In Barthe’s theory of semiotics,language is inherently unstable.This theory might be explained in the sociological triangle which includes percept,a concept, and a representation. As described by Charles Jencks in his book Semiology and Architecture, “In mostcases, there is no direct connection between word and a thing. They are justsimply the relations between languages, thought and reality.” For instance, theEnglish character string “A” “P” “P” “L” “E” only has the connections orcorrelations with the fruit we eat. In another words, the meaning is cut offfrom the author or the artist and can only be interpreted in the readers’ end.

From this point, twoartists could be considered as illustrative according to Barthe’s theory. Thefirst artist is David Salle. Although his paintings are mostly cited asexamples for the Simulacra theory of Jean Baudrillard, they also interpret thetheory of semiotics as well. We know there are two primary approaches to conveymeanings: either through opposition or association. For example, red color forhot water and blue color for cold water only make sense by associating colorswith temperature.  While the red trafficlight is only meaningful as opposed to thegreen and yellow traffic lights. In David Salle’s painting Mingus in Mexico(Fig1), all visual elements are disconnectedwith each other and refuse to provide any clues for either opposition orassociation. As a twisted Morse Code, Salle’s painting has mixed images drawnfrom various sources such as TV, film, adverting, and etc. This fragmentationcan be explained by Barthe’s essay The Deathof Author

Theother artist who can be considered as illustrative according to Barthe’s theoryis a deconstructive architect Bernard Tschumi. In an urbanpark design project Parc de la Villette (Fig 2), Bernard Tschumi has designed asequence of follies, named as ‘event spaces’. They are a number of abstract,programless structures. These red follies generate a rigid grid, createreference points, and are non-contextual in their forms and colors. In order tobe meaningless, the forms of the follies become signifiers as opposed tosignified (which carries meaning). The process of shaping the follies, and the ideasextrinsic to them, represent a conscious reaction to multiple meaningsassociated with Jaques Derrida's philosophy of metaphysics of presence anddeconstruction. Similar as the deconstructive movement leading by Andy Warhol,deconstruction in architecture gains its force by challenging the values oftraditional architectural harmony, unity, and stability. By infiltrating thearchitectural forms with skewed geometries, the traditional relationships amongarchitectural components are radically disturbed. The deconstruction process“produced decorative effects, and aesthetics of danger, and almost picturesquerepresentation of peril, but not a tangible threat.” ( Philop Johnson and MarkWigley 1988) It disrupts the division between interior and exterior, theconnection between forms and contexts. Just as Barthe’s description in his essayThe Death of Author, in Tschumi’sdesign, meaning is generated outside the conscious intentions of the architect.

Fig 2: Bernard Tschumi . Parc de la Villette

Now the question is, can we say that an artist reliesheavily on theory? I would say yes and no. All the theories, no matter Marxist theory,Evolution theory, or Modernism theory, the motivation is not just interpretingthe world, but changing the world. Without themotive to change the world, the theory would not be written. In other designdisciplines such as architecture, theory is the engine of inventions. Theories aremade memorable and psychologically impressive, and are delivered as religiousleaders might do. However, some theories are hijacked by other disciplineswhere they never intend to be applied in the first place. These theories startto loose the original purity and orthodox in other disciplines. For example,contemporary art is influenced by Chaos theory, Emergency theory, and Semioticstheory, but it doesn’t mean artists are actually following these theories tocreate their art. Although the classification system defines Andy Warhol asdeconstructive postmodernism, he actually jumps between different theories in differentperiods. Some artists such as Roxy Paine may go through multiple theoriessimultaneously.  The shift is often aresponse to new pressures, explosions of social evolution, or sometimes is justbecause the artist gets bored. Some artists even refuse to be classified intoany movements or associate with any theories. For instance, celebrityarchitect, Frank Gehry, rejects the classification of his work asdeconstructive.

 Therelationship between art and theory is analogous to the one between method andpurpose. It is quite difficult to separate method from purpose because there areconsistent feedbacks between them. Art can be a method to explain an existingtheory, or as a media to announce a manifesto. On the other hand, an innovativeart work can generate new theories and the only purpose of these new theories isto explain the mechanic of the existing art work. Therefore,it becomes a Klein bottle or a Mobius.

Art is more driven by theinstinct of artists rather than the rationality of theories. I believe they coexistbeyond each other. Theories help art critics to classify certain artist’s work,to add theoretical foundations to define the intension and objective of an artwork. Theories are necessary for rationalizing art, comparing various artmovements, inspiring and challenging artists to interpret with art vocabularies.I am not surprised if some day some art represents the Emergency or Quantumtheory. Meanwhile, we have to realize that theories are limited. In the time ofpluralism, art focus is wide and somewhat diffuse and usually out of the scopeof theories.

Reference:

Philop Johnson and MarkWigley. Deconstructivest Archtiecture, The Musuem of Modern Art (New York) 1988.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida