Filozofski vestnik Letnik/Volume XXIII • Številka/Number 2 • 2002 • 63-73
THE LIMITS OF DISCOURSE: A LECTURE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN “THEORY,” “ART” AND
“BODY’ IN THE XX CENTURY
Mišk o Suvaković
A writer without a story1
I am g o in g to try, in f r o n t o f y o u a n d on my own bod y,2 to m irro r, in dex , d e sc rib e a n d in te r p r e t th e u n c e rta in b u t essential re la tio n sh ip b etw een “a r t”
(lite ra tu re , m usic, p a in tin g , th e a tre , o p era, film ) a n d “th eo ry ” here-and-now . In fact, as “th e o ry ,”3 I am g o in g to n am e d iffe re n t sem antically aim ed
‘Jean Louis Schefer: “I’m a writer without a story-someone who chronicles, bit by bit, his own intellectual adventure, which is articulated across a collection of multifarious objects. It’s in the capriciousness of my own choices and preferences that I’ve found my universe, my procedures, my way of being-my happiness.” from “Preface,” in: Paul Smith (ed.), The Enigm atic Body. Essays on the Arts by Jean Louis Schefer, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p. xvii.
21 have to “admit” that chemicals, cells, tissue (la chair), physiological organisms, ana
tomical body, behavioral body, individuum, figures and my social appearances are not some firm consistent “entirety.” Last autumn, while lying in the hospital, I was constantly testing, from one second to another, THAT my brain, my legs or my stomach are living separate lives - that there, in the whiteness of the hospital bed, different subjects were appearing: that of the patient, of the weak, of the reading, of the rational, of one who is stuffed with medications, of one who is indulging in fantasy, of the scared, of the resent
ful, of the humane, of the selfish, of the sick, of the one who survived ... The notion
“subject” is not the term denoting entirety in which the multiple “parts” are bound to
gether. “The subject” is the assembly of hypothesis or texts which constitute, contextualize and represent this phenomenal and recognizable “I” in behavior, speech, writing or dif
ferent arts. That is why in this discourse I am speaking about the “relationship” between art, theory and body, and not about the triangle “art,” “theory” and “subject.” What is being discussed is the subject understood, certainly, not as the speaking individual who pronounced or wrote some text by being “above” the text, but the subject/author as the
“principle of grouping discourses, as the unity and source of his meaning, as the focus of his coherency” (according to Michel Foucault).
3 David Carroll (ed.), The States o f Theory: History, Art, a n d Critical Discourse, Stanford, Cal., Stanford University Press, 1994. Tom Cohen, Barbara Cohen, J. Hillis Miller, Andrzej
effects a n d ap p e a ra n c e s o f th e p ro c e d u re s o f c re a tin g (m ak in g , m a n u fa c tu r
ing, p ro d u c in g ) art, o f delaying th e effects o f th e w o rk o f a r t in s p e e c h (pa role) a n d w riting (ecriture); as th eo ry I will n a m e th e pro cesses o f c o n s tru c tin g th e ja r g o n insid e artw orlds, th e in te rp o la tio n o f voices o f criticism in to sen su ally a n tic ip a te d figures o f art, th e b o r d e r in g id e n titie s o f d iffe re n t “sp e e c h e s”
w ithin th e social sciences a n d h u m a n itie s , th e e x c e p tio n a litie s a n d a u to n o m ies o f th e fu n c tio n s o f th eo ry a n d a r t a n d th e g e n e ra l in te rp re ta tiv e possi
bilities o f th e p h ilo so p h y o f art.
I am g o in g to n a m e th e d ra m a tic ally c o n tra d ic tio u s “r e tu r n to th e b o d y ”4 w ithin classical a n d o u tsid e o f c o n te m p o ra ry ae sth e tic s, as well. It is in d e e d a q u estio n how to identify this “b ig ” a n d “d ifficu lt” p ro b le m , a polysemantic p ro b lem w hich is c o n c e rn e d w ith th e re la tio n s h ip b etw een : (a) “te x ts” a b o u t dif
fe re n t m ateria l fo rm u la tio n s (so u n d m usical texts, p ic to ria l p a in te rly texts, audio-visual m ovie texts, total c o rp o ra l-b e h a v io u ra l th e a tr e a n d performance art texts, a n d texts situ ated w ithin w ritin g [ecriture]), a n d (b) d elay in g a n d tra n sfe rrin g texts o n th in k in g , talk in g a n d w ritin g a b o u t art. By this a p p ro a c h I in te n d to persevere in th e “ diadisciplinarity," in th e cro ssed o u t o r e x c e e d e d disciplinarity, w hich do es n o t allow th e o b je c tific a tio n o f th e re la tio n sh ip b etw een “a rt,” “th e o ry ” a n d “b o d y ” in to a firm m e th o d , b u t, in ste a d , keeps th a t m e th o d in a state o f crisis o f h e te r o g e n e o u s events o r in c id e n ts .5 T h e re la tio n sh ip b etw een th eo ry a n d a r t “t h r o u g h ” m y b o d y is th e “e v e n t” o r “in c id e n t” o f th e lo cate d re p re s e n ta tio n o r p re s e n ta tio n . W h a t is a t stake h e r e is th e “re p re s e n ta tio n ” o r “p re s e n ta tio n ,” n o t th e lite ra l p o rtra y a l o f “th e o ry ” an d “a r t” th ro u g h body; th e constructs or figures a re in s tru m e n ta liz e d o r u sed to p rovoke p ro c ed u re s, form s a n d fu n c tio n s o f th e o ry a n d art. In fact, “th e o ry ” a n d “a r t” are re la te d th ro u g h th e b o d y w h ich b e c o m e s “I” (b o dy -individu um - subject) in these d iffe ren t, b lu rre d , o b liq u e a n d flic k e rin g m o m e n ta ry re la tionships. “C red ib le” im ages (reflec tio n s, ico n ic signs) o f th e th e o ry “o f ’ a rt o r / a n d th e art “o f ’ th eo ry are n o t c r e a te d h e r e a n d th e n ; this s o m e th in g th a t is m irro re d is th e lack, deficit, delay, in fact, it is th e “se p a ra te n e ss” ( differAnce) betw een th eo ry a n d a rt “th r o u g h ” th e b o d y w hich is th e “su b je c t” only th an k s to this polysemantic a n d co n tra d ic to ry re la tio n s h ip b etw e en art, th e o ry a n d th e bo d y ( the body-mind relationship).
