accessible art, and plain english

by julie posted January 7, 2010

I believe that art is for everyone, not just the people who can talk about it in flowery language they learned at college.

It’s disappointing when you try to dig around for some new discussion, and you barely get a few sentences into any given article/post/artist statement without your eyes glazing over. The topics are solid, but for some reason people fall into a trap of speaking in a particular style of language when they talk about anything beyond shutter speed, aperture, and sharpness. And that language style encourages ambiguous wordsyness and shuns any notion of getting your point across clearly and simply. If you can says it three times in different ways and dance around the core meaning, why say it once, concisely?

This seems to be one of the main reasons that people who wouldn’t consider themselves interested in art-type photography (roughly as opposed to ‘here’s what I saw’ type photography, if I’m pushed to define it) are wary of getting into any conversations beyond the topic of whether the horizon is straight. I’m pretty sure that they actually do get something else from taking/making at looking at photographs, but feel intimidated because they aren’t familiar with that luvvie language and so write it off as a bunch of nonsense.

I should probably have a disclaimer at the bottom of every post saying that I think there’s nothing wrong when people aren’t interested in going beyond the purely visual, because of course you can’t dictate that everyone must see the world the way you do. But I do think that there’s a whole bunch of photographers who are missing out on stuff that they actually would be interested in, because all this flowery language nonsense puts them off.

I suppose the point of this post is to maybe make people think the next time they write something about photography beyond those level horizons, and try to do their bit to take away the ambiguity and luvvie-speak nonsense. I think Paul Butzi and Paul Lester, and in the archives (sadly he’s no longer posting) Colin Jago achieve this admirably on an almost daily basis, which is why they are my daily reads.

19 Responses to accessible art, and plain english

  1. Surely there’s a space in between uber-arty and point-and-click though?
    One doesn’t have to talk art-ish to appreciate it as long as you have the basic ability to say why you like something, why it affects you or how it makes you feel? These are basic human things I would hope that everyone understands (whether or not they choose to express themselves in this manner is an entirely different matter!)

  2. Nicely put and I thoroughly agree. I find the flowery speak quite off-putting myself. Simplicity is my mantra in pretty much every aspect of my life.

    Nice links too. Hadn’t seen any of those three before.

  3. Nicely put and I thoroughly agree. I find the flowery speak quite off-putting myself. Simplicity is my mantra in pretty much every aspect of my life.

    Nice links too. Hadn’t seen any of those three before.

  4. Julie: I’ve never been a fan of flowery words and what I call art-speak. Truthfully, I’m not sure what art is, other than what Paul Butzi says, a verb. Further, if art can really be defined, I have no idea what it is. It’s the old case of the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon.

    Beneath what is purely visual, I think it is very personal. That’s the part that’s hard to describe. The flowery words are used to try to make it sound more profound and important rather than just being honest and saying something like: This picture made me cry.

    Thanks for the mention, too. I’m glad that you continue to read daily.

  5. Photography like all art venues is a peculiar beast. I call it a beast because the passion I have to explore and create from those discoveries is mostly my friend but at times not controllable.

    While many photographers do discuss the artistic side to their craft, most of the photographic world is heavily focused on the business side of using photography to make money as opposed for the pure passion to create. IT is easy to talk about technical and business skills are these are easy to define. Art is that nebulous cloud that changes like real clouds.

    I tend to think that many are afraid to delve deeper into art side as to do so, you new to open yourself up to expose your real inner views and as an artist this will always be different that anyone else. Otherwise how could we create unique works?

    The web is a great sharing resource but we all are too familiar with the rudeness and self-professed experts that to often comment negatively without the intent to help that there is probably some reluctance to venture onto mushy ground.

    I agree that art is for everyone and that everyone has their own view of art and what they like. Almost guaranteed not the same views and my own.

    Niels

  6. Photography like all art venues is a peculiar beast. I call it a beast because the passion I have to explore and create from those discoveries is mostly my friend but at times not controllable.

    While many photographers do discuss the artistic side to their craft, most of the photographic world is heavily focused on the business side of using photography to make money as opposed for the pure passion to create. IT is easy to talk about technical and business skills are these are easy to define. Art is that nebulous cloud that changes like real clouds.

    I tend to think that many are afraid to delve deeper into art side as to do so, you new to open yourself up to expose your real inner views and as an artist this will always be different that anyone else. Otherwise how could we create unique works?

    The web is a great sharing resource but we all are too familiar with the rudeness and self-professed experts that to often comment negatively without the intent to help that there is probably some reluctance to venture onto mushy ground.

    I agree that art is for everyone and that everyone has their own view of art and what they like. Almost guaranteed not the same views and my own.

