Man, am I torn...the sort of on anti-intellectualism on display in this thread gets on my wick. These concepts are worth understanding, thinking about and being able to express cogently.
On the other hand I'm an art school refugee and critique-speak can drive me nuts too. When someone looks at something and asks "what are you trying to say?" I wanna say "that would be telling, what do you hear it saying?"
I'm currently taking a class with a lot of art department undergrads and I get to witness the indoctrination. Critiquing is important. Thinking is important. But they are indeed, learning about BS'ing.
I just don't know.
It's not the concepts that are in dispute and I don't hear any "anti-intellectualism " what I hear is anti-superfluous verbage. If a person wanted someone to learn from their knowledge, rather than feeling superior, they would speak in such a way that anyone could understand. I believe the concepts could be explained in normal english.
Prints available in the APUG GAllery
A desire that something be expressed well enough to be understood is not anti-intellectual. It may, however, be anti-academic.
Originally Posted by Gay Larson
Originally Posted by DBP
Ok, I feel better about it now. I think you're right.
"Aesthetics is for artists what ornithology is for birds."
Originally Posted by reellis67
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
That is it for me - the unecessary use of overly high-toned and fancy verbage when common language would both suffice and allow a larger audience to follow the work with a higher level of understanding of the concepts presented.
Originally Posted by Gay Larson
I would have to add that in order for me to display any sort of anti-intellectualism concerning the statement, there would have to be something intellectual about it. At some point it becomes crap, and not even the pontificator understands what they, themselves, are saying. (see: religion) Granted, I have not had the benefit of reading the sentence in context, but as it stands, it is a self contradictory statement, probably meant to baffle and impress, and is typical of certain sorts of people, who are gravely intimidated by clarity. Or it is poor writing, and the author has failed miserably in his attempt to communicate his conceptual idealization, because his verbage is certainly a realization free of all representative systems. Or, he knows this, and the sentence is, in fact, a symbol, a sort of hieroglyph, that brilliantly illustrates what the sentence fails to communicate, when taken at face value.
Originally Posted by jstraw
Sort of like when reading Aleister Crowely. You have to decipher which bits are lucid and serious, which bits are meant to be an exercise, which bits are kidding, and which bits are from a hallucination.
I could go on, but for some reason I have a headache now, and I'm going to take some aspirin and lie down.
Last edited by JBrunner; 11-05-2006 at 02:47 PM. Click to view previous post history.
There is a wonderful german expression for the type of crap espoused by Messers Clark and de Zayas, "Quatsch mit Sosse". A polite translation would be "Nonsense with gravy on it".
Originally Posted by mark king
People have been arguing for hundreds of years as to just what "art" is. Stop reading. Look at photographs taken by the greats to get their take on things and go out and make some pictures.
I'm going to disagree with Gerald here.
Originally Posted by Gerald Koch
Don't stop reading, just read in moderation, and with a "critical" eye.
And by "critical", I don't mean negative, I mean "evaluative" (if that is a word").
There are huge numbers of people out there who may have thoughts, observations and opinions that will inform, will educate and will inspire. Don't ignore the opportunity to learn from someone who can add to your knowledge - just don't be hesitant to reject the garbage.
Oh, and the rest of Gerald's advice, to look at other's photographs (and learn from them), and take a bunch of your own, that advice is gold!