How might we re-examine the complex dynamics of art in a modern

society by understanding the philosophies which fuels its existence?

Luke Davis

Senior Project Advisor: Jessica McCallum

Abstract

In correlation to Foucaultian analysis on power in a society, art in a modern society is inherently

hierarchical and harmful to diverse modes of artistic expression and consumption. Thus,
examining these power dynamics within art, one may be able to shift the dynamic of art and the
modes by which we comprehend its vastness. Through analysis on the modern dichotomy of
art/artist/viewer, I have concluded that the future of art lies in the radical revolution of artistic
experiences. My analysis proves that a way to progress art as an entity, and not an object, is to
understand the self in relation to art as the art itself, the artist, and a viewer. Ultimately unveiling
the deep interpersonal and societal ways in which power and discipline is enacted onto everyday
experiences, and more specifically, onto art.

12th Grade Humanities

Animas High School
April 1, 2021
Davis 1
 Davis 2

Part 1: Introduction
“So long as I have questions to which there are no answers, I shall go on writing,”

(Lispector 3). Throughout the course of her work, author Clarice Lispector exemplified the

condition of art, as it was understood in her way. Here, she considers her perpetual need for art

through the existence of the question. One question may birth another, and other, until you have

the existence of the world in your hands. Perhaps in this way, the divide of the postmodern

condition and the modern one, are in fact from the same question. Yet, from where do we base

our own understanding of the function of art, and in what way does this concept of the question

create the possibility for diverse creative engagement?

The re-examination of art in a modern society and its discursive functions1, I propose,

will provide a space for diverse consumption and conceptualization of art through the

deconstructions of its structural binaries. If art is a constant, and may be understood, in contrast

to modern society, perhaps the existence of art is in its own question. It may exist by its

impossibility, for if the understanding of art is a constant which can be understood, then the

persistence of it would vanish- off into a metaphysical void. If art may exist, we must in some

ways define it, yet, the second question I choose to pose lies in the postmodern contrary: when

does the attempt to define the boundaries of art become an attempt, conscious or unconscious, to

power through narratives of art? How might we explore art in a new way in order to bloom the

possibility of impossibility- the perpetuation of art? Further, it is my understanding that rather

than an examination of the validity of the modern versus the postmodern, the path to

conceptualizing art in a new way is through a total re-examination of art in a modern society.

Though, through this process of re-examination, there is a layer of radical curiosity which must

be had as the process of exploring the arts vastness requires that one is curious in its possibilities.

1
The functions which relate to a certain field of discourse.
 Davis 3

It is not my intention here to apply a radical argument, but rather, a radical option for which the

vast experiences which may be produced by art as a force may be uncovered and explored in

unique, innovative ways. This will then lead to the shifting hierarchical positions of art, often

upheld by institutional figures.

Part 2: Historical Context

In David Galef’s Shifts and Divides: The Modernist-Postmodernist Scale in Literature,

Galef analyzes the divide of the Modernists and the Postmodernists, and in a simpler way,

explains what is the force which drives the two to a divide. As stated by Galef, “In modernism,

the truth is extremely difficult to ascertain, but through an expanded sense of time, psychology, a

pluralistic view of character, and a new vocabulary, one can approximate reality. In

postmodernism, the truth is impossible to determine, and all techniques of modernism cannot

help fill the void.” As an introduction, though the passage in ways simplifies many aspects of

both philosophies, as a ground understanding of the two, Galef recognizes the core of why each

philosophy operates in the way it does. Though the two share a complex level of similarities such

as critical skepticism, and a hand in the moral and ethical operations of a society, the stark

difference along with the modes of understanding truth and meaning their application of when

meaning and truth is applied, by who, and for what reason?