    Niels

  7. I once used a term for people who loved the sound of their own voice more than the art about which they spoke. I used to call them, somewhat unkindly, “artwipes”, you know ’cause they’re so full of it. Anyway I agree with your sentiments but I think care needs to be taken when judging people who speak of art. It’s best to judge them by their sincerity which can be hard to do on the Internet. Also I’m not so sure about your conclusion regarding the intimidation of newcomers to the art world. But it’s already too hot to think so I might leave it for another time.

  8. I once used a term for people who loved the sound of their own voice more than the art about which they spoke. I used to call them, somewhat unkindly, “artwipes”, you know ’cause they’re so full of it. Anyway I agree with your sentiments but I think care needs to be taken when judging people who speak of art. It’s best to judge them by their sincerity which can be hard to do on the Internet. Also I’m not so sure about your conclusion regarding the intimidation of newcomers to the art world. But it’s already too hot to think so I might leave it for another time.

  9. I find this is similar to the enjoyment of wine. I have read some wine “reviews” and find my eyes glaze over similarly when such elaborate writeups are involved. You almost feel that if you cannot describe the wine in a similar way, you are just some wine hack. So I can understand how similarly in art that the language used can create a negative experience.

    That said, I do think there is so much more than the tech details to an image and people should explore communicating how a particular image makes them feel versus just curiosity on how it was made.

  10. The comments are more interesting than the original post :)

    • Alas, but without the wisdom of the original post, there would be no comments! :-) Therefore, very thought provoking!!!

  11. This is interesting reading. All of it.
    There had to be so many various clashes and struggles. The major clash and incompatibility in our gained knowledge, education and experience when talking about photography and art. Just remember how spoke Roland Barthes on photography in his “Camera Lucida”. Selfishly and boldly, admitting that he didn’t know anything about photography, he set completely new bunch of terms and approaches how to study and consume photography. And only because he was using human language, verbal means of passing the information. And he wrote the whole book about it. And book that is being discussed a lot. Books of words.
    Could that be just a clash of media? Is it appropriate to describe visual art by means of language and words? Is it even possible? And is it desirable?
    How could we fully and truly describe for example a music piece? We cannot, although there are people making their living from writing about other peoples’ music. The closest we could get to describing of somebody’s musical creativity is to use notes. It is the basic recording, that is getting close to mechanical interpretation of the intended idea. but very rough interpretation. Only the composer can play and share the full meaning and message of the work to his listeners.
    And we are using words do describe our own understanding and interpretation of such piece.
    So, there is the creator of the music – the composer. Then, there is recording of his idea – the notes in the score. There is a musician with is own interpretation of the score into the music – what we hear. And then there is somebody listening to the music and writing about it from their personal point of view.
    I am finding a lot of space for distortion of the original idea.
    Going back to visual arts and photography, we have skipped one step completely – there are no notes, no scores, nothing.
    There is the author – the photographer, who presents the print. And then there are we who can see the picture. We just presume that we know what we see. It is not so easy with music, because we are not trained enough to be able to put into notes what we heard. But visual media? Tssss – I know what I see! Yeah, right.
    OK, you see a swan. In black and white. Shallow depth of field, focus on eyes, the swan facing to the left while swimming on a canal, cigarette butt on it’s wing, sewer rat swimming in front of her whilst carrying open Avon lipstick in it’s teeth…
    Am I missing something? Oh yes, I am.
    We don’t have notes in visual arts, just a range of expressions and words we have read and heard from other people when they had been describing other piece of art. Words associated to completely different piece of art, with unknown personal feeling towards that piece of art. Words.
    This must lead to both misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Misunderstanding of expressed thoughts, ideas and feelings. But we could get into misinterpretation of single words, especially adjectives.
    So yes, we have to express our thoughts and ideas in plain words, to be able to share our inner thoughts about the art, the picture, the photograph. and progressing from the most common words of the broadest meaning, we are trying to explain and lead the readers’ (listeners’) thoughts in direction of our personal perception of the photograph. But the more specific we get, the more confusing it could get due to our internal and personal associations we got with the words.
    There is a very thin and undefined line between expressing thoughts about a photograph that is trying to lead the reader in understandable direction and between words that lead nowhere.
    So yes, I love when people talk and write about photographs. And it does not matter what expressions they use, if they use words for a purpose and to express their own feeling from the picture and (or) opinion on the picture. And it does not matter whether there are words of Pat the baker who has never read a single book about art, never read an art magazine, but who is able to explain why is the red spot in the picture appealing to him.
    As mentioned in the original post, there are people who need to express themselves. And even to express themselves while they don’t have anything to pass, to share. Then it is only question of personal confidence to stand up and speak for ourselves “what the heck are you talking about?!?”
    :-)
    Honestly, I don’t know what I was typing about, I just had the urge to express myself ;-) And if you have the feeling that you cannot understand something from my typing, it is because my poor English or because there was nothing to be passed in my words.

