art speak

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you should keep in mind that these artists are primarily speaking to other artists and art historians not to the lay public. As a plain spoken artist myself it is something I find annoying. :bang:

FrankS said:
I am currently watching a PBS series on Netfix called Art 21. Each episode features four 21st century artists who display and discuss their work.

I think I have discovered why I (personally) have difficulty listening to art speak (the manner in which many artists speak about their work). As a teacher, I use words as efficiently and effectively as possible to simplify, clarify and illuminate meaning to facilitate understanding. The art speak that I hear does not do this; it seems to me that it is designed/intended to construct significance, complexity, and profoundness about the art work.

Does such a thing as a plain-spoken artist exist?
Click to expand...
 
maddoc said:
I don`t think that art speak has to do with increasing the importance of the work only. It is the same with the kind of speak in my area of work, science. Of course there is always some kind of speak that is hardly understandable especially when people have no real facts to tell and make up for something.
Click to expand...

+1.

There is another side to this:

I am sure some "art speak" or "art historian speak" is intended for fellow artists and art historians. A layperson not understanding might criticize it for not being plain enough, while (s)he simply lacks the necessary education to understand. I'm saying this as a non-artist, and non-art historian. If I don't understand it, it might likely be because I lack the background, it's not necessarily the speakers fault.

In my own line of work, it feels annoying when laymen, without having spent the (only) few hours necessary to acquire the necessary background, abuse terminology and state things for facts that are actually impossible or wrong: my favorite photo related pet-peeves are things like getting more than 8 bit dynamic range out of an 8-bit/pixel digital picture (actually describing a perpetuum mobile :) ), larger pixels in a sensor necessarily having less noise than smaller pixels, etc.

Just because you don't understand him/her, it doesn't mean the speaker is being pompous.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
A lot of good sense spoken here. A neurologist has to be able to communicate well, that's his job, partly. Talking about art is not necessarily an artist's job at all. But from a commercial point of view, playing the game and speaking that lingua franca is probably good for business. A friend I went to school with is a famous architect and it's only now that he is 50 that I can even understand his interviews and think that they are worth reading. Some doctors and scientists are fantastic communicators and no doubt some artists too. I do like the sometimes curt dismissive style of artists about their own work. The photographer Jane Bown, when asked what her technique of portraiture is, replied that it was f8 at 1/60s.
 
Interesting discussion on a topic that for me boils down to good manners and jargon.

A person is knowledgeable insofar as he knows something; the more that is known, the more knowledgeable. But this involves no communication of one's knowledge or understanding to others outside of the subject; hence it remains jargon, accessible to those into the subject. However, if there is a desire to be understood outside of the subject, it seems clear that those knowledgeable on the 'inside' of the subject would explain themselves -- to the extent possible -- without recourse to the specialized jargon within the subject. Examples could be multiplied of certain scientists, etc., explaining their ideas or even others' ideas to the uninitiated. This work of communicating one's understandings is very subtle and it would seem to involve wisdom gained in practice over time. But once a knowledgeable person can do it, it would be only a lack of good manners to withhold the attempt to explain one's understanding to another in a manner suited to him. Hence, overcoming jargon through wisdom and good manners ;)
 
I read an interview with Bruce Davidson and that was pretty clear. In a rather more brusque manner, David Bailey is straightforward. It can be done. I have the book " Crisis of the Real" by Andy Grundberg. It is essays on photography and mostly nice, clear and concise reading. However, I have read some post modern writing on art and I question whether some of it has any meaning at all.
 
I agree about David Bailey, and both he and Patrick Lichfield are refreshingly honest about their art, talent and the publics reaction to it
 
Art Speak, Lawyer Speak, Mechanic Speak, most professions have a language that pertains to it's requirements, a lot of people are alienated by Art. I studied fine art for 5 years and I can talk about it, but I'm lost listening to a Financier for example, most Artists are perfectly capable of discussing what they do in lay mans language but on a professional or peer to peer level of course they're going to use whatever terminology is appropriate.

Also, remember that Photographers aren't artists, but some Artist's are photographers.
 
Artspeak

Artspeak

Regarding the 'artist as a photographer', perhaps we could learn from Andreas Gursky. A quote from the 'Lot Notes' of a Christies Cataloge http://christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectId=5408908 is a superb example of 'ArtSpeak'. The fact that this photograph from a living photographer sold for in excess of $1,500,000 suggests that it may be a language worth learning!
 
Some artists and photographer's work is pretty straight forward and so they can explain it in a more straight forward fashion while other's work is more academic so their explanation of it is also academic. I think it's wrong to assume that everyone makes the same kind of art and some are just better at explaining it in plain terms than others. The way people talk about their art has a lot to do with the nature of their art. Of course there are those who try to express boringly trivial thoughts in 'art speak' in order to add signification to it but they're not really fooling anyone.
 
One of the positive pursuits in life is to confront ones issues and prejudices and deal with them. Art speak has been one of these for me. I think that as I listen to more of it, with my new-found knowledge and awareness thanks to this thread, I will be better able to come to terms with it.
 
Personally I think it's important to differentiate between that which it the artists explanation and that which is the artists commercial agents' justification.
 
Last edited:
IMHO doctor-speak or lawyer-speak etc. is technical jargon spoken between professionals and not to the general public. Art-speak is mumbo-jumbo spoken to the general public meant to impress the public with their own erudition (or lack of).
 
But art speak IS the technical jargon of fine art, it's pretty much the same for literature or poetry or any of the professional arts. It's also subjective, you don't have to agree with anyones statements.
 
Recently, someone in a course at the darkroom I use told me how she was eager to finish Basic Black&White, and move on to learning how to make "gelatin silver prints." She was holding a wet b&w print in a tray while telling me this.
 
Wow! I have lots of money, I'm gonna buy me some art.

I wonder what kind of deep meaning that big square white/black/mauve. canvas has?
It must be too deep for me to understand so it has to be worth lots of money. :)

I don't remember the artists name who sold these things but they're worth a princely sum for a monotone canvas. Tell me it's not merchandising.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom