper proposes, “post-theory art” continues the traditions of “theory art” as described above. Post-theory art does something in some way as to the relations and connections that are central to human theories.
As a second aspect of post-theory art, this paper also proposes that “post-theory art” does something additional, additive, to everything else that a given post-theory artwork might be considered to be: Post-theory art may be seen as a type of art that may be useful for humans, regardless of borders and language and traditions, to respond to a new historical context not seen before: Now there is someone else, besides us, who can make theories. Artificial intelligence, or, as this paper terms it for reasons set forth below, “empty intelligence.”
For the first time in human history, something else can find connections and relationships better and faster than we can. But post-theory art posits that those faster and better theories from AI can still be meaningfully distinguished from human theorizing, even as AI improves. Among the many ways that humanity will likely find to distinguish itself from AI, post-theory art proposes that art, and the act of the artist in making art, will be one way to kept human theorizing distinctly human, authentic, and genuine. Post-theory art proposes this for a straightforward reason: Human artists, when making a piece of theory art — a piece that involves in some way a theory — human artists invariably and inexorably and intangibly imbue the given theory with all the things most human — emotion, feeling, intuition, hopes, fears, irrationality, imperfection. In contrast, and key to the distinction between human art and “empty art” going forward, it is proposed, compare the above to this: Unlike human artists, AI lacks the capacity to genuinely and authentically synthesize the above intrinsic qualities of the artist, and all humans, the very emotion, intuition, irrationality, imperfections, inspirations that invariably and inevitably come from the artist as a human into the given piece of theory art that is with the artwork. Post-theory art, it is proposed by this paper, thereby serves not only to extend the functions of theory art, that long-evidenced type of art that can be seen across cultures and times to our humanity’s beginning, but, also, in addition, post-theory art also may be seen to be one of humanity’s ways to protect human theorizing and to retain our human sphere even in the new world of something else being able to theorize alongside us.
Part One:
Theory Art as Historical Evidence of Human Theorizing In And Through Works of Art
This paper proposes that one way of looking at (at least some, not all, but some) art across human time is this: Throughout human history, certain works of art may be seen and understood as having transcended individual or cultural events, places, or single ideas to, instead, engage with broader human theories — broader multiples of ideas mixed with facts known, and facts speculated, to propose broader understandings of ourselves in relation to, and in connection with, ourselves and other things, such as the observable and unobservable world. These “theory art” works have perhaps served as vehicles for the exploration of relationships between ideas, challenging existing assumptions and preserving human conceptual frameworks for future generations. Is there really such a thing as “theory art” that can be seen in historical artworks? This section, and the next few paragraphs, examine some famous examples of what the author proposes may be seen as examples of theory art. From them, this paper proposes the idea that many types of art, across many countries and societies and time periods, have functioned as a medium for human theorizing, and serve as evidentiary examples of “theory art.”
This paper posits the following examples as just that: possible examples, and not exhaustive. There may be more, there may be less, but consider for now as to theory art:
It is proposed that early examples of theory art may be found in prehistoric cultures. The Chauvet Cave paintings in France, created over 30,000 years ago, depict animals in intricate and dynamic compositions. These images, arguably, do more than represent animals; and do more than demonstrate that humans could think outside themselves; they may propose early human theories about the relationship between humans and animals, and between visual and sound, reflecting, perhaps, theories about coexistence, survival, or spiritual interconnectedness. Similarly, the Standard of Ur from Mesopotamia uses intricate panels that may be interpreted as exploring the dualities of war and peace, and thus theorizing as to the balances of power and the organization of early societies. Both of these earliest examples are submitted, in this paper, to demonstrate how early artists interacted with human concepts far beyond the immediate visual representations, arguably embedding theories or theoretical frameworks into their work.
Subsequent to the above, the Pyramid Texts of ancient Egypt provide another potential evidentiary example. These hieroglyphic inscriptions, among the earliest religious texts, arguably theorize as to the afterlife and humanity’s relationship to the divine. By documenting and exploring complex beliefs about death, morality, and cosmic order, these texts may be seen as both a spiritual guide and as theoretical explanation, or theoretical speculation, on human existence itself. Similarly, in ancient Greece, the Parthenon Frieze presents what can be understood as a visual theory of civic identity, connecting individual roles within the state to larger ideas of collective harmony and divine favor. Are these interpretations a stretch? Quite possibly, the stretch is to argue to opposite, that none of these artworks interacted with anything theoretical at all.
In other parts of the world, different cultural contexts produced equally profound examples of theory art. The Bhimbetka Rock Shelters in India, with their layered depictions of human and animal life, may propose early theories about community, nature, and survival. The Bayeux Tapestry, created in 11th-century England and Normandy, extends this tradition by crafting a visual narrative that can arguably be interpreted as theorizing political legitimacy and conquest. These works not only document people, places, and events — they also explore, propose, and document the relationships and connections that speak to the human societies in which the art was made by the artist.
The European Renaissance brought forth works like Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man, which integrates art, science, and philosophy to theorize the human body’s relationship to the cosmos. Michelangelo’s Sistine Ceiling, it may be suggested, offers a sweeping visual theory on divine creation and human agency. Meanwhile, at roughly the same time, the Aztec Sun Stone may be seen to theorize about the potentially cyclical nature of time, and humanity’s place within a cosmic framework, embedding these theories — and attempts to explain and understand and communicate through theories — within a monumental artistic form.
Arguably, as art continued through time, so too did art’s level of sophistication and nuance as to its engagement with theories. Hokusai’s The Great Wave off Kanagawa arguably presents a theory about human vulnerability in the face of nature’s immense power, while Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables appears almost expressly theorize about the subject matters of justice, morality, and societal inequality, through its sweeping literary narrative. At about the same time, Diego Rivera’s murals in 20th-century Mexico may be understood as also expressly proposing theories, and commentary and critiques of theories, in the subject matters of labor, history, and revolution, embedding these theories, and the artist’s dialogue with these theories, within public spaces, to provoke collective reflection not just about the visual of the murals, and not just about their scale, but about the theories within them.
The above are some of the examples submitted by this paper as an evidentiary offer to demonstrate that theory art, as a category, or a label, or a tag, does appear to exist, and does not appear to be limited by medium, geography, society, religion, or period in time. From ancient inscriptions to modern novels, the proposed term “theory art” arguably reflects a consistent human endeavor, including through the artist, to connect and find relationships — theories — and to document them and advance them and challenge them. This paper simply suggests, with the term “theory art,” that this additive label, this additional tag, is useful in realizing what the evidence shows: That at least some art has always been more than aesthetic or decorative; that at least some art has always been more about one idea, place, person, or thing — that at least some art has served as a human tool for not just for expressing human emotion, and not just for expressing human thought, but also for expressing the connections and relationships between things and ideas — human theories.
Part Two:
Post-Theory Art and the Protection of Human Theorizing
The second part of this paper begins broadly as well. It proposes, for the reasons that follow, that the rise of artificial intelligence introduces a new importance to the human tradition of theory art. For the first time in human history, now there is something else that can make theories too, not just us.
AI now participates in theorizing, generating functional models and hypotheses based on vast datasets. However, as discussed briefly in the introduction, AI lacks the intrinsic and un-copyable human qualities — emotion, intuition, ability to fear, ability to hope, imperfection, and irrationality, among others — that define human theorizing when it is engaged in by humans, including human artists. If a human artist works with a theory in some way in the artist’s art, it becomes, and remains, human theorizing, distinct from AI “empty intelligence” theorizing. In this context, this paper proposes the idea that “post-theory art” is not just “theory art” and it is not just “art” — rather, this paper proposes, “post-theory art” is an additional label, or tag, to place on some art, in order to see what the art evidences: art that carries on the historical tradition of theory art while now, also, in addition, responding to AI, in that it provides a meaningful way to distinguish and protect human theorizing now and forward.
Post-theory art, this paper proposes, protects human theorizing by embedding human theories, inevitably and intrinsically, with human attributes, tangible and intangible, seen and unseen, that AI cannot and, it is proposed, will not be able to replicate.
When a human artist proposes, documents, or critiques a theory, as part of a work of art, the human artist cannot help but place within their execution of the work their own — and humanity’s collective and evolutionary — emotions, intuitions, imperfections, experiences, cultural backgrounds, subconsciousness, and everything else that defines the human condition. For good or bad. We see art as something apart from other human endeavors, in part for these reasons. These are posited in this paper to be human qualities that are now, and will remain, absent and un-synthesizable in the outputs of AI and its “empty intelligence” and its “empty art.” Human-ness and human theories will find many ways to survive and be distinguished from empty intelligence; this paper simply proposes that post-theory art will be one of the ways, and perhaps a unique way, given that humanity has already perceived the “artist” to be particularly adept at this practice.