T h a t is why as a startin g thesis o f th is d isc o u rse I have to p o in t to this
Warminski (eds.), Material Events - P aul De M a n a n d Afterlife o f Theory, University of Min
nesota Press, Minneapolis, 2000.
4 Marina Gržinić, Fiction Reconstructed, Edition selene & Springerin, Vienna, 2000.
5 Kate Linker, “Representation and Sexuality,” in: Brian Wallis (ed.), A rt After Modern
ism. R ethinking Representation, New York, The New Museum of Contemporary Art, 1986, pp. 391-415.
T h e L i m i t s o r D i s c o u r s e : A l e c t u r e o n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n “ t h e o r y , ” “ a r t ” a n d
“lack ” (to this n o t e n tire , in a p p ro p ria te , ov erlap p in g , re leasin g ). T his “lack”
is c re a te d b etw e en th e o ry a n d a r t “th r o u g h ” my b o d y a n d it is am iable, th a t m ean s, co n stitu tiv e a n d in d e x ic a l {indexing) fo r locatin g a n d u n d e rsta n d in g th e u n c e rta in h isto rie s7 o f th e re la tio n sh ip s b etw een th e o rie s a n d arts o f th e XX century.8 T his lack, this delay o r differentiation is n o t so m eth in g th a t should b e n e g le c te d o r a p p r o x im a te d w ith in th e “id e a lise d ” scientific m od els o f
“th eo ry , a rt, a n d b o d y ,” b u t o n th e contrary , this is precisely w h at sh o u ld be p o site d as th e p ro b le m o f d e sc rip tio n , e x p la n a tio n , in te rp re ta tio n a n d dis
cu ssion, w hich sh o u ld b e re c o g n ise d as th e constitutive a n d b o rd e rin g dis
co u rse o f ea ch a p p r o a c h , in th e first place, to art. T h e re la tio n sh ip betw een
“th e o ry ,” “a r t” a n d “b o d y ” is id e n tifie d as th e “d isco u rse” a n d as th e “discur
sive p ra c tic e ” w h ich is e sta b lish e d a ro u n d th e “lack” a n d th e possibility o f th e n o n -c o in c id e n c e o f “th e o ry ” a n d “a r t” w ith re sp e c t to m y body, w hich b e
co m es th e “su b je c t” (th e s e c tio n o f hypothesis9) .
T h e disco ursive p ra c tic e is, in th e m o st g en e ralised sem io tic sense, “the a c t” w hich posits m e a n in g in th e tem po ral-spatial situ atio n in w hich som e
b o d y fo r so m e o n e is p ro d u c in g m ean in g . T h e “tem poral-spatial situ a tio n ” is n o t th e ideal, w ith in th e a e s th e tic c o n te m p la tio n c o n stru c te d “c o n te x t” ( ideal judgem ent) fo r th e re la tio n s h ip b etw een “th eo ry ,” “a r t” a n d “body,” b u t th e c o n c re te histo rically a n d g eo g rap h ically lo cate d “w o rld ” o f m a te ria l10 in stitu tio n s a n d social stru g g le s.11 T h e d iscourse o r th e discoursive p ro d u c t d e te r
m in e s th a t w hich, w ith in th e given c o n fig u ra tio n o f re la tio n sh ip betw een
“th e o ry ,” “a r t” a n d “b o d y ,” h as to b e said a n d w hich co u ld b e said, th a t is, th at w h ich can n o t b e said, ca n n o t b e h e a rd o r read . A c co rd in g to M ichel F ou
cau lt, th e d isco u rse is th e way in w hich k now ledge is a rtic u la te d in th e con-
6 Charles Harrison, “Mapping and Filling” and Terry Atkinson/Michael Baldwin, “The Index,” in: Anne Seymour (ed.), The New Art, London, Hayward Gallery, 1972, pp. 14-16, 16-19; Rosalind E. Krauss, “Notes on the Index: Part 1&2,” in: The Originality o f the Avant- Garde a n d Other M odernist Myths, Cambridge Mass., The MIT Press, 1985, pp. 196-209, 210- 219.
7 H. Aram Vesser (ed.), The New Historicism Reader, Routledge, New York, 1994; Michel Foucault, “On the Ways of Writing History” and “Return to History,” in: James Faubion (ed.), M ichel Foucault: Aesthetics, method a nd epistemology (vol. 2), Penguin Books, 1994, pp.