Michel Foucault, a rather infamous postmodernist centered his work around

understanding the power dynamics of western society through history. Often throughout his

works, he referred to the ‘dominating order,’ and to the theoretical concept of subject and object,

Foucualt’s philosophical works, within this divide served to further counter modern narratives of

truth and meaning, specifically in the post-war period of WWII period (Galef). In the potent era
 Davis 4

after the horrific events of the war, the grounds for postmodernism began to hold philosophical

and societal importance. This dissolution of security which was posed by WWII was a huge

societal, interpersonal, and social shift throughout the world. As stated by Serbian performance

artist Marina Abramovic in regard to her piece on war, “Balkan Baroque,” she states: “You can’t

wash the blood off your hands as you can't wash the shame from the war.” Perhaps, in relation to

Abramovic’s thoughts, the war had revealed the ways in which modern society attempted a

narrative truth which resulted in the murder of millions around the globe. Thus, if Western

society were dependent on societal narratives based on a perception of truth, the ‘illusion’ could

not be maintained in the light of postmodern critiques. As there could be no longer a trust in

claims to natural hierarchies, the world staked their place as witnesses to the harm of imposed,

pseudo-scientific, and arbitrary narrative powers. Thus, the postmodern era was born. With its

roots in deep skepticism and a deep examination of authority and power, postmodernism begged

the world to explore the ways in which societal narratives enact unique restrictive binaries.

On the grounds from which I base my argument, grand narratives of historical analysis on

the nature of human truth and meaning is the realm in which harmful and dominating narratives

hold an unquestioned power. Relating to the concept of art in society, if the basis of a modern

society relies on the validity of truth and meaning and thus the creation of binaries, then, how

would this then translate to the way in which art, and if not art, the perception of art, functions in

a modern way? As a being which is malleable in its realm of perception, perhaps the entity of art

supplies an example to understand the ways in which the creation of art in an historiological time

frame, is reflective of the narrative which it has been subjected to. As the creation of art and the

perception of art is apart of a modern society which posits that truth may be found with an

‘expanded sense of [...]’ (Galef), then every attempt to act through art, philosophy, or writing
 Davis 5

must be subject to any multitude of binaries rooted in modernism- as binaries are constructed as

an attempt to truth or attempt to find meaning, in turn they ascribe meaning in through binaries.

Part 3: Research and Analysis

Through the Foucaultian understanding of the dynamics of society, the underlying source

of the construction of modern society rests on the maintenance and exchange of power in

complex and unique ways. This reveals that the dynamics of a modern society cannot be

restricted to a this/that mode of understanding, that in fact, one can come to understand Western

society by analyzing the ways in which the diverse power structures perform. Considering art as

a societal ‘discipline,’2 art is a construction of institutional and hierarchical power that is enacted

on every part of art: its consumption, creation, and maintenance. In connection with power and

the consideration of art as a ‘discipline,’ Foucault in his essay “The means of Correct Training,”

from “Discipline and Punish” examines the power dynamic and difference between the concept

of discipline and punishment. Here, Foucault writes:

“...The chief function of the disciplinary power is to “train,” rather than to select and levy; or, no doubt, to

train in order to levy and select all the more. It does not link forces together in order to reduce them, it

seeks to bind them together in such a way as to multiply and use them. Instead of bending all its subjects

into a single, uniform mass, it separates, analyzes, differentiates, carries its procedures of decomposition to

the point of necessary and sufficient units. [...] Discipline “makes” individuals; it is the specific technique

of a power that regards individuals as both objects and as instruments of its exercise.

2
In this sense, art is a societal discipline as its modes of impact are controlled and influenced by a variety of modern
systems. This can be seen through institutions, economic trade, or even universities. Art, in this way, is inherently
subject to the objectification of modern ethics, structures, and perceptions of truth.
 Davis 6

Through his analysis on discipline, Foucualt offers a lens to view the function of

discipline as a tool which shapes the way an individual operates through a society. Considering

art as a discipline, one must question: in what ways does the function of art ‘differentiate’3 in

order to multiply, and ultimately, create a hierarchy of art? If art has recognizable, definite

boundaries then it differentiates- defines what is art, what is not, what is good art, and separates

the audience from the art4. It multiplies by giving the materials and grounds for which art may be

made, the art then is affirmed in its existence by the museum and other institutional figures. In

considering Foucault's concepts of discipline, through examining art within a modern society, its

functions fit within the descriptors of a disciplinary power. If discipline ‘makes an individual’ as

Foucualt posits, then art itself, as a being of discipline, enacts its own unique sets of values, or

constraints, which shapes the way one is able to interact in the art-world.

