CONDUITS

Circuity of critical perspective.

THEORY

THEORY |

by: Sean Rorison

have a theory about theory: it is far too theoretical. Could
this be because of theory’s obsession with large words,
abstract phrases, and references to specific people and
places which are so far away from this location that they become no
more than another abstraction anyway? Could theory simply be a
hobby of the art academics who are too afraid to observe the work
of art, and thus must stand in front of it with a strong drink and find
a way to make sure that it has no impact upon them? Or perhaps,
the theory bolsters the art’s relevance to those who cannot or will
not look further into it, and simply want the object as a reasonable

investment of money with a guaranteeable return.

Assume this: given the prices of art
objects, they have an implied value. The rich of
the world must ensure that their investment is
returned, that the art they purchased is impor-
tant in the overall history of art. Otherwise,
their investment may not hold its value or gain
any value. And who in their right mind would
buy a work of art if it wasn’t valuable? Theory
helps to impose this value; art theory helps to
contextualize artists and their works in such a
way that the art must be valuable.

Art theory, though, insists that it is
correct and relevant; the non art theorist’s
opinion, then, is not as good as the art theo-
rist’s because the art theorist utilizes the
largest and most convoluted words to express
a point. Simple paraphrases for the layman(by
this rather degrading term I mean pretty much
anyone who doesn’t have a strong connection
to contemporary art, which makes up most of
the world’s population) would be better, more
accessible; except of course that the layman
would never read art theory in the first place
anyway. The layman, on the other hand, looks
for aesthetically pleasing things within art and
will make assumptions about the art based on
these aesthetic decisions. Of course the layman
as a term usually references those people who
only like landscapes with horses and puppy
dogs, however given the chance and a window
into the art it is my own theory that the aver-
age layman would in fact find something in
contemporary art to appreciate. The window
of theory, though, is far too convoluted and
elitist for even most of the elitists to under-
stand, and serves more as a wall so that inquis-
itive people will be so intimidated that they
will simply have to accept what is stated at face
value. Simplification of theory would allow
too many people to understand what is being
said, and there would possibly be people who
may disagree; and with disagreement comes a
rift in between agreements of how much a
work of art is worth, and this messing around
with the value of the artwork is something that
the investors of the artwork must do their best
to not let happen.

This theory about theory is only
theoretical of course. As all things in art, it is
based on the theory that we have theorized
something into the word ‘art’ and we are capa-
ble of getting something out of it. And if we are
not capable of getting something out of art,
then the theorists can move in and tell the
viewer exactly what it is that one should get
out of the art.

Perhaps one of the most notorious
theorists of all time is Clement Greenberg.
Any art student must be put through the paces
of knowing what it is about Clement
Greenberg that makes him as an individual so
notorious; the word ‘abstract expressionism’ is
rarely used without mentioning its founding
father Clement Greenberg. This sort of attach-
ment works in two ways: it gives the art theo-
rist as much significance as the artists and the
art mentioned, and also undermines the artists
in a way. The way in which it undermines the
artists, of course, is through the subtle impli-
cation that the artists may not have ever been
a useful or important addition to the world of
art history and the art world in general if it
were not for the theorist. Clement Greenberg’s
importance when discussing abstract expres-
sionism almost supercedes the importance of
every other abstract expressionist he champi-
oned. Therefore the theorist Clement
Greenberg succeeded in deifying not only the
pack of artists he identified most closely with,
but also succeeded in deifying himself as the
all knowing entity of art which existed during
a certain period. This is his own method of self
promotion, a method which worked quite well
as Canadian abstractionists of roughly the
same time period paid healthy sums of money
for him to come north and bless them with his
all knowing wisdom and christening of their
art with theory that would somehow make it
more relevant than it already was.

Greenberg, though, may in fact
have called himself an art historian rather than
an art theorist, since theory is ultimately just
theory. History, though, is something which is
cast in stone and can be referenced as a source
of truth when studying a certain time period -
one should note that I am being facetious

+h slight cf the \isvalish—+

when I say that history is cast in stone. When
the theorist becomes a historian, the theorist
becomes a noble profession - the concept of
art theory is a rather obscure concept, but the
ideal of the historian wearing Greek robes and
consistently appearing stern and all-knowing
has existed since the university.

Theory has a
rau f th 1CI71
mn aotmaeact | heory has a way of
or barely theoreti- = :
1 of things. Wh
ame theoreticizing even the
there existed ‘

whi h y
oa Most non-theoretical or
to be theorized? : es
Would theory hel —_
icsne nae Darely theoretical of
would it simply obscure the
art’s intention even more? What if we took one : t h i n S
of the most notorious pieces of art in S ®
Canadian history, Barnett Newman’s Voice of
Fire, and ran it through the hoops of theory.
My theory is that we would.get theory similar
to this:

Verticality, when represented,
becomes a strong signifier of the apotheologi-
cal; therein, requiring the representation of
deities within the mid twentieth century, we
come across the methodologies of certain sig-
nificances which may result in the multiplicity
required for the aforementioned apotheosis.
By this the artist comes to suggest the gesture
as uniform and yet varied, therefore and more-
over varied yet uniform. The cross sectioning
of the figure therefore becomes an important
signifier which furthers our understanding as
we contextualize it as F,G, and H, thereby
meaning F as phthalo dark, G as azure light,
and subsequently a return H referencing to
phthalo dark. This would ultimately signify
that instinctual impact of the apotheological
which undoubtedly the artist was intending to
express.

