between theory and art

I think, on this occasion, we should forget parallax. Or, rather, we should take note of how the notion of a parallax-like relationship between art and theory is already functioning (ideologically, if you want to put it that way) within the contemporary art sign-system. So someone with a Zizekian bent might say: “just as you can see either a vase or two faces, you can see either art or theory, but never both at the same time”. But isn’t this approach already too well inscribed in the attitude of the contemporary art world, which feeds off (in the UK, at least) both an elitist, exclusive domain of theory and an unjustified, obscene access to public funds? Depending on your point of view, a pile of bricks in a gallery can either be a powerful statement of the artist’s desire to be a bricklayer and join the proletariat, or they can be just a nice, strange thing to wonder and look at. - foucault is dead

Foucault is Dead has a brave foray into the relationship between contemporary art and theory. The very thing that keeps many artist's on their toes and I'm guessing causes a lot of self-doubt and anxiety for many more. Worth reading here.