On the basis that art in a Western/modern society is based on hierarchical value, the

modes by which we consume art, mostly by means of museums and institutions, signifies a sense

of ‘timelessness’ which further perpetuates arts hierarchy- this both relates to the space which is

considered appropriate for art, and signifies that time can determine value and relevance to a

piece of art. Explored by Fredrick J Potegieter in “On thinking about the nexus between art and

the everyday aesthetics,” everyday aesthetics signifies a more ‘transformative’ nature. To

compare, fine art, as Potegieter proposes, signifies a certain 'timelessness,’ and would logically

rely on the preservation of these pieces of art, often found through the museums and studios. The

‘fine art’s’ counterpart, everyday aesthetics, relies on a transformation that is immaterial and

momentary5. In this sense, would it not be the arts goal in a modern society to strive for

3
In this context, differentiation is a symptom of discipline as it is used to separate based on any conjurable
reasonings- this is enacted through both those who are disciplined, and discipline itself.
4
Object/ viewer relationship.
5
As Potegieter describes, fine art functions through an event-like description; everyday aesthetics is a part of daily
life therefore it cannot hold the same event-like function.
 Davis 7

‘timelessness?’ For timelessness would ensure the arts validity and thus its preservation. In a

visible state, this poses the question which asks the validity of the art that has been historically

preserved. In his piece, with the understanding of art as ‘fine,’ Potegieter utilizes Derrida's

‘deconstruction’ in order to identify the contradictions and the discursive practices necessary to

consider art as an institutional and ‘timeless’ figure. Through understanding that hierarchical art

operates in a way that utilizes discipline, and this discipline creates a multitude of modes of

being within art, Potegieter recognizes another way in which the disciplinary function of art can

be understood through the ways in which art is preserved or understood. As explained by

Potegieter:

… ‘Fine art’ exists and is intrinsically different from all other human endeavors; also that the coupling of

art and aesthetic beauty ‘was thought of as a discovery about the essence bother of art and the aesthetic.’

This was one of the reasons for the establishment of dedicated fine art museums, as distinct from cultural

history museums. Furthermore, theories and movements such as disinterested aesthetics[...] aestheticism,

the art-for art's-sake movement and ‘pure’ formalism [...] have in common the conviction that ‘the

aesthetic’ and the art are inextricably bound together and differentiated from all other forms of human

experience.

Here, as Potegier explores that the aesthetics of the art is bound inextricably to the art, he

reveals another aspect of discipline within art- art, as it is understood within modern boundaries,

must be able to represent timelessness, aesthetic value, and artistic value6. Further, Potgieter

recognizes that there is both an institutional reason for the existence of the discipline of art and a

use of art as a form of transcendence. As Foucualt also proposes that art can be a form of

6
Though the aesthetics and the art are decided in composition by the artist, timelessness along with aesthetic value
and artistic value cannot, within modernism, be decided by the artist, it is rather imposed onto the art by bigger
institutional figures such as the museum or the gallery. In this situation, the art is the necessary variable and the
gallery is the sufficient.
 Davis 8

transcendence of the self, the emphasis of when this happens and what this transcendence does is

disagreed upon between modernists and postmodernists (Peters). In traditional understandings of

art within the West, the understanding of art will signify a multitude of things, but as explained

above, the qualifications of ‘fine art’ entail the explicit identification of art and aesthetics as one

entity. In this way, art in the West is an aesthetic experience as well as a visual experience, which

has been transformed into a market of such experiences in an event format i.e. the

gallery/museum. The monetization of such experiences has thus changed the way one is able to

consume art. With the understanding that within such institutions there is a hierarchical order of

the art exhibited and not exhibited, and that there is monetary motive to reinforce such binaries,

one cannot assume that art as a force within a Western society is able to operate outside of

unique power dynamics, some of which are in fact enforced art based institutions.

Further, the institutionalization of art as a commodity has inflicted the same power-like

structures Foucualt examines in “The Means of Correct Training,” where Foucualt establishes

that “In the perfect camp [referring to institutional structures] power would be exercised solely

through exact observation; each gaze would form a part of an overall functioning of power.'' The

act of visibility, in relation to the realm of the ‘dominating order,’ as Foucualt claims, is an act of

disciplinary power flourishing. Though Foucault establishes further in “The Means of Correct

Training” that the establishment of discipline creates the place by which power may manifest.

