It could be said that discourse used to be understood as some kind of a “hyper-cloud” produced by many people speaking and writing within the domain of certain problems, whereas today it seems more “custom-made” and divided into smaller entities. This tendency is probably an integral part of the development of CDA and a consequence of its being well-adapted to various interdisciplinary studies, among them art practices. And yet it seems that the blurred, non-personal quality of discourse which highlights the collecti- ve aspects of language and thinking still lingers also in the realm of artistic practices. Therefore, while in the nets of discourse, an artist and/or a work of art need to negotiate the possibility to retain the idiom of individual practice
Anna Duszak, Norman Fairclough, Krytyczna analiza dyskursu. Interdyscyplinarne podejście do komunikacji społecznej, Cracow, Universitas 2008.
Charles Esche, What’s the Point of Art Centers Anyway? – Possibility, Art and Democratic Deviance, 4. 2004 https://transversal.at/transversal/0504/esche/en 17.08.2021
Liam Gillick, Maybe it would be better if we worked in groups of three. Part 1 of 2: The Discursive. e-flux Journal #2 January 2009, https://www.e-flux.com/journal/02/68497/maybe-it-would-be-better-if-we-worked-in-groups-of-three-part-1-of-2-the-discursive/ (accessed 17.08.2021)
Martin Lausten, Language at War. A Critical Discourse Analysis by Speeches of Bush and Obama on War and Terrorism, Grin 2016.
Grzegorz Sztabiński, Paulina Sztabińska (ed.), Proper names in the art of Łódź, the Strzemiński Academy of Fine Arts in Łódź, Łódź 2008