What? Waste so much space so say that??
Originally Posted by goldie
Send from my Electronic Data Management Device using TWOFingerTexting
Technology distinquishable from magic is insufficiently developed
Ok, now I've read it (its dull in hospital!)...
... that was just on the tip of his tongue? Jeezuss! I'd hate to see an article he'd had to research! :o
A couple of interesting observations were made but 99 percent was waffle. It was like reading Stephen King!
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
Nothing brings out the circling sharks like a little "artspeak", eh? Interesting!
I've read this thread like others of its kind... with amusement and wonder at what threatens people so about those that use such language to convey their thoughts about art. I really don't get it at all. Sure it is wordy... perhaps she was being paid by the word! Seriously though, I am surprised to see some of the more critical and vociferous posters among those I consider to be the more "intellectual" and wordy this group has to offer. It makes me wonder why people feel the need to tear down something they do not, or choose not to, understand. Perhaps they feel themselves better, or more qualified? Why not simply turn the page... or channel?
By the way... not that it means anything to those taking such issue, but have any of you taken the time to read the author's resume? What is it you do that makes you feel superior to this person?
CHARLOTTE COTTON is the head of cultural programs at Art + Commerce in New York. Previously, she was the curator of photographs at the Victoria and Albert Museum (1992-2004), and head of programming at The Photographers’ Gallery in London (2004-5). She is the author and editor of several books, including Imperfect Beauty (2000), Then Things Went Quiet (2003), Guy Bourdin (2003) and The Photograph as Contemporary Art (2004).
Lighthearted, but still serious,
PS. Have any of you experiencing trouble digesting the words in print listened to the Podcast?
I wasn't trying to criticize what she had written, more that the text seemed rather verbose. I actually think writing about art can be a very valuable (if somewhat difficult to do well) endeavor.
I'll have to listen to the podcast at some point, I imagine the language might come over better through that medium.
Some folks think in words, others (including me) think in pictures. To me, the article is a jumble. I suspect that the author, asking me to explain a photograph in words and receiving the reply "Well, it's that." and seeing me point at the photograph, would be equally confused.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by Tom Kershaw
Beware that it too is quite wordy! A little easier to digest IMO due to the wonderful English accent. Probably won't have the same effect on you being that you are in the UK!
Bill, as I consider myself one of the wordy people, I will respond (briefly!). The threat? Well, it's not so much a threat, it's more the fact that there are many shortcuts that are taken in her argument, which present an oversimplified and unduly jargony perspective.
Originally Posted by billschwab
Tearing down? Well, this article is an argumentative article, and it is common practice to discuss arguments by showing where they don't work. What would be the point of just "turning the page" ?
Using film since before it was hip.
"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal
, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11
My APUG Portfolio
Originally Posted by mhv
I'm sure I am overlooking something that you will no doubt point out but, other than one post, I really don't see where you have discussed what was said as much as how it was said.
Originally Posted by billschwab
What do I do that makes me feel superior?
I can convey quite complex ideas in simple language. It's part of what I do for a living, and has been for decades. I work hard at it, and have done all my life. She appears not to have made the slightest effort to make her maunderings comprehensible.
I eschew jargon whenever possible; when I use it, I explain it.
I can take pictures myself: another part of what I do for a living, and again something I have been doing for a long time. From the way she writes, I'd be astonished if she could do the same. Her writing about photography is a bit like me writing about childbirth: it's inevitably second hand, or based on bringing up children, not giving birth to them.
I number among my friends quite a few art historians, most of whom are (like her, like me) fascinated by the subject -- and most of whom have little time for such tendentious writing as hers.
I get paid to write a weekly column in Amateur Photographer magazine that a lot of people enjoy. It often addresses similar concerns to hers, but without the Olympian condescension.
Why shouldn't I feel superior? Because she gets paid more? OK: I'm inferior to the average ambulance-chasing lawyer or drug dealer that that point.
Whew....me too! About half way through the article my head began to hurt, so I grabbed my camera and headed out for a day of shooting. BTW...my headache cleared as soon as I began shooting.
Originally Posted by David Brown