Are There Such Things As Post-Theory Art and Artist-Placed Public Document Art?
In the debate about whether there is such a thing as post-theory art, and whether there is merit to the art practice of artist-placed public document art, there appear to be several points, or distinctions, or elements that may comprise the definitions of what we are talking about when we use these terms.
One potential definition relates to conceptual art, and text-based conceptual art, as to what may have evolved into what may be called post-theory art.
Another potential definition relates to what may be a form of post-theory art, or a way of practicing post-theory art, that is called artist-placed public document art, which appears to have its roots in text-based art, performance art, happenings, and activist art.
Again, the basic debate is this: Do these things exist in a way that materially justifies different names as different variations of conceptual art and a conceptual art practice? And, even if so, do these things matter in a way that is of any relevance to the art world, and more importantly, to the greater world beyond art, in this time and place?
On the one hand, while needing additional art history research and analysis, it seems that both post-theory art and artist-placed public document art constitute valid terms to identify emerging but identifiable variations and practices of independent art history and cultural significance within art history over the past century, particularly with respect to conceptual art and conceptual text based art.
On the other hand, recognizing that debate exists on these points, it also seems that, at this time (2024-2025), these are merely proposed terms for proposed areas of art within and/or evolving from existing conceptual art and text-based art practices.
This contrary view in the debate states that, even if post-theory art and artist-placed document art both exist as art practices, it remains unclear from both an art history and an analytical perspective as to whether one or both are meaningfully distinct from existing practices with conceptual art, post-conceptual art, and neo-conceptual art.
This brief article suggests that a tentative agreement on the potential definitional elements of post-theory art and artist-placed document art is helpful for evaluating the pros and cons of the above debate.
Some Proposed Definitions To Assist Reasoned Debate and Analysis
With that in mind, here are some of the proposed elements that seem to mark these art practices–post-theory art and artist-placed public document art–as conceptually and materially distinct from conceptual art and conceptual art practices to date:
Post-Theory Art Defined:
A possible definition of Post-Theory Art, based on its apparent elements: Post-Theory Art proposes one expansion of the scope of conceptual art and one narrowing of the scope of conceptual art: (1) distinct from the idea-as-art, as in traditional conceptual art, the broader human act of theory-making, and connecting and relating multiple ideas by theories is also art; and (2) only humans, and not the artificial, can create such theories as art.
These elements are proposed to be at the core of the definition of Post-Theory Art.
Of note, this proposed definition of Post-Theory Art asserts that much of art, and much of theory, can come only from humanity. Some theories just come to us, by human inspiration or similar concepts of human creativity; some theories be built by Artificial Intelligence.
To preserve the human role in creative expression, the humanity of our art and of our theories: This is also proposed to be at the core of the definition of Post-Theory Art.
Artist-Placed Public Document Art Defined:
A possible definition of Artist-Placed Public Document Art seems best to focus on its steps of action:
Artist-Placed Public Document Art, as one form of Post-Theory Art, occurs (1) when an artist creates a theory of public importance, and then (2) embeds it in a text-based artwork, even one of pure text, such as a document, and then (3) places the theory-in-text art document in our public institutions of government, such as our state and federal courts, where (4) the public court’s own rules, such as rules of procedure, compel or require a written public response–such as court rulings–that are transparent to the public and then forever recorded–archived–in the court’s public docket and reported decisions.
Of note, it appears that for the first time, under such a definition, activist art proactively sets the terms of engagement on issues of public importance, in public and government spaces. Now it is on the inside, and the public institution and the private actors required to respond cannot look away.
And yet it also appears, under such a definition, that this is activist art that is not dogmatic or didactic: Artist-placed public document art does not, and cannot, tell anyone what to think, or what to do–rather, while proactive and while causing a compelled response, it does not know, and cannot control, what the response to be.
It can only document what happens inside the public institution when a theory is brought before it, to be decided not by the artist, but by the government institution, pursuant to public norms, public policy, and public law.
Another possible element of the definition of Artist-Placed-Public Document Art appears to be this: It is more than text-based art, more than performance art, and more than traditional activist art, including because it evolves our public institutions such as our public courts into places of human art; our laws into artistic mediums; and our judiciary into a performative art participant on human issues to be decided by humans.
If so, it would follow that, through Artist-Placed Public Document ART, art itself becomes a real-world legal action for the greater public interest good–for humans, by humans.
Is There a Distinction Between The Human and the Artificial?
It seems that implicit in the definitions of both Post-Theory Art and Artist-Placed Public Document Art is this: It is only about we humans if it is made by us. This is an area that seems ripe for further research and analysis. For now, it is of note that, at least as to documents placed in courts, the artist can only be human given that, at this time, only human beings are allowed to appear before our courts, and only humans, so far, are allowed to be the judges and juries who determine the fates of other humans.
— This article was conceived and drafted during 2024 and early 2025.