Is art theory antithetical to art?

Not much to disagree with there.

I don't think all art comes from the same place, or even the same desire, within the artist. I feel certain that many artists cannot yet identify the exact need, or expression they feel prompted to portray.
The natural artist in ourselves creates without our understanding. The understanding comes later, as we progress.
The creation and appreciation of art begins within the sub-conscious.

Art theory can be a means to bring the sub-conscious into the conscious.
However, art theory is often used in the reverse. I do not believe the conscious mind can be trained to produce the same results. Professional art differs from the natural art.

From my own perspective, I had been drawn to Impressionist art long before I knew anything about the theory. Knowledge of the theory produced an understanding of why that was so. I can also say that my appreciation also increased with that knowledge. I know why I like Impressionism, and I know why some paintings are better than others.

So I guess I'm saying, art theory is not antithetical, although it can be.

PQ, I tend to take a black and white perspective on the matter of "conceptual" art. I tend to see conceptual art as excessively conscious and
abstract, whereas I stress the subjective-unconscious and sensual in "actual" art. I go to such an extreme--in my emphasis on the unconscious nature of my art--that I tend to title my projects after they are completed, not in advance as if the title were part of a plan for creation. Literally, my attempts to find meaningful titles is a question of interpretation, of finding conscious meaning in what has emerged less than consciously.

I like this. Its almost a complette opposite opf how I work. I have ideas of what I want to do and sometimes start with a "working title".
I did a wet watercolor of an oil cracking terminal at night and it was ablaze with color from the cracking and flaring. I started with a working title of "Primordial SOup" "(kinda pointless when I began the work) and after I was done I settled on "The Iron GArden".

Well, some interpetations of art is plain idiotic and are only based on mass hysteria and low rationallity, just like the emperor's new cloth.

A good example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_shit an artist put his **** in a can, which were sold for unimagineable high prices!

2 decades of super skinny models whom in few cases died of starvation.

It does get ridiculous at times.
I can't even imagine what it's like to appreciate **** in a can, let alone buy some.
MichaelAngelo wouldve hated those models.

I am the same in titling my poems and lyrics.

Of course I have admiration for artists who can start with a plan and then apply technical skills to stay on track to the completion of that plan. I have some technical control of my favorite mediiums--acrylics and charcoal--but I enjoy the optimal freedom enjoyed by letting my unconscious rule the early part of the creative process. In this "Dionysian" phase I let "accidents" happen. Later--in the "Apollonian" phase--I consciously decide which accidents to keep, modify or paint over in conscious compliance with personal tastes/values and learned design principles.
Of course this "two-phase" process (described by means of Nietzsche's terminology) is less linear than I suggest. Dionysus and Apollo dance together throughout the project.

I appreciate both your and JL's processes..

I was more like JL in my work years ago, and more like you the last bunch of years.

Titles always last, and sometimes renamed.

Yes, I do that too. Much fooling around when I put down thin wash and explore, even with paintings that look later like, oh, say, paint by numbers. (kidding, kidding)

Hah!

Why not ask how many times an artist can start the same picture and use it as kindling when it doesnt "work" at first. I have one talent and that is to know when Ive FUBAR'd some work and to not waste any time worrying about it. My ideas are the embers that must be fanned , the painting is just a means of expressing it. I always liked Alfred Hitchcocks explanation about shooting a movie compared to Orson Welles. Hitchcock would plan and plan in his minds eye and then, when the filming started , he would only use one take cause he already planned it to completion. Welles would have his idea and try to craft by numerous takes until the product matched his idea. I guess Im more like Welles. Im not afraid to toss bad efforts into the fireplace.

Yes of course.

I try to not attach too passionately to a painting when it disappoints, that's part of the freedom I seek in the early stages of the work. But I do feel that what I will end up with will be better than any plans I may have started out with. Success for me is usually a surprise.

True.
Maybe I'm equivocating on that-
but my mac is about to shut me down. Nothing about a2k, just me and my computer.

I never toss a carving.
I've a little bass in walnut that just wouldn't bend to my will, aaahrg.
It's the one everybody likes to pet.

Thank you JL that was very very interesting.

I don't have very much to say on the issue apart from I've just realised the importance of me reading that bit of Nietzsche.

Speaking personally, painting titles often annoy me and so does 'untitled'. When I put my work up at art school I just had my name on the card.

To answer this question, let me first backtrack to a point where you don't quite have an aesthetical theory yet, but are beginning to develop one.

Let's say you've just attended a piano recital with a friend. Now you're sitting together and talk about it over a glass of wine. What kind of statements would you typically be exchanging? Would they just be subjective outbursts like "I really enjoyed that second piece", or "I wish the pianist hadn't played the opening movement so fast"? I think not. From what I know about you, it seems much more likely that you would also make objective-sounding statements and defend them with reasons: "This second piece was beautiful because ....", and "the pianist's tempo was too fast because...". Moreover, you would expect that each side listen to the other's arguments and be open to persuasion: "I guess you're right. He should have played that first movement more slowly, give it more time to breathe." I'm pretty sure that's how your conversation would play out.

Once you concede that much, you can see that aesthetic theories, at least implicit ones, are almost inevitable. If you give reasons to justify your aesthetic judgment, if you expect these reasons to persuade anyone, and if you are even the slightest bit curious, you will just have to ask yourself where their persuasiveness comes from. You have to ask yourself what kind of assumptions you're working from, what permissable logic gets you from one statement about aesthetics to another, and what aesthetic experiences might possibly refute the argument. And that's an aesthetic theory.

So my answer to your question is this: Implicit aesthetic theories---the kind from which you reason in your after-concert conversations---are practically inevitable. And once you have implicit aesthetic theories, it's just interesting to make them explicit so that one can explore them. That's what explicit aesthetic theories can be useful for---the kinds that you read books about.

I'm sorry that I will give this harsh and brutal answer, but I'v seen enough of PQ's usually weird questions and answers.

I feel we are let in a "fool's errand" by her lack on rationallity, wasting our time providing answers PQ will never comprehend.

The only meaningful answer to all PQ's questions in past, present and future ..is ..please get ur skitzo disorder cured!