Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

UngilUndy t1_je9jn0b wrote

Depends on how the information is written. It is often composed more out of a sense of pretension than of any desire to communicate.

I much prefer historical context to some "the artist explores spacialities in composition and intertwines content with emptiness in a pattern-centric manner" gargle.

1

ViennettaLurker t1_jea7iyp wrote

I'm sorry but this feels super opinionated. Not to say there can't be pretentious artists statements, etc. But drawing an audience to specifically notable features, the artists intent, and so on, shouldn't be discouraged. And it shouldn't be too horrible to throw in some five dollar words.

People round these things up to 'pretentious' a bit too frequently in my opinion. Honestly your sentence isn't pretentious at all, maybe a bit garbled or clumsy but it would be a mostly fine starting point for what to look at and pay attention to.

7

UngilUndy t1_jedibqs wrote

What about the example I gave communicates the artist's intent though? It's not a verbatim take but I've seen a good chunk of art labelled with such weasel words. The term "spacialities" in particular really annoys me as it is as good as saying "the work takes place in a place". To quote another response I got, it's pseudo-academic blabber.

1

ViennettaLurker t1_jeeclgb wrote

Just off of my first impression I'd say it made me think to pay extra attention to the negative space in the piece.

I get the irritation. And specifically words like "spacialities" or "materiality" which often in many sentences could be rounded back down to "space" and "material" and more or less still be as functional in getting a point across.

But 'weasel words' is a bit much to me. I dont think these things are consistently deployed by people who don't know what they're talking about or trying to get away with something. And its only blabber in specific instances. Obscure word choice to the point of total confusion? Sure. Sentence density to the point of painful? Yes.

But it all means stuff. Something eyerolling like "working through a semiotic lens" is still useful as long as you're familiar with the word semiotics. And when you are familiar, that part of a sentence could actually replace a much larger 'ordinary' series of words. On its own, its not 'blabber'- it can mean something just fine.

And its not pseudo academic, either. Again, depending on the particular instance. A lot of these things are very strictly academic. What I may grant is that they are unnecessarily academic.

But for me at least, its all just industry talk. Its no less eye rolling to me than when people started tacking on "going forward" to every office conversation or for whatever reason we decided "color way" was such an urgent replacement for "color scheme" or (gasp) "color" in product descriptions. You hear industry talk of any kind and it can be easy for it to sit clumsily in your ear, and feel maybe a bit too extra from time to time.

2

TheEverHumbled t1_jea2f95 wrote

Or the purpose of the blurb.

An art historian writing for benefit of visitors at a public gallery, vs the artist trying to pump their piece to well heeled patrons in a contemporary art market have different goals.

Concrete details like info about technique, similarities across the artists work, peer relations or the context of their art, all of which can give meaning to the piece and make it more approachable to casual audiences.

Pseudo-academic blather may be more intentionally obtuse for an elite contemporary market... "You get it, right?"

3