Aside from being excessively wordy,
it can be simplified quite neatly to a single sen-
tence:

continued on page 26

Influx: Magazine February 1999 2|

C-O:N:B-Uatias,

Circuity of critical perspective.

A
THEORY

On

THEORY

by: Sean Rorison

have a theory about theory: it is far too theoretical. Could
this be because of theory's obsession with large words,
abstract phrases, and references to specific people and
places which are so far away from this location that they become no
more than another abstraction anyway? Could theory simply be a
hobby of the art academics who are too afraid to observe the work
of art, and thus must stand in front of it with a strong drink and find
a way to make sure that it has no impact upon them? Or perhaps,
the theory bolsters the art's relevance to those who cannot or will
not look further into it, and simply want the object as a reasonable

investment of money with a guaranteeable return.

Assume this: given the prices of art
objects they have an implied value The rich of
the world must ensue that thei investment is
returned) that the art they purchased is impor
tant in the overall history of at. Otherwise,
their investment may not hold is value or gain
any value. And who in thei ight mind would
‘buy a work of art if it wasn't valuable? Theory
Ihlps to impose this val; art theory helps to
‘contextualize artists and their works in such a
‘way tha the art must be valuable

‘Art theory, dhough, insists that its
correct and relevant; the non art theorists
‘opinion, then, is not as good as the art dheo-
sts because the art theorist utilizes the
largest and most convoluted words to express
4 point. Simple paraphrases fr the layman(oy
this rather degrading term [mean prety mich
anyone who doesn't have a strong connection
to contemporary art, which makes up most of
‘the worlds popilation) would be better, more
aceessible; except of course that the layman
‘would ever fead art theory in the first place
anyway. The layman, on the other hand, looks
for aesthetically pleasing things within art and
will make assumptions about the art based on
these aesthetic decisions. Ofcourse the layman
asa term usually references those people who
only like landscapes with horses and puppy
dogs, however given the chance and window
Jingo the art iis my own theory thatthe aver-
tage layman would in fact find something in
contemporary art to appreciate. The window
of theory, though, is far too convoluted and
list for even most of the clint to under-
Stand, and serves more asa wall so tha inguis-
‘uve people will be s0 intimidated that they
wil simply have ro accept whats stated at face
value. Simplification of theory would allow
oo many people 0 understand what is being
‘suid, and there would possibly be people who
may disagre; and with disagreement comes &
rift in between agreements of how much a
‘work of art worth, and this messing around
‘with the value ofthe artwork is something that
the investors ofthe artwork mast do their bert
to not let happen,

‘This theory about theory is only
theoretical of course. As all things in ar, iis
based on the theory that we have theorized
‘something into the wordt and we are capa-
ble of getting something out oft Andifwe are
not capable of getting something out of art,
then the theorists can move in and tell the
viewer exactly what itis that one should get
‘out ofthe art.

Perhaps one of the most notorious
theorist of all time is Clement Greenberg.
Any art student must be pur through the paces
fof knowing what it is about Clement
‘Greenlerg that makes him a8 an individual 0
‘notorious: dhe word ‘abstract expressionism is
rarely used without mentioning its founding
father Clement Greenberg. This sort of attach-
ment works in two ways: it gives the art theo-
fist as much significance asthe artists and the
art mentioned, and also undermines the artists
fina way. The wa in which it undermines the
artists, of course, is through the subtle impli-
cation that the artists may not have ever been
4 useful or important addition to the word of
art history and the art world in general i it
‘were not for the theorist. Clement Greenberg's
‘importance when discussing abstract expres-
sonism almost supercedes the importance of
every other abstract expressionist he champi-
foned. ‘Therefore the theorist Clement
Greenberg succeeded in delving not only the
pack of artists he identified most closely with,
but also succeeded in defying himself as the
all Knowing eniy of are which existed during
certain period. This is his own method of self
promotion, method which worked quite well

and bless them with his
all knowing wisdom and christening of theit
art with theory that would somehow make it
‘more elevant than i already wa,

Greenberg, though, may in fact
have called himself an art historian eather than
an art theorist, since theory i ultimately just,
theory: History, dhough, is something which is
‘ast in stone and can be referenced as a source
‘of truth when studying a certain time period ~
fone should note that I am being facetious

‘when I say that history is cast in stone. When
the theorist becomes a historian, the theorist
‘becomes a noble profession = the concept of
art theory i a rather obscure concept, but the
‘deal ofthe historian wearing Greek robes and
consistently appearing ster and all-knowing
bs existed since the university

res Theory has a way of
2 e** theoreticizing even the
==" most non-theoretical or
kxsruee’. barely theoretical of
Ca ce meena things.
Nicht to ec ae

art which was
never intended
tobe theorized?
fof the most notorious pieces of art in
Canadian histors, Barnett Newman's Tice of
Firs and ran it through the hoops of theory

Verticality, when represented
becomes a strong signifier ofthe apotheolog
cal; therein, requiring the representation of
sletes within the mid twentieth eentury, we
‘come across the methodologies of certain sig
riffeances which may result in the multiplicity
required for the aforementioned apotheosis.
By this the artist comes to suggest the gesture
as uniform and yet varied, therefore and more=
‘over varied yet uniform, The cross sectioning
‘of the figure therefore becomes an. important

meaning F as phhalo dark, G as azuce light,
and subsequently a return Hi referencing ©
pPhihalo dark. This would ultimately signify
that instinctual impact of the apotheological
which undoubtedly the artist was intending to
ores

Aside fom being excesively wordy,
it canbe simplified quite neatly toa singe sen

continued on page 26

Influx* Magazine February 1999 2)