Illuminations - or maybe not!

EyeBlinks

I stumbled upon this article a while ago.

Having spent a bit of time, well a lot actually (I'm obviously thick), deciphering it (i.e. translating it to normal english), it's quite a good article and makes a lot of sense.

The point I'd like to raise though is why? Why write like this? Is it to pander towards a certain very limited audience or just maybe is it designed to exclude. I think maybe a bit of both and definitely a big dose of the latter.

I'm not sure if photography is art or not (irrelevant argument) but on the assumption it is (partly at least), why does it seek to exclude rather than include? The above article could just as easily have been written in normal english (without the grammatical errors it includes ) and imparted the same message/viewpoint.

I post this as it has been touched on in a few current threads.

zt-OctaviaN

God I read the first 2 paragraphs and tried to find who the writer was :eek:
Its a tuff read... I admit I don't read many books at all!
But I would rather someone stood back after proof reading their work and patted themselves on the back for a well written article that doesn't involve a certain self gratified use of wording.
Dont get me wrong in the last sentence the person that wrote this has it seems a good command over the english language but to the original OP's statement why write like that.
I go out of my way to find all and any articles I can use to extend my knowledge in any interests I have, but this one I personally could do without reading.
N

Adrian.Sadlier

The true sign of genius is to make the complicated seem simple. This article (and its author) seem unencumbered by such a trait.

"A slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a temporary obstruction of the oculus to a non visionary quadruped" (nods as good as a ….)

CabanSail

I blame the French.

Adrian.Sadlier

CabanSail wrote: »

I blame the French.

Too easy a response CabanSail - every body blames the French; for everything.

But at least we can understand what you are saying

dirtyghettokid

perhaps it was written by this guy here



it's the one thing that came to my mind while trying to read that article.

Mountainsandh

I blame the French.

Adrian.Sadlier wrote: »

Too easy a response CabanSail - every body blames the French; for everything.

But at least we can understand what you are saying

Disclaimer : I may not actuaally look exxacccctlyyyy like that...

edit : it's not meant to be sexy by the way :S
oh, and I understand that text, yeah, no bother, easy peasy for us French

McVitae

One of the basic purposes of language is communication. By alienating those without a stupendously massive vocabulary it fails to communicate much at all.

Reminds me of writing essays in school and trying to enhance them by replacing words with more complex alternatives from the thesaurus.

The word that comes to mind is like "BANKER" but replace a certain letter with "W"

EyeBlinks

McVitae wrote: »

One of the basic purposes of language is communication. By alienating those without a stupendously massive vocabulary it fails to communicate much at all.

Reminds me of writing essays in school and trying to enhance them by replacing words with more complex alternatives from the thesaurus.

The word that comes to mind is like "BANKER" but replace a certain letter with "W"

Agree.

I'm slowly coming around to the view though that this is done deliberately and not just by this writer but the whole photographic "art" community. They probably think it places them apart but are the first to complain they can't make a living from their "art".

In their own parlance, I think it's a space ripe for reclaimimg

sineadw

Jesus, you guys think that's hard going? You don't want to be in my monday morning class. I had a two and a half hour lecture on Black Metal theory (as in, Norwegian shouty satanic stuff) by a mystical anarchist a few weeks ago, who just read his doctoral paper at us. For 2 and a half hours. On a Monday morning...

Anyway, it's something i've been struggling with a wee bit since starting the fine art masters. From talking to a lot of people, and listening to a lot of debate (did you guys see the turner prize for example? A lot of people felt George Shaw should have won, but didn't because his work is too accessible..) the impression I get is that you're not taken seriously in the art-critic world (*as opposed to the art world*) if you don't talk the talk. Which then directly translates to not being taken seriously in the commercial world, and dying in a hole somewhere in croydon. A lot of art practitioners i talk to about it say that although they hate it really, it's a necessary part of the game. Plus, there *is* a certain vocabulary that makes sense if you're using it every day - like a shorthand that's been built up that yep, makes it a bit impenetrable. And yep, to a certain extent i think that's the point sometimes. Not always though.

Art shouldn't always be easy. Sometimes there are layers of references. Like there are layers in science, built up by all that came before it. It's the same in writing; you write for your audience. Maybe this article was written for the art critic world, where the shorthand makes sense?

smash

Looks like someone just got their first thesaurus.

EyeBlinks

sineadw wrote: »

A lot of art practitioners i talk to about it say that although they hate it really, it's a necessary part of the game.

Jaysus I remember a time that being a student meant challenging things, discarding the superfluous and shaping your world on your terms. To think we're talking of naturally inventive people here makes that even more depressing.

There are many good organisations out there trying rightly to make art more accessible to the ordinary person and it's bloody depressing to see artists and the so called art world do the exact opposite.