279-295, 419-432.
8 Charles Harrison, A rt in Theory 1900-1990. A n Anthology o f C hanging Ideas, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1993.
9 Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author,” in: Image M usic Text, Nooday Press, 1978, pp. 142-148.
10 Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an In
vestigation),” in Slavoj Žižek (ed.), M apping Ideology, London, London, Verso, 1995, pp.
100-140.
11 “Editorial,” from magazine Razprave/Problemi no. 3-5, Ljubljana, 1975, pp. 1-10.
crete “s e c tio n ” o f th e h isto ric society a n d in th e in stitu tio n s o f e stab lish in g , reg u latin g , su b m ittin g a n d u n d e r s ta n d in g “p o w e r.” If th e above is a c c e p te d , th e n it can be stated th a t th e h isto ries o f re la tio n s h ip s b etw e en th e o ry , a rt, an d b o d y in the XX cen tu ry , w ithin th e lim its o f W e ste rn c u ltu re o r its h e g e m onic d o m ain s o f in flu e n c e s,12 are th e discoursive fo rm a tio n s w hich ca n b e a n d m u st b e id en tified , d iffe re n tia te d a n d a n tic ip a te d in a d isc o u rse w h ich is at th e sam e tim e “of,” “fro m ” a n d “a b o u t” th eo ry , art, a n d body. T h a t dis
course, thus, is th e “sam p le” by w hich is a n tic ip a te d th e u n c e rta in “lim ite d ” o r “lim itin g ” te rrito ry a n d interval o f in d iv id u a l a n d specific re s o lu tio n o f th e re la tio n sh ip b etw een “th e o ry ,” “a r t” a n d “my b o d y .” It is n o t a q u e stio n o f som e g e n e ra l re la tio n sh ip w hich is, “th r o u g h ” th e u niversal “v o ice,” given by a sch em atic (m ap p e d , lim ited ) id eal, w h o le a n d fo re c lo s e d all-valuable “big a n d u n d e fin e d story.” W h a t is b e in g d iscu ssed h e r e a re se p a ra te , o fte n schis
m atic1^ differend ) solutions, in c o m p a ra b le discoursive p ra ctices. T h e in c o m p arab le attracts m e.
W h a t has to be tak en in to a c c o u n t, fro m th e very b e g in n in g , is th a t th e n o tio n o f “d isco u rse” is n o t d e te r m in e d by its c h a ra c te ristic m etap h y sical o p p o sitio n or adversativity to th e u n k n o w a b le , u n p ro n o u n c e a b le o r u n s p e a k ab le.14 T h e n o tio n o f d iscourse is d e riv e d fro m th e “sp e a k a b le ” o r “d e m o n strab le” o r “re p re s e n ta b le ” re la tio n sh ip b etw e en th e o ry a n d a r t “th r o u g h ” body w ith in very specific m ateria l c o n d itio n s a n d c irc u m sta n ces (in stitu tio n s, a p p a ratu ses or, m o re abstractly, c o n te x ts) o f c e n tr in g o r d e c e n trin g so m e public o r private “p o w er” o r “sociability.” In o th e r w ords, “u n k n o w a b le ,” “u n p ro n o u n c e a b le ” o r “u n sp e a k a b le ” a re n o t th e effects o f so m e “p re -h u m a n chaos” o r “all-hum an, p urely n a tu ra l ex isten c e.” T h ese are m ateria l discoursive p ro d u c ts in the specific historic a n d g e o g ra p h ic co n d itio n s a n d c irc u m sta n ces o f social struggle, th ese are th e ways o f re g u la tin g o r d e re g u la tin g th e re la tionships betw een “th e o ry ,” “a r t” a n d “b o d y .” T h e re fo re , fo r th e p h ilo so p h y a n d aesthetics o f art, a n d especially o f lite ra tu re , th e fu n d a m e n ta l q u e s tio n is n o t that o f the “n a tu re ” o r “n o n -n a tu r e ” o f th e u n k n o w a b le , u n p r o n o u n c e able, a n d u n sp ea k ab le, b u t th e q u e stio n o f u n d e r w hich c o n d itio n s a n d cir
cu m stan ces an d , o f course, by w hat rig h t, is that p ro c la im e d as u n k n o w a b le , u n p ro n o u n c e a b le a n d u n sp e a k a b le . F o u c a u lt is n o t a n tic ip a tin g th e “dis
co u rse” only as “that m e a n in g ” o f th e sp e e c h , b u t as th e m a te ria l re g u la tio n , 12 F re d ric Jam eson, The Geopolitical Aesthetics. Cinema a n d Space in the World System, B loom ington, In d ian a University Press, 1995; G riselda P ollock (ed .), Generations à f Geog
raphies in the Visual Arts. Feminist Readings. L o n d o n , R ou tled g e, 1996.
13Jean-François Lyotard, Le Differend,Paris, M inuit, 1983, p. 5.
14 M anfred F rank, Das Sagbare u n d das Unsagbare - Studien zu r deutsche-französischen Hermeneutik u nd Texttheorie,F rankfurt a. M., S u h rk am p , 1990.
T h e L i m i t s o f D i s c o u r s e : A l e c t u r e o n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n “ t h e o r y , ” “a r t ” a n d
p ro h ib itio n , re sista n c e o r classification w ithin th e society: here is the hypothesis which I would like to present tonight in order to determine the battlefield - or perhaps the very temporary stage - o f the work I am performing: I suppose that the production of discourses in every society is controlled, sanctioned, organised and redistributed by a certain number o f procedures whose role is to disparage its powers and dangers, to govern its incidental events, to avoid its anxious deterrent materiality.
D iscourse, as psychoanalysis has show n us, is n o t only th a t w hich uncov
ers o r covers d esire , it is also th e o b je c t o f desire: fo r discourse - as history con
stantly teaches us - is not only that which expresses struggles and systems o f reign, but precisely that which represents the reason and means by which the struggle is fought, and the power worth seizing. In o u r case, it is th e struggle b etw een “th eo ry ,” “a r t”
a n d “b o d y ” w ith in th e c o n c re te histo rical a n d g eo g rap h ical society, it is th e stru g g le to d e te r m in e w ho is g o in g to re ig n over th e “re la tio n sh ip ” betw een a rt, th e o ry a n d body. A n d this stru g g le is taking p lace n o t o n ly in th e d o m ain o f th e “v e rb a lise d ,” b u t r a th e r in th a t m ateria l a n d essential d im en sio n o f th e d isco u rse , nam ely, in th e d im e n s io n o f th e ev e n t a n d th e in c id e n t. T h us, a thesis c a n be a d v a n ced , th a t th e “u n sp e a k a b le ,” “u n p ro n o u n c e a b le ” o r th e
“u n k n o w a b le ” a re n o t th o se w h ich “a r e ” o u tsid e o f o r in fr o n t o f a discourse (discoursive p ro d u c ts , acts o r in stitu tio n s), b u t th a t they are only “th ro u g h ” th e performing o f th e d isco u rse . V lad im ir Jan k e le v itc h has p erfectly obviously show n th a t to us, p e r fo rm in g “th r o u g h ” th e discourse th e situ atio n o f th e u n p ro n o u n c e a b le (ineffable) in m u sic as so m e th in g above, u n d e r, a ro u n d o r b e fo re m usic. M o re exactly, this is d e m o n s tra te d to us by J o h n C age in his p ro - W ittg e n s te in ia n a n d p ro -Z e n e f fo rt to p u t th e “a c t” (performance / b eh a v io u rality ) in th e c e n tr e o f a tte n tio n w hen h e says: “I have n o th in g to say a n d I am saying th a t.”15 “U n sp e a k a b le ,” “u n p ro n o u n c e a b le ” o r “u n k n o w ab le”
a re as su c h only in th e field o f a d isco u rse w hich enab les th e in d e x in g o f th e
“a b s e n t.”
Discoursive practices “as ” the relationship between theory, art, and body
If o n e pays a tte n tio n to th e fo rm u la tio n s re g a rd in g th e discoursive rela
tio n sh ip s b etw e en th eo ry , art, a n d b o d y in th e XX century, o n e can n o tice th a t fo u r typical ways o f in d ic a tin g , d esc rib in g a n d in te rp re tin g exist, owing to w h ich th e “t r u t h ”16 o f a r t is a c c u m u la te d in th e first place:
15 John Cage, “Lecture on Nothing,” in: Silence, Middletown Conn., Wesleyan Univer
sity Press, 1973, p. 109.
16 Jacques Derrida, L a Vente en peinture, Paris, Flammarion Press, 1978.
(i) a w ork o f a rt p re c e d e s theory, w h ich is m e d ia te d by th e c o rp o ra l re sp o n se to it,
(ii) th eo ry con stitu tes th e constitu tiv e sc o p e (c o n te x t, frames, vignettes) o f th e w ork o f art, in fact, th eo ry is th e c o n s titu e n t o f th e w ork o f a r t th ro u g h w hich th e statu s o f the “su b ject” fo r th e b o d y (c re a tio n , re c e p tio n ) is estab lish ed , (iii) th e re la tio n sh ip b etw een th eo ry , a r t a n d b o d y is e sta b lish e d p o s tp o n a b ly th ro u g h “w riting” (ecriture), a n d
(iv) th e o ry is th e object, “th ro u g h ” a n u n sta b le re la tio n s h ip b etw e en th eo ry , a rt a n d body.
A work of art precedes theory
Intuitively lead artistic creatio n , “t h ro u g h ” th e b o d y (o f th e c re a to r, m a n u fa ctu rer, p r o d u c e r ) , leads tow ards po ssib ilities o f e sta b lish in g th e th e o ry o f th e w ork o f a rt w hich is p re s e n t h e r e fo r th e o t h e r b o d y (all o th e r re c ip ie n ts a n d co n su m e rs o f th e w ork / v a l u e s / ) . A w ork o f a r t is a “fo r m ,” it is th a t so m e th in g w hich is p re se n t, like so m e stab le o r d e fin e d m a te ria l o rd e r, w hich a p p e a rs in fro n t o f th e body (th a n k s to th e sp ecialised sense, th e c o m p le x sensual bo d y o r th e b eh av io u ral social a n d psychologically “re c e p tiv e ” b o d y ).
