There exists a type of work, to speak with the ancient Greeks, that you would do if nobody saw to it that you were performing it. This work builds, since it is more or less volitional, the exact opposite of work that is observed and thus performed – that you perform to get paid or to not give off a bad impression. These all form examples of work that is part of a larger, ever-changing social identity that you can exchange as your personal cultural capital, regardless of whether it is observed as having such a function.

This second type of work is part of the economy system, which is social in nature. This ‘social in nature’ refers to a complex sort of coupling with the human psyche that involves an extra separation. Social systems are thereby capable of distinguishing three instead of two factors. This assumption is based on the work of Uwe Schimank und Hans-Joachim Giegel (2003), who in particular worked out a theory of observation that differentiates psychic and social differentiation.

Tha ‘psychic in nature’ of the art system refers therefore to a type of practice (really a poiesis) that you would do if you were living outside of society, somewhere in the woods or on a deserted island. The notion that this is possible at all in modern society pervaded with electronic media and internet-based surveillance systems has been contested by Deuze et. al. in their work on media life (2011). At the same time, a much larger part of the world than usually considered is and has been inhabitable for too low temperatures or otherwise unwieldy natural conditions.

But if this notion refers, which is more likely, to the inability of people to do anything self-guided without involvement of their overarching social identities, this leads necessarily to the confirmation of that devastating remark made by the late Polish artist Stanislav ignacy Witkiewicz (aka Witkacy): people of the future have to do without art.