In defense of Theory.

I've felt it myself. That straw that sucks the life out of art. The over-thinking strain of over-theory. The talking that sucks the mystery out of life. This is theory as abuse, and not as I see its intention.

The first point in the defense of theory is that the best theory writers are artists in their own craft. Reading their works should not seem overbearing and dreadful - though they may be thick. The writing of Baudelaire, Barthes, Derrida, and Foucault are the works of dreamers and thinkers - not pedants. They simultaneously muse and demystify. With one hand take what you know and with the other deliver a new way of seeing. They break your glasses and open your eyes.

This is why the reader of theory must muse with the muses. They must revolve their understandings and remain within a pleasant tumult of knowing and un-knowing. It is when we're stuck in a mode of thinking that theory blocks us from loving a work. Looking at work simply to enjoy it belongs to a way of thinking as well.

There are certain insights, however, that are difficult to unlearn. Historical fallacies, differance, etc. Just as theory is playful, it is also useful. It keeps us from making the same mistakes constantly. We can make art without thinking, art for the sake of art. But once we attempt to adhere meaning, we must be wary of the history of art, and of theory.

We can't be impressionists, symbolists, surrealists again. Theory keeps us from making the same mistakes, but you must dive into the tumult. You've gotta soak it up. Make it a part of your thinking rather than clashing with it. Know and un-know tomorrow and keep the thinking going.

Otherwise, it gets boring.