T h e re la tio n sh ip b etw een a r t a n d th e o ry (in th e first p lace, criticism ) ca n b e conceived o f as th e re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e p ro d u c tio n a n d th e c o n s u m e r’s re sp o n se to th a t p ro d u c tio n , a n d th a t m e a n s to its p ro d u c ts (o f w ork) by w hich th e p ro d u c tio n is d e te r m in e d as th e sen sib le (m e a n in g fu l) p r o d u c tion. T h e o ry o f a r t w ork is “c o n s titu te d ” a n d ca lle d “fo rm a lism ” if th e th e o retical re sp o n se is a n tic ip a te d in re la tio n to th e p re s e n c e o f a w ork as a fo rm (o f a m aterial o r d e r ) . T h e th eo ry o f th e w ork o f a r t is “c o n s titu te d ” a n d n a m e d
“p h e n o m e n o lo g ic a l,” if th e th e o re tic a l re sp o n se takes p la c e (h a p p e n s ) in re la tio n to the p h e n o m e n a lity o f th e w ork in f r o n t o f th e senses, a n d , in a d d i
tion, in re la tio n to th e a n tic ip a tio n o f th a t sen su a l “e v e n t” in th e co n sc io u s
ness o f th e b e h o ld e r (a u d ito r, re a d e r, active p a r tic ip a n t in th e ev e n t o f re c e p tion) . T h e theory o f th e w ork o f a r t is “c o n s titu te d ” a n d ca lle d “stru c tu ra lis m ” if th e th e o re tic a l re sp o n se to th e w ork o f a r t h as b e e n p ro p o s e d to th e c o n stru c te d m o d el in side som e “system ” (o r p ra c tic e ) w ith in w h ich so m e th in g th a t we ca n call “ex isten c e” o r “a p p e a ra n c e ” o f th e w ork o f a r t has b e e n in te r
p re te d . W ith stru ctu ralism we a re fa c e d w ith th e fu n d a m e n ta l “lim it” a n d th e
“b e c o m in g suspicion” in th e p rim ac y o r o rig in ality o f th e w ork o f art.
Form alistic, p h e n o m e n a l o r stru c tu ra listic a p p ro a c h e s to th e re la tio n ship b etw een art, body a n d th e o ry a re explicitly m o d e rn is t “v oices.” In o th e r w ords, we can co n sid e r as “n o rm a l,” “u su a l” o r “d o m in a n t” th e c e n trin g o f
T h e L i m i t s o f D i s c o u r s e : A l e c t u r e o n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n “ t h e o r y , ” “ a r t ” a n d
th e d isco u rse o n ( the voice about ) th e re la tio n sh ip o f th e a u to n o m o u s p res
e n c e /a p p e a r a n c e s o f art, b o d y a n d th eo ry in th e m o d e rn ist cu ltu re , which, in o r d e r to b e c o n n e c te d , m u st b e in tro d u c e d in to som e p h ilo so p h ic al a n d re p re sen tativ e re la tio n s h ip o f a e sth e tic s as th e p h ilo so p h y o f art, th e p h ilo sop hy o f th e b o d y a n d m eta -p h ilo so p h y as a discussion o f the id en tity o f theory.
Precisely u p o n this th re e fo ld n a tu re : (i) th e prim acy o r originality o f the work o f a r t in re la tio n to th eo ry , (ii) th e au to n o m y o f th e artistic in re la tio n to th e c o rp o ra l o r th e o re tic a l, a n d (iii) b ased u p o n th e re p resen ta tiv e fu n c tio n by w hich p h ilo so p h y a n d its a e sth e tic s secu re th e m eta-legitim acy o f th e rela
tio n s h ip b e tw e e n “a r t,” “b o d y ” a n d “th eo ry ,” th e fo rm a listic-p h e n o m e n o lo g i
cal “p la tfo rm ” o f m o d e rn ism in lite ra tu re , pain tin g , film a n d m usic is realised.
The second voice: theory is the context o f art
The second voice17 m an ifests itself as th e voice w hich th e “first” (th e su
p re m a c y o f th e in tu itiv e, th a t is, th e fact th a t a rt p re c e d e s th eo ry b ein g only th e re sp o n se to th e w ork) id en tifies a n d explains as th e given a n d im posed
“voice” in th e d o m in a n t m o d e rn is t c u ltu re .18 In o th e r words, th e starting p o in t is th e “th esis” th a t th e re la tio n s h ip b etw een art, th eo ry a n d body is n o t th e c o n s e q u e n c e o f th e “sp ecial o r a u to n o m o u s n a tu re o f a rt its e lf’ (its “u n sp ea k a b le ” m etap h y sical, fo rm a l, p h e n o m e n o lo g ic a l o r ex istentialist ce n trin g as b e in g ), b u t th a t th e “c o n c e p t o f a r t” is a historical an d g e o g rap h ical conse
q u e n c e o r effect o f th e u n c e rta in o rg a n isin g o f th e society, c u ltu re an d worlds o f a rt;19 th e re fo re o n e ca n sp ea k o f som e discoursive e n v iro n m e n t o r atm o s p h e re w hich p re c e d e s a n d p re p a re s th e possibilities o f re la tio n sh ip s betw een art, th e o ry a n d body. T h is a p p ro a c h can be c o n sid ered as “critical” ce n trin g o f th e d isco u rse o n th e re la tio n s h ip b etw een art, body a n d th eo ry in th e his
to ry o f a rt, c u ltu re a n d society. A rt is a n tic ip a te d as a histo rical o r co n tex tu a l fu n c tio n o f c u ltu re a n d society, a n d this m ean s th a t th e “creativ e” a n d “criti
ca l” a re n o t re g a rd e d as o p p o se d , b u t th a t th e “c re a tio n ” (w hatever th a t may m e a n ) a n tic ip a te s itself as a c tin g fro m “in te re st” o r critical ac tin g (thin king ,
17 Charles Harrison, “Modernism in Two Voices," in: Essays on A rt & Language, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1991, pp. 2-6.
