Art history, writing and theory
The experience of art is often considered a subjective and illuminating sensation. In the calm of undisturbed and intimate contemplation it can be edifying, intellectually stimulating or yield a revelation of truth. Alas, we are told, this possibility is now being lost: as John McDonald infers in his critique of art school education, alien intrusions have marred the radiant glow of art.2 Certain critics readily agree that today the value of art diminishes under the heavy hand of 'French theory', cultural myopia, style and fashion.3 It would seem that only a few valiant seers retain sufficient clarity of vision to encapsulate our collective crisis.
Theory without theory
From a distance this earnest posture may appear convincing, but the pontificating becomes tiresome after a while. Campaigning as the guiding force in a cultural desert of nitwits and opportunists is one way to achieve an instant profile. When art criticism lacks an orthodoxy and many viewpoints compete for attention, hyperbole becomes a virtue. Those who clamour against theory are not as far removed from the difficulties and shortcomings of contemporary criticism as they would like to believe. Their vociferous style helps to blur some less convincing assertions, for example, that theory is somehow a new phenomenon on the art historical scene. One must assume that in a former time the visual arts existed free of the plague of theory; or is it just recent 'French theory' that exerts such a ruinous influence? And by lumping all forms of critical writing into one basket, this campaign merely contributes to the problems of criticism in the visual arts.
In the critique of theory, facile characterisations of supposedly monolithic and decadent enemies often substitute for... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline