There are thousands of theories about art and even more practice of it. Referring to the first act of art it is obvious that theory came much later, at first there was a long way of pictorial act.
Let’s take any period of contemporary art practice and try to reflect on artists and think if they are under the theoretical influence? If they seem to be free from any influence then let’s see what upbringing they had and was there a theoretical school behind their practice. Self-taught? Have they never read a book in their life? My point is that doesn’t matter what kind of artist are you – male or female, socialist or psychologically unstable, figurative or abstract artist, social reality with its globalism and time flow integrates into all of us. This integration occurs at the expense of someone else opinion which can comprise and mother’s theories and Marx’s. But this makes a big difference in how you apply it.
For instance V.I.Surikov “Boyarynya Morozova” 1887 used academic approach and theory to the monumental and easel work.
Ong Schen Tchow “Bamboo” (beginning of XX century) another Chinese artist, despite his western education created works with a Chinese classical painting style.
Jackson Pollock creatively pours and splashes paint on a surface and through pure practice formed a new theory. Clement Greenberg was a great supporter of Pollock’s work. He believed that the most important thing in the artwork is the optical experience. As a result of Pollock’s work, there was a big part of theory but he worked it through or perhaps he was an instrument in the hands of the great theorist C. Greenberg who wanted to promote and develop his theory.
This example I would apply to all the other artists who could appear more like practitioners, but behind their work always scrutinized theories. Kazimir Malevich “White on white”, Damien Hirst “For the love of God”, Bill Viola “Acceptance”…
Comments