Foucault describes here the plethora of institutions in which the means of disciplinary action

create a realm where punishment is possible. Schools, prisons, and infantries are all designated

with a certain disciplinary order which is enacted through the act of observation and visibility.

Therefore, within the institutionalization of art, there lies a double layer of power present; the

institution is able to hold monetary monopolization over the value market in terms of aesthetics,
 Davis 9

and the audience is able to de-objectify themselves, and partake in the act of the common power

dynamic- subject/object through the dynamic of the view. Here, the institution of ‘fine art’ is

curating a space where the hierarchical observation is applied uniquely by the viewer.

In opposition to this visible power dynamic, the postmodern contrary would propose that

what is necessary is to reconstruct the ways in which this power of visibility is enacted onto art,

and thus, perform the deconstruction of the power dynamics that restrict the performance of art.

What is more special about the paradigm of the deconstruction of art though, is the introduction

of ontological ideas that further question the relations of the self in relation to the idea of the

episteme7, understanding of the self as an object within this sphere. If within this relation of

visibility, that enacts power, the question lies not just in what is being viewed but who is doing

the viewing, and from which state is the object being viewed, and what variables should be

understood in order to completely comprehend the vastness of the art/self relationship. Examples

of art of this kind can be seen well through the work of the previously mentioned Marina

Abramovic. The performance artist is infamous for her use of her body, actions, and her as the

‘body’ of her work. Utilising the energy of an audience, the work of Abramovic offers the

‘audience’ the chance to forgo the routine dynamic of art/artist, and in fact become the art

themselves. Particularly, her piece ‘Rhythm 0.’ In this piece, Abramovic allowed the audience to

do whatever they pleased with her body with the objects she provided on a table- objects for

pleasure, pain, and death. In the 6 hour duration of the piece, Abramovic has a glass of water, she

was teased with a feather, and was also cut into in order to drink her blood, clothes torn off of her

body, her body- carried onto tables where a knife was stuck between her legs. And in the end, as

she describes, “...when the gallerist come and say this piece, it's finished that I start being by

7
Episteme, as often referred to by Foucault, refers to the means, in their entirety, for which something is able to
exist in a period of time.
 Davis 10

myself and start walking through the audience naked and with blood, and tears in my eyes,

everybody run away, literally run out of the door,” (Appendix A). Within this piece, the object

was the body of Abramovic, and in the face of the audience, once she was no longer considered

an autonomous being, an object, she was able to experience the experience of the object in both a

literal and metaphorical sense. In conjunction with this, the art is the very act perpetrated onto

the artist's body. For it is then, as Potegieter describes it, that tangible ‘transformation’ is seen.

Yet in contrast to the modes of modernism, these acts of ‘transformational’ art are directly reliant

on the engagement of the audience, thus making the audience a part of the art: the art/artist/and

the viewer, and moreso, these acts are separate from aesthetic and artistic intention and value,

thus, in the space of modern art, art which conforms to neither binary cannot exist as art, as the

aesthetics and the art are bound together. The act of participation in this form of art, if it really is

transformative, is also based on the actual transformation of the viewer, and in order to affirm

that ‘transformation’ may be taking place is up nearly entirely on the reflection from the

‘viewer.”

Considering the work of Foucault, he proposes the act of studying oneself is inherent to

the comprehension of the origins of any piece of the world. As analyzed by Michael A. Peters in

“Foucault, counselling, and the aesthetics of existence,” the very act of art within society is

unique in its use as a tool of transcendence of existence. Here, Peters states:

“If it is the case that we remake ourselves through art, writing, especially utilising spiritual experiences

initiated by the Greeks in the Western tradition, using the arts of self-reflection through artistic techniques

of reading writing, then why not through everyday conversation and interaction?”