18 Clement Greenberg, “Complaints of an Art Critic,” in: Charles Harrison, Fred Orton (eds.), M odernism, Criticism, Realism, London, Harper and Row, 1984, pp. 4-8.
19 In Anglo-Saxon tradition: Arthur Danto, “The Artworld” (1964), in: Joseph Margolis (ed.), Philosophy Looks at the A rts (third edition), Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1987, pp. 155-167. In German tradition: Heinz Paetzold, NeomarxistischeAesthetik II I: Bloch, Benjam in, A dom o, Marcuse, Düsseldorf, Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann, 1974. In French tradition: Julia Kristeva, L a Revolution du language poetique, Paris, Seuil, 1974.
behaving, p ro d u c in g , a n ticip atin g ) w ith in society, c u ltu re a n d th e w o rld o f art. T h e fa ct th a t art, very o ften , covers u p its th e o re tic a l “p o sitio n s,” d o e s n o t m ean th a t it d oes n o t have th e m , a n d th a t it is n o t, in a fu n d a m e n ta l way, p ro je c te d “t h ro u g h ” it. Im a g in e d in su ch a way, th e stag in g o f th e re la tio n ship b etw e en “th eo ry ,” “a r t” a n d “b o d y ” m an ife sts itself historically, m e d ia te d by com pletely d iffe re n t discoursive fo rm a tio n s, ra n g in g fro m h isto rical avant- g ardes a n d neo-avant-gardes, to critical th e o ry a n d th e h e te r o g e n e o u s p o st
stru c tu ra list p re se n ta tio n s o f b o rd e rin g d iscoursiv e re la tio n sh ip s b etw e en a rt a n d cu ltu re .
The function o f writing (ecriture)
O n e can advance a thesis th a t th e re la tio n s h ip b e tw e e n th eo ry , art, a n d body is “p o ssib le” a n d th a t it is given on ly as p o s tp o n e d a n d a re la tio n s h ip set a p a rt “th ro u g h ” w riting (ecriture), w h ich is th e tireless w eaving o f d iffe ren c es, p ro v o k in g a shift a n d a p o s tp o n e m e n t (differance), u n lim ite d c o m p e n s a tio n , m isp la cem en t a n d s u p p le m e n ta tio n o f m e a n in g . In o th e r w ords, th e su b ject o f th e d iscourse o n th e re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n th eo ry , art, a n d bo d y d o e s n o t exist, if by this we u n d e rs ta n d so m e so v ereig n lo n e lin e ss o r o v er-o rd e rin g o f th e w riter (p h ilo so p h e r, th e o re tic ia n ) w ith re s p e c t to this re la tio n sh ip . T h e sub ject o f this re la tio n sh ip b etw e en th eo ry , a rt, a n d b o d y is th e system (o r th e p ractice) o f re la tio n sh ip s b etw een th e strata: “w o n d e rfu l n o te b o o k s o f th a t psychic, society, w o rld .” T h e trac e is th e e ra s u re o f th e self, o f o n e ’s ow n p re s
en ce, a n d it is c o n stru c te d w ith th e h e lp o f a n x ie ty o r p le a s u re ta k e n in th e inevitability o f d isap p ea ran c e. T h e tra c e a p p e a rs b ec au se o f th e d is a p p e a r
ance o f its d isap p ea ran c e: th e d is a p p e a ra n c e o f th e th e o ry in a rt, o f th e a r t in th e body, o f th e bo d y in theory, o f th e a r t in th eo ry . It is a b o u t th e h e te r o g e n eo u s “m a p ” o f possible c o n c e p tio n s o f “w ritin g ” (ecriture), fro m its early 20 o r late21 B arthesian d isp lacem en t b etw een “h isto ry ” a n d “p le a s u re .” It is th e tran s
fo rm a tio n o f th e B ak h tin ian d ialectical in to J u lia Kristeva in te rte x tu a lity ,22 th a t is, th e D e rrid ia n e sta b lish m e n t o f th e “d e c o n s tr u c tio n ,”23 o r th e h e te r o g en e o u s relativisations o f m o d e rn is t re la tio n sh ip s b e tw e e n th e c e n tr e a n d th e m arg in s, d ev e lo p e d by th e “new c ritic ism ” in th e discussions o f T h e Yale School', th e la tte r is th e tu rn o v e r o f th e th e o re tic a l in lite ra tu re w hich displays
20 Roland Barthes, Le degre Zero de L ’ecriture, Paris, Seuil, 1953.
21 Roland Barthes, L e plaisir d u texte, Paris, Seuil, 1973.
22 Julija Kristeva, Lingvistični tekstovi - razprave, Koper, Edicija Hyperion, 2001.
23 Jacques Derrida, W riting a nd Difference, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1978.
T h e L i m i t s o f D i s c o u r s e : A l e c t u r e o n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n “ t h e o r y , ” “ a r t ” a n d .
