I dislike people who use gatekeeping language, *but also* mouth-breathers who object to big words ever being used. One can tell rather quickly when someone is trying to hide the lack of substance behind abstractions. Academia & the art world are rife with it.
And yet, I'm fond of philosophy, philology, rhetoric and love the convolutions of language. It's fun to unpack communication and how we, as ghosts piloting flesh monkeys, understand words and how we can never ever capture the thingness of things. The tao is always beyond our ability to describe it.
As long as language isn't being used to oppress or confuse, I'm good with it.
For me it's the abstractions and the opaque language and the qualifiers and especially the interminable syntax. And I do love sinewy syntax! But it needs grounding. Nothing beats, e.g., something like 'ghosts piloting flesh monkeys'.
At this talk they did give a few examples of art students expected to write essays or show placards in this sort of opaque language, and they flat out called it bullshit or bollocks. I can't quite put my finger on it, but both of them had a very grounded practice- and craft-oriented perspective, rather than a more abstract theoretical one. Which sits fine with me!
The idea of getting away from the high-minded language in art also speaks to the academic in me. That's my big soap box moment in academia: make it clear and digestible. I hadn't thought of it existing in art too! And yes to freeing ourselves from what the algorithm feeds us!
I think some of the most horrible academic writing is in the art world. We in fact cancelled one gallery membership as its magazine had some really off-putting language. Opaque. I worry about being called a philistine, but you give me encouragement!
I dislike people who use gatekeeping language, *but also* mouth-breathers who object to big words ever being used. One can tell rather quickly when someone is trying to hide the lack of substance behind abstractions. Academia & the art world are rife with it.
And yet, I'm fond of philosophy, philology, rhetoric and love the convolutions of language. It's fun to unpack communication and how we, as ghosts piloting flesh monkeys, understand words and how we can never ever capture the thingness of things. The tao is always beyond our ability to describe it.
As long as language isn't being used to oppress or confuse, I'm good with it.
Down with chicanery and obfuscation!
For me it's the abstractions and the opaque language and the qualifiers and especially the interminable syntax. And I do love sinewy syntax! But it needs grounding. Nothing beats, e.g., something like 'ghosts piloting flesh monkeys'.
At this talk they did give a few examples of art students expected to write essays or show placards in this sort of opaque language, and they flat out called it bullshit or bollocks. I can't quite put my finger on it, but both of them had a very grounded practice- and craft-oriented perspective, rather than a more abstract theoretical one. Which sits fine with me!
The idea of getting away from the high-minded language in art also speaks to the academic in me. That's my big soap box moment in academia: make it clear and digestible. I hadn't thought of it existing in art too! And yes to freeing ourselves from what the algorithm feeds us!
I think some of the most horrible academic writing is in the art world. We in fact cancelled one gallery membership as its magazine had some really off-putting language. Opaque. I worry about being called a philistine, but you give me encouragement!
What you want, not what you're given! Scenius!