Some of the examples evidencing the existence of “Post-Theory Art” are recent in terms of human time and art history. Some already appear to demonstrate post-theory art’s dual function. Ai Weiwei’s Sunflower Seeds critiques prevailing theories of labor, individuality, and mass systems including through the embedding the artist’s personal reflections on freedom and oppression. Meanwhile, Barbara Kruger’s text-based art, particularly her works from the 1980s, arguably also evidences examples of post-theory art by embedding theories on consumerism and identity within graphic, declarative forms that, including by look and feel, appear to be uniquely as to the artist as a human. Jenny Holzer’s Truisms may be seen and understood to operate similarly, juxtaposing public spaces with concise statements that provoke reflection on truth and power. These works may be interpreted as engaging with complex ideas while asserting their uniquely human origins — and their unique un-copyable qualities of the artists themselves. Perhaps similarly, the authors text-based paintings, it may be argued, are evidence of post-theory art in that they explicitly theorize, including about human cognition, agency, and imperfections in visual form, while at the same time convey these through emotion and energy, as seen in his personal writing system “scrawls.” Can works like these be simulated or emulated by AI? Similarly, Kara Walker’s silhouette installations, such as A Subtlety, which propose and critique prevailing theories on race, history, and power dynamics, are embedded with the artist’s experiences, perspectives, background, and, somehow apparent, as with all the above artists, their imperfections, emotions, and subconscious.
Granted, there are not many examples of post-theory art put forth in this paper at this time; there does not seem to be much of it. Research continues, and there is much contemporary art, and art being made now, to review. Thus while the paper proposes that there is such a category of art, and proposes that it will have a unique utility in the new world of AI, the paper acknowledges that, at this time, it is not clear from the evidence whether post-theory art does exist as more than just a theory; and it is also not clear from the evidence whether post-theory art can in fact provide a meaningful way for humans to distinguish human theory-making and theory-recording from what the empty intelligence of artificial intelligence will try. Theory art appears to be historically supported by the evidence; the existence, scope, and utility of Post-Theory Art remains undetermined, and may just be a theory itself. We shall see.
For purposes of this paper, the author has posited that “post-theory art” does exist as a viable means of understanding certain types of art, and the purpose and possibilities of certain types of art. Here, the proposal is that post-theory art arguably serves two purposes, or may be evidenced in two ways: As both a continuation of human theorizing and also as a means for humans to protect the essence and true nature of human theorizing. defense of human theorizing in the face of the first challenge that has arisen since the start of humankind.
By embedding theories in artistic forms, thereby inevitably making them human through the artist’s emotions, imperfections, hopes, dreams, fears, and subconscious, such art-execution-of-theory acts distinguish human theory-making from the empty algorithmic outputs of AI. As such, post-theory art may be seen as preserving not only the human-ness of human theorizing, but also as preserving the human qualities of intuition, emotion, and imperfection, and all other intangibles that make us human and distinguish us from the machine, the computational, the artificial. Post-theory art may be one way, among hopefully many, that ensures that the act of theorizing about ourselves, and our relations to ourselves and to others, be it nature or the star, remains, at least in some spheres, at least in the artistic sphere, a distinctly human endeavor.
As such, in doing so, this paper suggests that post-theory art becomes a critical tool for maintaining human identity and agency in an era increasingly shaped by “empty intelligence” and its “empty art.”
Conclusion
We begin the conclusion by speaking very broadly again. Human art has always been a medium for human theorizing, providing a visual, auditory, and even sensory space for the conscious and subconscious exploration, contemplation, and preservation of connected and relational human thought — our theories. The term “Theory art,” as this paper suggests, may be understood as demonstrating this through the historical evidence found across all cultures and all history, offering an additional, complementary conceptual framework, in addition to those already existing, for further interpreting how art engages with complex ideas and relationships — theories.
Now, in the contemporary era, in this AI era, “post-theory art,” as that term is proposed here, may be understood to both (1) extend this tradition of theory art while also, now, in addition, (2) addressing the new and grave challenge as to theory-making that is posed by artificial intelligence. By embedding human theories within artistic forms, and by embedding human theories with the human-ness that each artist has within them, works that may be seen to fall within the category of “Post-Theory Art” may be seen to arguably be a way to protect and preserve not just the human-ness of theories, but also the qualities of humans that make us human. Should humanity want to have a repository and a forum for human theory making, and for the human-to-human communication of human theories, distinct from and safe from machine theory-making, this paper proposes that, given the evidence of theory art thus far, “post-theory art” may be one of the hopefully many means by which humans find ways to remain human and protect what it is to be human.