th e “se d u c in g ” o r “e n jo y in g ” th e totally “m a te ria l” an d , o fte n , figurative skel
e to n o f th e o ry in th e n a rra to lo g y o r th e new historicism , etc... In this wide a n d u n c e rta in “fra m e ,” th e q u e stio n is raised why th e re la tio n sh ip betw een th eo ry , a rt, a n d b o d y so fascinantly, so bew itchingly, so plian tly ap p e ars in lite ra tu re ? For, lite ra tu re is w ritin g (ecriture) a n d n o t only ex c ep tio n al an d p riv ileg ed w riting, b u t in fa c t - as re p e a te d ly p o in te d o u t by Jac q u e s D e rrid a - it is th e “t h re s h o ld ” w h ich m ak es itself ev id en t b etw een “a r t,” “th eo ry ” a n d
“b o d y .”
T h e q u e stio n is a b o u t th e threshold o f w riting; ab o u t th e c re a tio n o f a new n o tio n o f w ritin g w h ic h o t h e r “scien c es” o f society, m a n , c u ltu re o r arts
“t h r o u g h ” lite ra tu re have to g o th ro u g h in o rd e r to re a c h th e w riting inside th e ir ow n m e d iu m - th e m e d iu m o f theory. T his n o tio n is called “g ra m ” o r
“differance" - a n d a c c o rd in g to D e rrid a w h e th e r it is a q u e stio n o f th e o rd e r o f th e sp o k e n o r w ritte n sp e e c h , n o n e o f th e ele m e n ts can fu n c tio n as th e sign w ith o u t re fe rrin g to so m e o th e r e le m e n t w hich, by itself, is n o t sim ply p resent.
B ecause o f this c h a in in g , e a c h “e le m e n t” - p h o n e m e o r g ra p h e m e - is co n stru c te d a fte r th e tra c e o f o th e r ele m e n ts in th e c h a in o r system w ithin it. This c h a in in g , this tissue, is th e text w hich is p ro d u c e d only w ithin th e tran sfo rm a
tio n s o f so m e o t h e r te x t(s ). N o th in g w ithin th e elem e n ts n o r in th e system, n o w h e re a n d n e v e r is sim ply p re s e n t o r absent. Everyw here th e re are only d iffe re n c e s a n d trac es o f traces. In this way th e new th eo ry o f “w ritin g” after stru c tu ra lism was esta b lish e d , a n d , w ith Ja c q u e s D errid a, it was derived from p h ilo so p h ic a l m etaphysics, only to b e conveyed in d iffe re n t ways o f discourses o n lite ra tu re , p a in tin g , film , m usic, th e a tre , o p e ra ... ,24
Theory o f theory
T h e th eo ry o f lite ra tu re , b u t any o th e r th eo ry (o f p a in tin g , m usic, op era, th e a tre , p e rfo rm a n c e art, film ) as well, co u ld b e c o m e a legitim ate p re o c c u p a tio n o f p h ilo so p h y , a n d it h as n o t b e e n assim ilated into it, n o t even th e o re ti
cally. I t c o n ta in s a p ra g m a tic a n d p erfo rm ativ e in sta n t w h ich w eakens it as th e o ry in th e sen se o f consistency, b u t fo r th a t reaso n it gives it th e c h a ra c te r o f u n p re d ic ta b ility in th e p ro d u c tio n s o f th e re la tio n sh ip betw een “th eo ry ,”
“a r t” a n d “b o d y .” O n th e o th e r h a n d , precisely this u n p re d ic tab ility re p re sen ts th e re a so n why th e “th e o ry ” begins to observe, identify, d escribe, ex
24 Peter Brunette, David Wills, Screen /Play. Derrida a n d Film Theory, Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press, 1989; Peter Brunette, David Wills (ed.), Deconstruction and the
Visual Arts. Art, M edia, Architecture. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994; David J. Levin (ed.), Opera Through Other Eyes, Stanford Cal., Stanford University Press, 1994.