  12. This is interesting reading. All of it.
    There had to be so many various clashes and struggles. The major clash and incompatibility in our gained knowledge, education and experience when talking about photography and art. Just remember how spoke Roland Barthes on photography in his “Camera Lucida”. Selfishly and boldly, admitting that he didn’t know anything about photography, he set completely new bunch of terms and approaches how to study and consume photography. And only because he was using human language, verbal means of passing the information. And he wrote the whole book about it. And book that is being discussed a lot. Books of words.
    Could that be just a clash of media? Is it appropriate to describe visual art by means of language and words? Is it even possible? And is it desirable?
    How could we fully and truly describe for example a music piece? We cannot, although there are people making their living from writing about other peoples’ music. The closest we could get to describing of somebody’s musical creativity is to use notes. It is the basic recording, that is getting close to mechanical interpretation of the intended idea. but very rough interpretation. Only the composer can play and share the full meaning and message of the work to his listeners.
    And we are using words do describe our own understanding and interpretation of such piece.
    So, there is the creator of the music – the composer. Then, there is recording of his idea – the notes in the score. There is a musician with is own interpretation of the score into the music – what we hear. And then there is somebody listening to the music and writing about it from their personal point of view.
    I am finding a lot of space for distortion of the original idea.
    Going back to visual arts and photography, we have skipped one step completely – there are no notes, no scores, nothing.
    There is the author – the photographer, who presents the print. And then there are we who can see the picture. We just presume that we know what we see. It is not so easy with music, because we are not trained enough to be able to put into notes what we heard. But visual media? Tssss – I know what I see! Yeah, right.
    OK, you see a swan. In black and white. Shallow depth of field, focus on eyes, the swan facing to the left while swimming on a canal, cigarette butt on it’s wing, sewer rat swimming in front of her whilst carrying open Avon lipstick in it’s teeth…
    Am I missing something? Oh yes, I am.
    We don’t have notes in visual arts, just a range of expressions and words we have read and heard from other people when they had been describing other piece of art. Words associated to completely different piece of art, with unknown personal feeling towards that piece of art. Words.
    This must lead to both misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Misunderstanding of expressed thoughts, ideas and feelings. But we could get into misinterpretation of single words, especially adjectives.
    So yes, we have to express our thoughts and ideas in plain words, to be able to share our inner thoughts about the art, the picture, the photograph. and progressing from the most common words of the broadest meaning, we are trying to explain and lead the readers’ (listeners’) thoughts in direction of our personal perception of the photograph. But the more specific we get, the more confusing it could get due to our internal and personal associations we got with the words.
    There is a very thin and undefined line between expressing thoughts about a photograph that is trying to lead the reader in understandable direction and between words that lead nowhere.
    So yes, I love when people talk and write about photographs. And it does not matter what expressions they use, if they use words for a purpose and to express their own feeling from the picture and (or) opinion on the picture. And it does not matter whether there are words of Pat the baker who has never read a single book about art, never read an art magazine, but who is able to explain why is the red spot in the picture appealing to him.
    As mentioned in the original post, there are people who need to express themselves. And even to express themselves while they don’t have anything to pass, to share. Then it is only question of personal confidence to stand up and speak for ourselves “what the heck are you talking about?!?”
    :-)
    Honestly, I don’t know what I was typing about, I just had the urge to express myself ;-) And if you have the feeling that you cannot understand something from my typing, it is because my poor English or because there was nothing to be passed in my words.

  13. I don’t think it’s a problem that certain people are over-articulated and makes me gasp for breath after having only read a few lines. I don’t mind either some prefer mentioning the leaning horizons and leaves it there. There’s a club for everyone. But, isn’t it funny how we become who we are? Why do one person get a verbal machine gun while another stays numb? Where do all these words come from, and why? Is it the art itself that makes a certain kind of people flock around it? Nah, that was a long shot. I’m anyhow glad anyone sees and enjoys what I do. I’m also glad others are out there, whose work I can enjoy and think about, without having to express myself in a flowering language. I guess we visit the same clubs, sort of.

  14. I don’t think it’s a problem that certain people are over-articulated and makes me gasp for breath after having only read a few lines. I don’t mind either some prefer mentioning the leaning horizons and leaves it there. There’s a club for everyone. But, isn’t it funny how we become who we are? Why do one person get a verbal machine gun while another stays numb? Where do all these words come from, and why? Is it the art itself that makes a certain kind of people flock around it? Nah, that was a long shot. I’m anyhow glad anyone sees and enjoys what I do. I’m also glad others are out there, whose work I can enjoy and think about, without having to express myself in a flowering language. I guess we visit the same clubs, sort of.

  15. […] and for some reason now forgotten left it unfinished but some recent conversations and a couple of interesting posts and comments on blogs I follow made it seem like a good time to finish […]

  16. I like common everyday words to describe art.

  17. I like common everyday words to describe art.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *