Theory, in my view, tends to be jailed in some minds within a dualistic frame.
Theory and practice.
We might produce a theory of a given subject X, and then supposed to “prove” the theory in practice. Say a theory of X might be:
X used to be Z, it is in time Z + N, therefore the theory predicts that in the future we want to look at how Z + N evolve.
Here we go, a theory that requires a practice to Be a theory.
In Art, we have Theories of Art. How to produce stuff that might be called “art”, How to be an artist, and How art might actually Be, err, art.
I was checking for stuff that might be something slightly different to a theory Of X (art,science,doors,energy,computability, etc). The interest is in a theory that is in itself the practice – in the context of #art.
Perhaps we can claim that critical theory is something like that because it is self referential. Theorising the critique of critique as a critique. That might be… I am not sure at the moment whether the difference between self referentially of meanings –
ie i talk about the practice –
doing the practice which is talking the practice of talking the practice, even if in meaning it might not refer to the practice talked about –
is clear in my mind at the moment.
(Probably the way i wrote it here doesn’t help..)
Hence the focus is on Art specific, rather than stuff like critical theory, or theoretical philosophy.
The focus is on the seemingly non existance of theoretical art, as a practice which is artistic in and of itself. A practice that is a “proof” of itself, by the very fact it is a Being.
My intiial problem with the whole idea is that of being a “theory”.
If a theory has to produce a certain projection of the elements to come, of the future, then it becomes a research rather than a search. The theory is useful for researching a certain sequence, time, etc. by checking whether the projection actually is projected. (as a simple example.)
To be able to do that, the theory has to go through a few instances of thought and search, to form a theory.
Since am interested in the very instances that might or might not come to be considered a theory – perhaps Theoretical Art might not be of a viable interest for me?
However, There is another question.
In the way am developing, the language, the very elements used are from theoretical materials, in a way.
A theoretical material is that which…. Hummm..
Perhaps am miss understanding myself here.. Or some other stuff?
The number 2 might be regarded as a theoretical material when, I think, it is the 2 of all couplings. Yes? However, is it theoretical when its a prime? Or when its an element of all whole numbers set?
It seems that in the last examples, it is an Abstract material. That being abstract is not taking anything from its theoretical sides, however – the orientation if not the entire being, is different.
Similarly, perhaps when
if as an IfNess – the sense of being an if. Or ^ is an intervalNess rather than a space holder for some sort of a numerical interval –
we get abstracts that are there whether or not they refer to stuff other than themselves. Sure, they might dies, but that death might be from being rather than being a mistake.
(ie a mistaken theory.)
However, as ever these cases are, here I am making a certain theory of Abstracts, no?