Since the 1980s, when buzzwords like ‘semiotics’ were prevalent in the art world, theory has played an important role in the interpretation, and the making of art. Yet, after all these years, has contemporary art really influenced the way philosophers think? And is theory still relevant to today’s artists?

Frieze Talks, adjunct Frieze Art Fair 2009 discussed the changing relationship between art and theory in Scenes from a marriage: have art and theory drifted apart? Participants included Simon Critchley (professor philosophy, The New School for Social Research, New York), Robert Storr (artist, critic, curator and dean, Yale University School of Art), Barbara Bloom (artist) and Sylvère Lotringer, (professor French literature and philosophy at Columbia University, New York and general editor of Semiotext(e) credited with the introduction of French theory to the US since the 1970s.

Robert Storr in conversation with Helen Stoilas for the Art Newspaper stated, “I’m not sure that art and theory were ever that close to begin with… what people now call theory is a vast field and a relatively small amount of it bears directly on art production.

“We’re in a very strange situation where some artists have derived a lot from their theoretical reading but never as systematically as people are inclined to think. Felix Gonzalez-Torres, who I know read theory carefully, nonetheless made a point of saying that it was not to be read in a kind of rigorous, academic way, but to help unblock thoughts and open up questions.”

Contemporary artist and art commentator Christopher Collier reviewing Frieze Talks for AN Interface reports the following: Philosopher Simon Critchley argued that a certain model of theory had become tiresome, especially criticising the intensive reliance on theory that he identified in institutions such as Goldsmiths in the 1990s which he provocatively deemed a ‘terroristic model’. He argued that many capable students were hindered by an over-reliance on theory and that art should think in its own terms, not in theoretical terms as such.

He implied that theory was reductionist as opposed to essentialist and that rather than what he dubbed ‘philosifugal’ models of interpretation we should aim for something more ‘artipetal’ (drawing theory into art’s orbit, rather than applying art examples to over-arching theories after the fact). What he seemed to be arguing was that Postmodern theory has, in fact, become the very thing that it came about in order to challenge, an authoritarian ‘grand narrative’ or metalanguage.

He postulated that rather than allowing a system of fruitless mutual legitimation between increasingly disparate and divergent practices of art and theory, that rather than this unhappy couple continuing to play out scenes from a marriage, perhaps they have instead entered promiscuously into a ménage à trois with a string of other influences, including education, work or most convincingly politics.

He claimed that art and theory remained bedfellows when engaged with politics (in a non-ideological, party political sense). This would certainly make for an interesting relationship, politics back in bed with old flame art whilst theory looks on, indeed it sounded like a scenario from a tabloid scandal. Dashing our hopes of a happy reunion however, the engagement with politics that he eluded was rather cynically termed ‘the memory of resistance as mediated by capital’.

In an inspiring, fascinating and excellently informed talk, the charismatic Lotringer essentially adopted a spirited defence and a successful vindication of theory from its critics in art circles and beyond. Agreeing that art and theory have indeed become less closely related since the ’80s and ’90s, he illustrated how most criticism of theory from artists and the art world is ultimately a result of not only a misunderstanding of theory but of a misinterpretation of the circumstances of its appropriation by art He conjectured that much of the recent hostility towards the theory from the art world derived from a defence mechanism against a narrative that it found intimidating and which thus created a degree of anxiety. Lotringer went on to explain how theory had often been taken up by artists as a fashionable self-promotional tool in order to project an aura of elitism and gravitas and to legitimise their work intellectually by filling the vacuum left by the end of avant garde agendas.

Despite the obvious clash between theoretical concepts such as Barthes’ Death of the author and the burgeoning egos of the booming ’80s art world, the essay became influential and art was often rendered purposefully empty with theory left to fill the gap. Another influential text was Baudrillard’s Simulations, again often only superficially understood,

Though art and theory have grown apart, Lotringer claimed that there is still relevance for theory in art. It is especially prescient in an art world that doesn’t appear to know where it’s going; contemporary art has become self-referential and often fails to engage with a wider world. He also postulated that if art could de-territorialise itself from the art market then it could become once more relevant, exciting and radical.

Both talks, despite their distinctly differing positions, appeared to agree upon was the enduring relevance of theory in the art world, not necessarily as a direct source of material for artists themselves but as a resonance that enriches the interpretation of their works.