As stated above by Peters, the inherent function of things such as philosophy, art, or

religion is self-transformation, then in order for such things to have impact, they require an

interaction and reflection from the person who is acting within those realms of human
 Davis 11

transformation. What is unique about the way that the arts function though is their ability to

enact a unique form of transformation from the ‘artist,’ in the case of art. As there are such

objects within specifically religion that offer a transformational exchange, the unique difference

between artistic objects and religious objects is the way the community relates to a specific

object. Aside from Western religions which often recognize and trace the origins and ‘founders’

of that specific religion, often religious objects hold a ‘universal author’ in a sense. The ‘author’

is whomever may be utilising the object in a way that is meaningful8. Yet within art in a modern

society, the author is arguably as important and integral to the piece of art. The material artistic

object then is not able to stand within its own artistry, it is being affected, for better or for worse,

by the author who created the object. Thus, as a being of self transformational qualities, art is

unique in the way that it enacts hierarchical meaning into material objects and utilises the being

of the author to further enforce this hierarchy.

From his work What is an author? Foucualt examines the discourse evoked by an

‘author's’ name, and examines the ultimate meaning of the ‘author’ as a functioning being. As an

author, there is an evocation of any and all spheres of discourse related to the ‘author’s’ name. In

relation to art and its institutions, this author function can be seen through the force of a

reputation. Often through the sphere of ‘fine art,’ the name associated with the work impacts the

value and the validity of the work at hand in the eyes of a modern institution of art. Thus, as

Foucault presents, the author function maintains a sort of transcendental power as an entity

which creates. This power, though, can be enacted in any which way possible- it is not to imply

this relationship is inherently ‘negative’ Continuing, the author function, within the workings of

8
An example of this can be seen through indegenous fetishes. Among a plethora of North American indegnous
tribes, fetishes are religious and ceremonial objects which can be used across families, tribes and individuals (What
is a Fetish?) In contrast with art, an object such as fetishes is about the complex personal relationship to the person
who is using the object, yet institutional modern art requires that the art is consumed and considered under the light
of the artist.
 Davis 12

institutional art, creates a ‘dominating order’ of sorts. If the author holds a level of meaning that

is intrinsic to the consumption of the work, then the ways in which the museum is able to

function then is able to support itself. The work is valid because it is valid, it has meaning, the

author has meaning, etc. In a way, the recognition of the author function exposes the ways in

which the structure of the museum is multi-layered in its modal function. There is both power

being held and applied by the ‘author,’ the space from which they exhibit, and the selection of art

as objects; the subjectifications of the audience is where this power dynamic lies. The value that

is applied by the ‘author,’ in this sphere of discourse, transcends the actual work and its ability to

have meaning. The meaning is then premeditated. When regarding the hierarchical position of art

in a modern society, the author is another way in which art’s unique power dynamics is enacted

onto any discursive functions of art. In essence though, the author being does not directly

correlate to hierarchical power in art. This is not to say that art should be completely removed

from the artist; as referenced above, the artist’s art is an object resulting from their own self

transformation and reflection therefore, the art will reflect the artist. Yet, I rather argue that the

artistic value of a piece should not be condemned nor decided by the artist who created the work,

the piece itself exists in a realm where it operates independently while being recognized as an

extension of a person.

Through understanding the multitude of power dynamics within artistic endeavors, being

able to shift the way one is able to interact with art becomes possible in a liberal way. Through

understanding the power imposed by the author, the institution, the discipline, one has obtained

the liberty to shift the medium of art as a whole in an individual way. Though I have discussed

the material and immaterial impacts of art in a modern society, the implications of modern art

must also be understood in its symbolic presence within a society, by doing so, a genealogical
 Davis 13

understanding of the complex ways art exists may be understood. From a general standpoint, as a

large being in modern society, what would art look like if it were able to operate outside of its

binary constraints? Further, what would art look like if, as referenced previously, what would art

look like if it were not bound to aesthetics? In regards to the concept of symbolic meaning and

understanding of art, I wish to analyze it through the proposal of the why. In relation to the work

of Derrida, the why is inherently a question of the meaning. In the face of a hierarchical

institution, in this case- fine art and the museum, on an aesthetic/symbolic level the importance

of such institutions must be evaluated. As Derrida explores, the meanings of specific symbols,

most often in his analysis language, is an extremely complicated subject. In relation to the

reliance on meaning in art or the concept of truth, Derrida through his work provides a theory

which ‘deconstructs’ the ways in which one relates to symbols, especially in the context of

conversations on meaning.