plain, in te rp re t a n d discuss, first o f all, th e “th e o ry its e lf’ w ith th e h e lp o f
“sp e e c h ” (parole ) “fro m ” o r “a b o u t” o r “t h r o u g h ” th e re la tio n s h ip s b etw een theory, a rt a n d body. T h ese are th e situ a tio n s in w h ich th e o ry a p p e a rs in th e d o u b le fu n c tio n o f “o bserving” a n d “re fle c tin g .” T h is ca n b e re g a rd e d as th e
“a u to -th e o re tic a l” la u n c h in g o f th e d isc o u rse a b o u t “th e o ry ,” m e d ia te d by d iffe ren t, u n stab le a n d a lte rin g re la tio n sh ip s b etw e en art, b o d y a n d th e o ry w ith in a h y p o th e tic a l o r re a l m o m e n t o f h is to ry o r g e o g r a p h ic a l p la c e ,
“th ro u g h ” th e p ra ctice (situ atio n , event) o f “r e a d in g .” T h e re fo re , totally d if
fe re n t exam ples o f ex p ressed in te re s t in th e o ry in th e triad ic re la tio n sh ip b etw een “a rt,” “b o d y ” a n d “th e o ry ,” have b e e n n o tic e d :
(i) it is som e s o rt o f d ev e lo p e d h e r m e n e u tic q u e s tio n a b o u t in te rp re ta tio n a r o u n d w hich th eo ry th ro u g h b o d y ( body - mind1) w ith re sp e c t to a r t has b e e n c o n s titu te d , b u t, in o r d e r to ask th e q u e s tio n a b o u t “th e o r y ” its e lf (its theo reticallity in th e p ra g m a tic lite ra ry -th e o re tic a l, n o n -p o st-o r-an te-p h ilo - sophical, a n d p h ilo so p h ic a l sense);
(ii) it is in d e e d th e e stab lish m en t o f a W ittg e n s te in ia n p o sitio n , a c c o rd in g to w hich th eo ry has to b e su b jecte d to “th e ra p y ” analysis a n d th a t, in this way, aesthetics is n o t seen as “d isco u rse” o n a r t a n d body, b u t as th e “m e ta ” analy
sis a n d criticism o f any “p o ssible” s p e e c h a n d w ritin g o n a rt, in fact, as th e m eta-criticism ;
(iii) it is th e co n fro n ta tio n o f lim its o f d isc o u rse o n scien c e a n d th e o ry w hich h a p p e n e d with th e “fissure” w ithin stru c tu ra lis m in th e p ro c ess o f “w alkin g”
tow ards th eo rie s a fte r stru ctu ra lism (th e o rie s o f in te rte x tu a lity , n arrato lo g y , L acanian theoretical psychoanalysis, d ec o n stru c tio n , schizo-analysis o f D eleuze a n d G u attari, B a u d rilla rd ’s th eo ry o f sim u la c ru m , th e o ry o f c u ltu re/c u ltu r a l studies/ - it is a b o u t th e g estu re o r a tte m p t to lo cate , identify, d esc rib e, ex
plain a n d in te rp re t th e lim its o f scien c e o r, m o re dram atically , its in v ersio n (reverse, lining) in th eo ry as th e p ra g m a tic a n d m a te ria l p ro d u c tio n o f m e a n in g a n d sense;
(iv) it is th e estab lish m en t o f th e c o n c e p t o f “a n ti-th e o re tic a l” as th e th e o re ti
cal p ro b le m w ithin th e tra n sfo rm a tio n ( m irro r e d m u ltip lic a tio n , m u ta tio n s o r m etastasis) o f th e th e o re tic a l w riting, as th e lite rary w ritin g w hich m a n i
fests its h o riz o n o f fu n c tio n a l-n arra tiv e in te rg e n re p ro d u c tio n s , a n d th e shift o f any d iscourse tow ards th e figurai sig h t o f n a rra tio n s se t in m o tio n ,25 a n d (v) it is th e c o n fro n ta tio n w ith th e out-o f-tex tu al, w hich leads to th e body itself (bio-political, behavioural-social o r fig u rai) th a t e n te rs th e “g a m e ” (game or play) o f th e perfo rm ativ e p e rfo rm in g o f th e th e o re tic a l o n th e “stag e;” o f
25 Kathy Acker, Bodies o f Work - Essays, Serpent’s Tail, London, 1997.
T h e L i m i t s o f D i s c o u r s e : A l e c t u r e o n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n “ t h e o r y , ” “a r t ” a n d
th e a tric a liz a tio n as th e “s e c o n d stag e” w ith re s p e c t to th e sciences o f lite ra
tu re , d u rin g th e ir lo n g h isto ry fro m A ristotle to D e rrid a .26
Conclusion
R e sp e c te d lad ies a n d g e n tle m a n , in d e e d , I co u ld n o t miss this o p p o rtu nity, I c o u ld n o t m iss th e possibility to, here-and-now , in fr o n t o f you, o n my ow n body, m irro r, in d e x , d e sc rib e a n d in te rp re t th e u n c e rta in b u t essential re la tio n sh ip s b etw e en “a r t ” ( lite ra tu re , m usic, pain tin g , th e a tre , o p era, film ) a n d “th e o ry ” (o f sp e e c h , w riting, science, d iscourse) o f th e XX century. I c o u ld n o t re sist th a t fa sc in a tin g ch a lle n g e, th a t alm ost in s u rm o u n ta b le , las
civious a n d irre sistib le love triangle o f “a r t,” “th e o ry ” a n d “bod y.” T his is my c o n fro n ta tio n w ith th e d isco u rse , since, really, th e “dis-course,” is, originally, th e a c t, th e h e r e - a n d - t h e r e w o n d e r in g , th e c o m in g s a n d g o in g s, th e
“fu lfilm e n t,” th e “in trig u e s .” In this love triangle o f “th eo ry ,” “b o d y ” a n d “a rt,”
th e lover really n e v e r stops w o n d e rin g in his m in d , trying new declaration s, a n d c o n s tru c tin g p lo ts a g a in st h im self.27 In th e field o f “id eolog y,” in th e field o f th e tra n s m itta n c e a n d flow o f n o tio n s a n d ideas w hose strength is precisely in th a t they a re n o t p erfec tly a d d re sse d a n d th a t they are n o t clearly an d h a rm o n io u sly s itu a te d in so m e, even h y p o th etical ce n tre.
26 Gregory Ulmer, “The Objects of Post-Criticism,” in: Hal Foster (ed.), Postmodern Cul
ture, London, Pluto Press, 1983.
27 Roland Barthes, L over’s Discourse/Fragments d ‘u n discours amoureux, New York, Hill &
Wang, 1979.