In fact I think I'll refer to it as "the Arse World" from here on in.

dakar

sineadw wrote: »

shorthand

But that's not shorthand, is it?

sineadw

dakar wrote: »

sineadw wrote: »

shorthand

But that's not shorthand, is it?

Ok, shorthand is probably the wrong word and i'm talking generalities here, and playing devil's advocate to a certain extent. I think it's unfair to lump all of it in the wankery sphere though. If you opened an article on the Higgs bosun stuff a few days ago for example, and didn't understand all of it, would you say the scientists behind the article were being elitist, or not confronting things the way you should as a science student? It's a field of knowledge like any other, and it has its specific terminologies.

sineadw

EyeBlinks wrote: »

sineadw wrote: »

Jaysus I remember a time that being a student meant challenging things, discarding the superfluous and shaping your world on your terms. To think we're talking of naturally inventive people here makes that even more depressing.

I was referring to artists trying to earn a living, not students per se..

EyeBlinks

sineadw wrote: »

EyeBlinks wrote: »

I was referring to artists trying to earn a living, not students per se..

Not much of a difference tbh.

Anyway, do you remember the day with Jackie Nickerson. That was by a long way my most informative day ever about photography and art that I have had. There was none of the elitist ****e, and yes that is what I think it is , very straightforward and wonderfully informative. A proper artist imo!

And she only used the "a" word once .... yes I was counting.:p

sineadw

EyeBlinks wrote: »

sineadw wrote: »

EyeBlinks wrote: »

I was referring to artists trying to earn a living, not students per se..

Not much of a difference tbh.

Anyway, do you remember the day with Jackie Nickerson. That was by a long way my most informative day ever about photography and art that I have had. There was none of the elitist ****e, and yes that is what I think it is , very straightforward and wonderfully informative. A proper artist imo!

And she only used the "a" word once .... yes I was counting.:p

Hey i still cringe at the other a word yeah, she was awesome..

sineadw

Here's a good example, from Adrian Searle (who's very unwankery ) about the recent Turner Prize. Boyce, who won, references loads of other work and high concepts, is hard to 'get' if you don't know much about contemporary art, and there's really only one point of entry into it. Shaw, who I really wanted to win, you can get on many levels, even if you've never studied art. A lot of people (including my lecturer in NCAD btw - they're not *all* elitist ) felt that he should have won, but probably didn't simply *because* his work is accessible. It doesn't mean Boyce's stuff is any less valid though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/video/2011/oct/26/turner-prize-2011-adrian-searle

EyeBlinks

sineadw wrote: »

felt that he should have won, but probably didn't simply *because* his work is accessible.

If the reason for not winning a major art prize is that it's accessible, then all I can say "the Art is an Ass" :cool:

sineadw

EyeBlinks wrote: »

sineadw wrote: »

felt that he should have won, but probably didn't simply *because* his work is accessible.

If the reason for not winning a major art prize is that it's accessible, then all I can say "the Art is an Ass" :cool:

Or maybe 'the guys who chose the winner are asses'. My point was though that not all of it is inaccessible, and even the stuff that is, isn't necessarily so just for the sake of it. I think maybe the video screen stuff was. Didn't like that at all tbh. There's some sh!te, but it's not *all* sh!te.

What was the original point again?

EyeBlinks

sineadw wrote: »

What was the original point again?

Well it was the unneccessary use of language to specifically exclude people from the arts. I think art photography is by far the worst offender here btw.

When I'm famous, I'll change all of that

sineadw

EyeBlinks wrote: »

sineadw wrote: »

What was the original point again?

Well it was the unneccessary use of language to specifically exclude people from the arts. I think art photography is by far the worst offender here btw.

When I'm famous, I'll change all of that

I have a wonderful mental image of you on the View

Hugh_C

Just not sure (a) what the author is on about and (b) if it'll help his photography in any way at all, although from my very cursory glance at the article, I didn't establish whether or not the geezer is a critic or practitioner.

FoxT

Art is a weird mix of experimentation (E) , communication(C), and masturbation (M). ( There may be other categories, of course, add as you see fit)

Here's a random list - who are the E's, C's & M's?

Rachel Whiteread
Lucian Freud
Arthur Miller
Hector Berlioz
Giuseppe Verdi
Damien Hirst
Andy Warhol
Robert Mapplethorpe
Edward Weston
Ansel Adams
Rihanna
Jedward
Yann Martel
Peig Sayers

I have strong views on the above - but I dont expect they are universally shared. Like every other field of human endeavour, the art world subjective ( which is good) - but also is polluted to some extent by social/commercial/political/cultural vested interests. Ya gotta figure it out for yourself!


-FoxT

Hugh_C

Jedward are out standing in their own field.

FoxT

They should get a Nobel Prize then

okmqaz42

not sure if it adds anything to the very interesting debate here but this made me laugh when I first seen it months ago..

Art Boll*cks (or Stupid Kunst) by Charlotte Young

http://vimeo.com/19993726