Catherine Malabou, a French philosopher often associated with poststructuralism and contemporary continental philosophy, is best known for her concept of plasticity, which profoundly informs her engagement with art.
Her thought bridges philosophy, neuroscience, psychoanalysis, and aesthetics, offering a dynamic framework for understanding artistic creation, reception, and transformation.
Below, I explore Malabou’s philosophy, focusing on plasticity and its implications for art, while situating her work within her broader intellectual project and applying it to the art exhibition held in St. Francis Xavier Church, Borim.
Malabou’s central concept, plasticity, refers to the capacity of a system or entity to both give and receive form while retaining the potential for transformation. Unlike elasticity (which implies returning to an original shape) or rigidity (which resists change), plasticity encompasses the ability to adapt, reconfigure, and even destructively transform. The art work of the artists involved in our exhibition demonstrates plasticity. There is not elasticity that returns to what is deemed as original state. Our art is expressivist and is therefore transformative.
Drawing from Hegel, Heidegger, and neuroscientific insights, Malabou argues that plasticity is not just a biological or material property but a philosophical principle that redefines subjectivity, history, and creativity.
In her major works, such as What Should We Do with Our Brain? (2004) and The Future of Hegel (2000), Malabou posits that the brain’s neuroplasticity—its ability to rewire itself in response to experience—mirrors the plasticity of thought and culture.
This idea challenges deterministic views of identity and opens up possibilities for rethinking art as a site of transformation and resistance.
Malabou’s philosophy of plasticity has significant implications for art, which she views as a privileged domain for exploring the interplay of form, transformation, and destruction.
Her engagement with art is less about specific artworks and more about the ontological and political stakes of artistic practice.
Below are key aspects of how her thought intersects with art:
1. Art as Plastic Form-Giving
Malabou sees art as an exemplary site of plasticity because it involves the creation of forms that are neither fixed nor entirely fluid. An artwork gives form to ideas, emotions, or experiences while remaining open to reinterpretation and transformation. In her essay “Plasticity and the Work of Art” (from Plastic Materialities, 2015), Malabou argues that art embodies a dialectical tension between formation and deformation. For example, a sculpture might solidify a concept in material form, but its meaning shifts through viewer interpretation, cultural context, or physical decay.This resonates with poststructuralist ideas about the instability of meaning (e.g., Derrida’s deconstruction), but Malabou’s focus on plasticity emphasizes the material and transformative potential of art. She suggests that artists work like the brain’s neural networks, forging new pathways while breaking old ones, creating works that are both structured and open to change. What the artists in our exhibition have achieved is exactly this . They have opened new pathways to portray St. Francis Xavier.
2. Destruction and Creation
A distinctive feature of Malabou’s plasticity is its inclusion of destructive plasticity, where transformation can involve rupture or loss. In art, this manifests in practices that challenge traditional forms or embrace ephemerality, such as performance art, conceptual art, or installations that decay over time. For instance, Malabou might interpret the work of artists like Robert Smithson (e.g., Spiral Jetty, which erodes and reshapes with its environment) as embodying plastic transformation, where destruction is integral to creation. In The New Wounded (2007), Malabou explores trauma’s role in reshaping subjectivity, and this framework can extend to art. Traumatic or disruptive artistic practices—think of Francis Bacon’s distorted figures or Marina Abramović’s endurance performances—reflect a plasticity that rewires perception and challenges normative aesthetics. Our exhibition has not dealt with trauma and pain so explicitly. Certainly people in trauma come to St. Francis Xavier seeking solace. We may have to work in this area.
3. Art and Political Resistance
Malabou’s philosophy also connects art to political and social transformation, a theme that aligns with your interest in thinkers like Irigaray and Bhabha for decolonial resistance. In What Should We Do with Our Brain?, she critiques neoliberalism’s co-optation of flexibility (a degraded form of plasticity) and calls for a reclaiming of plasticity as a form of agency. Art, for Malabou, can resist capitalist homogenization by creating singular, transformative experiences that disrupt fixed identities or power structures.For example, Malabou might view postcolonial or feminist art practices—such as those by Yinka Shonibare or Kara Walker—as plastic interventions that reconfigure colonial or gendered narratives. These works don’t merely critique but actively reshape cultural memory, embodying plasticity’s dual capacity to form and deform. Indeed our art exhibition does provides possibilities to resist degoanizing forces.
4. Neuroscience and Aesthetic Experience
Malabou’s interest in neuroscience informs her view of art as a process that engages the brain’s plasticity. In What Should We Do with Our Brain?, she argues that aesthetic experiences can rewire neural pathways, altering how we perceive and interact with the world. This perspective positions art as a cognitive and sensory practice that fosters new forms of subjectivity. For instance, immersive installations or experimental music might challenge habitual perception, encouraging viewers to form new mental and emotional connections. Art as well as artistic practices can be therapeutic to artists as well as their audiences.
While Malabou does not extensively analyze specific artists, she occasionally references contemporary art to illustrate her ideas. In Plasticity at the Dusk of Writing (2005), she discusses the shift from linguistic to material paradigms in philosophy, which parallels trends in contemporary art toward materiality and process (e.g., Arte Povera or post-minimalism). She also engages with performance art and film in her discussions of temporality and transformation, seeing these media as inherently plastic due to their fleeting or mutable nature.
5. Comparison with Other Poststructuralists.
Malabou’s approach to art diverges from other poststructuralists in its emphasis on materiality and neuroscience. Unlike Derrida, who focuses on textual instability, or Foucault, who examines art within power-knowledge regimes, Malabou grounds her aesthetics in the material and biological processes of plasticity.
However, like Judith Butler or Homi Bhabha, she sees art as a site for reconfiguring identity and resisting domination, though her focus on the brain and form distinguishes her perspective
Given my interest in Irigaray and Bhabha, Malabou’s thought she offers a complementary lens for decolonial and feminist art. Her concept of plasticity aligns with Irigaray’s emphasis on fluid, non-binary conceptions of subjectivity, as both thinkers challenge rigid structures.
Similarly, Malabou’s focus on transformation resonates with Bhabha’s ideas of hybridity and cultural reconfiguration in postcolonial contexts. For example, Malabou might interpret decolonial art practices that reclaim indigenous forms or feminist works that disrupt patriarchal aesthetics as plastic acts of resistance,
creating new forms while dismantling oppressive ones. Our exhibition is certainly plastic act of resistance.
Catherine Malabou’s philosophy of plasticity provides a rich framework for understanding art as a dynamic interplay of formation, transformation, and destruction. By viewing art as a plastic process, she highlights its capacity to reshape perception, challenge power, and foster new subjectivities. Her integration of neuroscience, materiality, and politics makes her thought particularly relevant for analyzing contemporary art practices, from performance to postcolonial interventions.
