Early theoretical and doctrinal writings that established the initial vocabulary of Post-Interpretive Criticism. Preserved as a record of its development, these texts differ in tone and method from the institute’s current scholarly research.
Follow the inquiry
From early writings to current research
The early writings preserve the initial formulations of Post-Interpretive Criticism. Investigations arising from, or continuing beyond, those foundations belong in Research Programmes. Outputs are recorded inside the relevant programme.
How the stages relate and where to find the work ⌄
A foundation, not a fixed conclusion
The early writings are neither disowned nor presented as the complete, current research. Their formulations are a starting point: later inquiry may develop, qualify, challenge, or depart from them.
Current investigations have a programme home
Research Programmes sets out the questions, current stages, relevant discussions, and available records. This is a distinction between foundations and investigation, not simply old versus new.
Outputs stay with the inquiry
Open a programme and use its “On this programme” menu to find its outputs, developments, and public record. A working paper is not a finished publication; released work links onward to the Journal, Dialogues, or Publications.
This essay establishes and distinguishes that filth in art is not an essence but an invention rather a curatorial and linguistic construct. The reality is misplacement: matter judged “filthy” only when displaced from its natural or meaningful context. Museums function as laundromats of perception.
Every critic carries a knife. Some sheath it in theory, others in flattery, but the blade is always there. Unsheathed the moment language touches the work.
Hauntmark Theory begins here, with the idea that language, once spoken over a work of art, doesn’t simply vanish. It lingers. It imprints. It echoes. What we say about a work may elevate it, distort it, or trap it in forms it never consented to wear.
Stillmark Theory reframes art as an encounter rather than an object. It’s a discipline of humility. A refusal to dominate or consume what was meant to be fleeting.
The critic who writes within this doctrine does not bow to etiquette. They bow only to the weight of presence. They may sharpen language into a blade, but never into spectacle.