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

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." ...