3 ms·

This colorful language is also used by artists to describe their own works. e.g. the artists description of the Tilted Arc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilted

This colorful language is also used by artists to describe their own works. e.g. the artists description of the Tilted Arc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilted_Arc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilted_Arc): "The viewer becomes aware of himself and of his movement through the plaza. As he moves, the sculpture changes. Contraction and expansion of the sculpture result from the viewer's movement. Step by step, the perception not only of the sculpture but of the entire environment changes." The only thing the "viewers" were aware of was the fact that a large rusty slab of scrap metal had blocked free movement and become an eye sore. Art is a strange thing. Not every vision or idea will be apparent to the observer. Though I do agree that this kind of language comes off as condescending, as if the author has some form of superior artistic analysis and introspect. It's almost as if they are on the same level as conspiracy theorists, proud of the fact that they "understand" some arcane idea or fact that doesn't exist or isn't true.

bobthechef 6y ago
Not surprising. Modern art is full of sophistry, gnostic "secret knowledge", and in-group signaling. It's hard to tell when some charlatan is consciously trying to con some rich rube by making him feel unsophisticated and when the charlatan in question has been inhaling the fumes of the Delphic latrine. Certainly, some people are more perceptive than others. Some are as dead as door nails. But art must ultimately be intelligible, even if abstract (and thus possibly only of niche interest). Would Raphael speak in that pompous, hollow way? Would he describe his art, if at all, by employing puffed up banalities or incomprehensible blather? I doubt it. If you pressed the person writing that stuff, he'd probably accuse you of being an unsophisticated rube, not because you necessarily are one, but because it's a nice Derrida-style tactic of evasion through insult. It only works on those with egos, though. Insecure rich rubes wishing not to be seen as Beverly Hillbillies are jackpot. Let's take that wonderful excerpt you've given us (responses directed at the "artist")... "The viewer becomes aware of himself and of his movement through the plaza." The only thing I'm becoming aware of is my anger and annoyance. "As he moves, the sculpture changes." Oh, really. The sculpture is changing. Was I supposed to eat that piece of blotting paper before coming here? "Contraction and expansion of the sculpture result from the viewer's movement." It's called perspective. Congratulations. You have grasped Art 101. "Step by step, the perception not only of the sculpture but of the entire environment changes." ...
anigbrowl 6y ago
Sadly true. It's often more about the 'artist's statement' than the art itself, not least because it gives art collectors and dealers something to talk about at cocktail parties. While I am always quite interested in what technique or effect an artist is pursuing I share your contempt for the sort of marketing fluff you describe. Real artists' statements (eg in interviews or casual conversation) tend to be unpretentious and focus on the search for meaning, but then get rewritten into this pseudo-scholarly language by, well, BS artists.
ponker 6y ago
You have to realize the metagame being played here. The game that art collectors are playing is tax evasion. They want to buy something for $100 from a depressed cigarette smoker in tight jeans, then 20 years later say that it's worth $100 million and donate it to the Metropolitan Museum of Art for a mega tax writeoff. If they buy a 1 inch cube of 18/10 stainless steel, they can never claim that it's worth $100 million because the IRS would just say "you can buy that off McMaster Carr for $100." But with the above paragraphs attached, they get to claim that it's unique and not replaceable and therefore worth whatever they say it is.

bobthechef 6y ago

Not surprising. Modern art is full of sophistry, gnostic "secret knowledge", and in-group signaling. It's hard to tell when some charlatan is consciously trying to con some rich rube by making him feel unsophisticated and when the charlatan in question has been inhaling the fumes of the Delphic latrine. Certainly, some people are more perceptive than others. Some are as dead as door nails. But art must ultimately be intelligible, even if abstract (and thus possibly only of niche interest). Would Raphael speak in that pompous, hollow way? Would he describe his art, if at all, by employing puffed up banalities or incomprehensible blather? I doubt it. If you pressed the person writing that stuff, he'd probably accuse you of being an unsophisticated rube, not because you necessarily are one, but because it's a nice Derrida-style tactic of evasion through insult. It only works on those with egos, though. Insecure rich rubes wishing not to be seen as Beverly Hillbillies are jackpot. Let's take that wonderful excerpt you've given us (responses directed at the "artist")... "The viewer becomes aware of himself and of his movement through the plaza." The only thing I'm becoming aware of is my anger and annoyance. "As he moves, the sculpture changes." Oh, really. The sculpture is changing. Was I supposed to eat that piece of blotting paper before coming here? "Contraction and expansion of the sculpture result from the viewer's movement." It's called perspective. Congratulations. You have grasped Art 101. "Step by step, the perception not only of the sculpture but of the entire environment changes." ...

anigbrowl 6y ago

Sadly true. It's often more about the 'artist's statement' than the art itself, not least because it gives art collectors and dealers something to talk about at cocktail parties. While I am always quite interested in what technique or effect an artist is pursuing I share your contempt for the sort of marketing fluff you describe. Real artists' statements (eg in interviews or casual conversation) tend to be unpretentious and focus on the search for meaning, but then get rewritten into this pseudo-scholarly language by, well, BS artists.

ponker 6y ago

You have to realize the metagame being played here. The game that art collectors are playing is tax evasion. They want to buy something for $100 from a depressed cigarette smoker in tight jeans, then 20 years later say that it's worth $100 million and donate it to the Metropolitan Museum of Art for a mega tax writeoff. If they buy a 1 inch cube of 18/10 stainless steel, they can never claim that it's worth $100 million because the IRS would just say "you can buy that off McMaster Carr for $100." But with the above paragraphs attached, they get to claim that it's unique and not replaceable and therefore worth whatever they say it is.