Deconstruction, the Symbol, and the Symbiosis of modern art and mediated meaning

With the work of Derrida, what is most apparent is the polarization of his writings due to

his radical theoretical dismantlement of hierarchical Western society, but most infamously, his

grammatological findings in his work “Of Grammatology.” His work of deconstruction is a

“criticism of Platonism,” (Lawlor) which is defined by the belief that existence is structured in

terms of oppositions (separate substances or forms) and that the oppositions are hierarchical,

with one side of the opposition being ‘more valuable than the other,’ (Lawlor). In essence,

Derrida's deconstruction takes a skeptical look at the hierarchical order of language in his

gramatological studies. The heart of Derrida's deconstruction breaks down the binaries which

aim to constitute a mediated meaning, and as Derrida concludes, meaning is an iterative being,

and cannot hold objective meaning to each individual. The root of Derrida’s language analysis
 Davis 14

can be seen through his term used as a word to signify a double meaning in french, as différance

references in French to differ from or to defer to something. In this way, as Derrida states,

“Their [languages] possibility is in their impossibility,” (qtd. in Peters). In correlation to his use

of ‘supplementation,’ language is symbolic, and is not definite as it is in a constant state of

utilising symbols to signify meaning yet, meaning cannot be applied by the author rather,

meaning is a malleable entity at the subjectification of the viewer. If art sustains a disciplinary

function, then in ways, the reliance on the discipline would be upon truth and meaning.

This, in a way, creates a unique power dynamic, yet a profound liberty. Though the

meaning of a piece is under the viewers subjectification, there is a liberating function to the way

that the viewer is able to apply meaning specific to their experience. This dynamic, following

Foucault's ideas on power, does not restrict any freedom for the artist nor the art, nor the

institution- ultimately supplying the ‘liberal subject’s’ signification of liberty,’ choice making’ as

it does not create a ‘dominating order.’

In conjunction, Derrida’s and Foucault’s works build off of each other through their

critiques of premeditated modern structures. As stated by Karlis Racevskis in “Interpreting

Foucault,” he states:

“... the function of the “savoir dimension” [ Foucualt often refers to a savior dimension, a dimension which

bases its existence on knowledge] of thought is made apparent: it is he dimension that is inevitably “bound

up with social and political practices,” since it shapes knowledge and decisions even before they are made

by determining situations to be analyzed and the remedies be prescribed.”

Foucault in this way is the counterpart of objective unquestioned knowledge. As

knowledge is the basis of the ‘savoir dimension,’ then there must not be analysis of the validity

of it, but a study of the means by which we know a situation must need a remedy to be

prescribed. This is exemplary of the West’s function of the ‘other.’ If there is a remedy to be
 Davis 15

applied to an artistic entity in this context, what would qualify the art which is in ‘need of a

remedy?’ The differentiation of the art that is ‘healthy’ requires a standpoint enacted by a moral

and ethical high ground- in other words, the differentiation of the good/bad, this/that,

healthy/unhealthy etc. Yet, if the means from which we understand art, (language, symbols,

thoughts, etc.) is faulty in its attempt to prescribe an objective reality, a reality separate from the

‘savoir dimension’, then, as Derrida's deconstruction points, there cannot logically, morally, or

reasonably be a standard which determines the value of the museum indefinitely. Further, the

hierarchical power and workings of art in a modern society is reliant on the illusion that it is a

stride towards a semblance of truth, meaning, or authenticity. Yet if the very grounds for which

we understand meaning is nearly entirely subjective to the individual, then what are the grounds

for art existing outside of a modern hierarchy? If the basis for the existence of the museum is

upon moral or ethical obligations to the maintenance of this artistic hierarchy, then the basis of

the institution as we currently understand it fails to account for the vast possibility for artistic

experience. The dynamic of the viewer and the object, for example, restricts the audience to that

dynamic and rejects the possibility for the unique interactions that the audience may have. If an

art could consist of the inclusion of the audience, in diverse ways, the possibilities of art, in

whatever meaning it may be subject to, will truly be infinite. Further, creating a future where the

value of the art is much more complex than its deciding factors: visibility, perceived authenticity,

aesthetics, author, and monetary value.

