Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There was a thread a while back that addressed the obfuscatory language used in a lot of academic artists' statements, and I can't find it. We had fun trying to translate. Anyways.  Here's a link from the Globe and Mail opinions that I thought was applicable. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/lets-stop-pretending-academic-artspeak-reflects-actual-research/article36785084/?mc_cid=ff1e3e039d&mc_eid=1d64d860e9

GEP, Roberta12, Min and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha...monkee cee, monkee doo. I got "I'm troubled by how the optical suggestions of the negative space notates the essentially transitional quality. " Doesn't say transitional quality of "what", but really isn't too bad...I have paintings it could fit! 

Sputty likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I can get serious for a minute, 

"Middling graduate students often want us to believe that because a theory has been put forward it has proved something, akin to a pharmaceutical study that proves the efficacy of a certain drug."

This type of thing happens in lots of places, including this forum! When you are reading this forum, ask yourself, is this person writing from first-hand experience? Or is this a theory? If it's a theory, is it being framed as a theory? Why or why not? Or is this person repeating something they have read, which is neither a theory nor an experience. If so, did they provide a source so I can read the source myself? Why or why not? 

It's one thing to not put forth any babble. It's also important not to consume it uncritically. I always put the most value on things that are clearly first-hand experiences. 

 

Marcia Selsor, Min, Chilly and 2 others like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2017 at 8:35 AM, Callie Beller Diesel said:

There was a thread a while back that addressed the obfuscatory language used in a lot of academic artists' statements, and I can't find it. We had fun trying to translate. Anyways.  Here's a link from the Globe and Mail opinions that I thought was applicable. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/lets-stop-pretending-academic-artspeak-reflects-actual-research/article36785084/?mc_cid=ff1e3e039d&mc_eid=1d64d860e9

Hear, hear! (Love "Wankers and Hogwash")

Good reasons in this article for losing the citations, too.

Non-ArtSpeak rationale for the kind of carving that I do: "I like making holes in pots and seeing how far I can take it before it collapses. I was inspired by a pair of Danish pots with holes in them that I saw, in 1963, as a contradiction of traditional functionality."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GEP said:

This type of thing happens in lots of places, including this forum! When you are reading this forum, ask yourself, is this person writing from first-hand experience? Or is this a theory? If it's a theory, is it being framed as a theory? Why or why not? Or is this person repeating something they have read, which is neither a theory nor an experience. If so, did they provide a source so I can read the source myself? Why or why not? 

+ 1,000,000,000

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well just having attended a convention on sthing other than ceramics, at the front of my brain is the need to speak with my own words, not respeak the thoughts of others.

why do I write or speak? To be understood by many others or an exclusive "informed" few?

let the pot speak, or keep it skeletal to allow the viewers thoughts to be their own.

Edited by Babs
Rae Reich likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in the end, the pot just is. I really cannot describe my feelings about the clay, the making, the feel of the clay, the feel of glaze on my hands or the heat of the kiln at ^6 when I walk  into the garage and feel the heat of the kiln like a warm blanket and body next to me and especially not the ecstasy of opening the kiln when cool to blush at the vision of a kiln load. To try to describe any of this to another, is just. . . . too personal, and I fear that they would probably take it the wrong way. . . . entirely.

 

 

best,

Pres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.