Performative truth, values, and meaning

To exemplify an iteration of arts vastness, the piece “Telling Stories: performing authenticity in

the confessional art of Tracey Emin,” written by Laura Lake Smith explores the divergent art of
 Davis 16

Tracy Emim, a female artist from the U.K. whom utilises storytelling, confessions, and objects

from her life to engage the audience in art that is not always a sculpture, a painting, nor a film.

The philosophical roots of Emin's work can best be seen through the concept of ‘performativity’

a concept often studied by the postmodernists with the core question: at what point does one

become authentic? What is authenticity in relation to the self? The concept of ‘gender

performativity,’ introduced by philosopher and professor Judith Butler, employs postmodern

philosophy in order to examine gender as a force seperate from biological sex. The concept of

gender critical thought is dependent on the concept of western culture and the examination of

values in relation to gender. Butler proposes that “‘gender’[...] ‘is a kind of persistent

impersonation that passes as the real,’” (Lennon 24). Relating to the work of Emin, the

performance of a truth is more of a societal projection rather than an absolute observation.

Further, as art is hierarchical, and one of the ways in which the hierarchy of art is instilled is

through perceived authentic expression, Emin and Butler both explore that perhaps the truth is a

more complex entity than what can be measured through tools of modern thought. As stated by

Emin:

Truth is such a transient thing… It's like with all my work, people say, ‘ Oh, the honesty and truth behind

it’- but it’s all edited, it's all calculated, it's all decided. I decide to show this or that part of the truth, which

isn't necessarily the whole story, it’s just what I decide to give you. (qtd. In Lennon 305)

Shown by the artist, the truth which is being displayed by Emin is completely calculated.

The calculated filter of truth within art cannot be escaped, as any attempt to escape the filter of

truth would also result in the same conclusion.; one cannot ‘accurately’ nor entirely represent a

truth, and any attempt to do so in an objective sense, as supported by Derrida, will always fail as

the reliance on symbols within society can’t entirely supply meaning. Further,

languages/symbols meaning, as Derrida would propose, lies in the intricate connections of every
 Davis 17

single word and symbol possible. On another level, with the understanding that ways in which

we are able to understand the working world is subject to the user, along with the idea that there

is a performative aspect to any single aspect of life, as it is all influenced by the societal and

social context of the time, the observation of art such as Emins will change the perceived truth

from its intended truth. There cannot be any control over this shifting dynamic. Attempting to

define truth in an object requires understanding the value in not defining the subject's truth which

frees the viewer, the artist, and the art from the hierarchical cycles of modernity. Yet there is a

profound radical nature of recognizing the faults of symbols. The radical shift in the power

dynamics of art cannot rely on semblances of truth or meaning, as these entities, in our current

faulty understanding, will always be under language shift. As explored by Clarice Lispector in

her novel “The Hour of The Star,” she writes: “As soon as you discover the truth it's already

gone: the moment passed. I ask: what is it? Reply: it's not.”(Lispector 28) Exemplifying the

paradigm of truth in art explored by Tracey Emin. The observation of a truth changes it, it shifts

and evolves into something perhaps one cannot even recognize anymore. Yet, this is not to say

that truth cannot be present, it is rather recognizing that the truth is something which is universal,

yet will shift in the minds of any and all individuals. Thus, there cannot be a reliance on this

‘objective truth.’ Along with this, the degree to which something is true, or the totality of truth is

an ideal which is not definite specifically in the face of art. The degree to which one decides to

portray a piece of art only has the capacity to hold so much truth, and cannot be representative of

transcendent meaning as the audience/artist/art has the liberating power to interact with the piece

in any amount of ways possible. This is not to say that one cannot portray truth, but rather an

argument that any portrayal of truth is exactly that- a portrayal.

 Davis 18

Part 4: Conclusion

With the understanding that the performative nature of art breaks down any attempt to

construct a hierarchy of art, we are left with the ‘question. Without these questions, what would

the future of the art look like? Further, the question I pose, which I intend to cultivate space for

new questions, is rooted in the question of the arts future: what is art to the individual? As

previously explored, the arts as we currently understand it is restrictive in a multitude of ways,

yet specifically, it is restrictive in the way in which it defines its own boundaries, and further, the

art is bound to this description as it is supported by institutions, value, and monetary gain.

I propose that the realization that the institution of art cannot hold the vast opportunity of

art within itself, the only way to radically perpetuate art is to challenge the performance of the

authentic as a signifier of definite authenticity which is upheld by the arts hierarchy. The active

upholding of art as being which can achieve truth and meaning is rather restrictive of the

art-function I propose is the future here. Ultimately, the examination of the power relations

within the museum reveals that perhaps the art which we understand, as we understand it now, is

not meeting the potential perpetuation of art. I propose that the future of art lies within the

question. Even here, within these examinations, there represents a shift happening to the function

of art. In relation to Lispector’s quote above, the examination of the ‘truth’ will ultimately

change the truth, (‘...it is not…’).

Considering this, the ‘research’ will never be complete, as by nature, the functions of

symbols and languages in relation to art place art in a position to where it may not ever be able to

be definable. The attempted definition of it, in alignment with the postmodern camp, will

ultimately always lead to the conclusion that the meaning is based on one's personal

predisposition. This is not to assume that truth may never be achieved, I am more so intending to
 Davis 19

cite a flaw within human functions. The recognition of this predisposition paves the path to

perpetuating the question of the art. In considering art as a performance, along with any other

human identity, the function of art, I posit that art cannot function outside of these performative

binaries. Yet, the recognition of the power that is held within the assumption that this

performance is truth, or holds meaning, will ultimately break down any potential barrier between

the assumed ‘audience,’ the assumed ‘art,’ and the assumed ‘artist,’ as they all inhabit

performative qualities which do not adequately represent logical reasons for their differentiation.

In response to the perpetual question, what would happen if the question did not exist? What

would the institution of art look like if, alone, it were understood? Perhaps, the real death of art,

or “god,” as Nietzsche would say (Nietzsche), would be complete understanding,

comprehension, of art in its entirety- thus, birthing the death of the question- a nihilistic void of

static existence.
 Davis 20

Appendix A
 Davis 21

Works Cited

Galef, David. “Shifts and Divides: The Modernist-Postmodernist Scale in Literature.” Studies in
the Literary Imagination, vol. 25, no. 2, Fall 1992, p. 83. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9608140553&site=ehost-liv
e.

Lawlor, Leonard. “Jacques Derrida.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University,

30 July 2019, plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/#Dec.

LENNON, KATHLEEN. “Judith Butler and the Sartrean Imaginary.” Sartre Studies
International, vol. 23, no. 1, Mar. 2017, pp. 22–37. EBSCOhost,
doi:10.3167/ssi.2017.230103.

Lispector, Clarice. La Hora De La Estrella. Siruela, 2000.

“Marina Abramović. Balkan Baroque. 1997: MoMA.” The Museum of Modern Art,
www.moma.org/audio/playlist/243/3126.

“Marina Abramović. Rhythm 0. 1974: MoMA.” The Museum of Modern Art,

www.moma.org/audio/playlist/243/3118.

“Marina Abramovic: Three of the Best: Blog: Royal Academy of Arts.” Blog | Royal Academy of
Arts, www.royalacademy.org.uk/article/marina-abramovic-three-of-the-best.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, et al. The Gay Science. Dover Publications, Inc., 2020.
 Davis 22

Peters, MichaelA. “Foucault, Counselling and the Aesthetics of Existence.” British Journal of
Guidance & Counselling, vol. 33, no. 3, Aug. 2005, pp. 383–396. EBSCOhost,
doi:10.1080/03069880500179616.

Potgieter, Frederick J. “On Thinking about the Nexus between Art and Everyday Aesthetics.”
Critical Arts: A South-North Journal of Cultural & Media Studies, vol. 30, no. 5, Oct.
2016, pp. 655–671. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/02560046.2016.1262444.’

Racevskis, Karlis. “Interpreting Foucault.” Papers on Language & Literature, vol. 29, no. 1,
Winter 1993, p. 96. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9511063117&site=ehost-liv
e.

Smith, Laura Lake. “Telling Stories: Performing Authenticity in the Confessional Art of Tracey
Emin.” Rethinking History, vol. 21, no. 2, June 2017, pp. 296–309. EBSCOhost,
doi:10.1080/13642529.2017.1298336.

“What Is a Fetish?” Grandfather's Spirit LLC,

www.grandfathersspirit.com/What-is-a-Fetish.html.
Davis 23