In response to ‘Why it’s
time for galleries to drop the jargon’ by Christina Patterson
Published in the ‘i’
newspaper Tuesday 5th February 2013
This article, by Christina
Patterson, puts across the view that “the art world uses words everyone else
has dropped”. Patterson argues that this language is old-fashioned and is used
as a way to make mediocre art seem more important. She also complains about the
practice of contemporary artists; suggesting that their anti-capitalism was
false and their work is repetitive.
Upon my first reading of
the article, I have to admit, I was in agreement. As an advocate for
accessibility and a supporter of ‘End Oil Sponsorship of The Arts’ I was
pleased that she was arguing for more clarity in The Arts and raising awareness
of “a world in which art is bought by hedge funders as an investment and a
brand”.
But then I started to
imagine a world without descriptive language: it would be awful. Patterson
complains about the over-use of synonyms: “why they seem to think it’s better
to use the word ‘notion’ rather than ‘idea’, or the word ‘narrative’ rather
than ‘story’…” I would argue that exact words help to give meaning with more
accuracy. I think language is an intrinsic part of the art and the exhibitions;
art is not just the paintings on the wall; it is the building, the leaflet
design and the language used – these all transmit the ideas of the artist. As
an Art History student I have often become frustrated whilst trying to read
visual arts criticism and not understanding the words used, but you know what I
did? I got the dictionary out and learned something.
And when writing my own
criticism I get the thesaurus out too, because artists basically do one thing:
create, and there are only so many times you can use the word ‘create’ in a
piece of writing before it gets boring and you sound incompetent.
As for young people using
language “which seems very, very old-fashioned now”, what kind of language does
she want us to use? “This exhibition is totes amaze” – now that would be a
travesty.
Whilst we’re on the
subject of visual arts criticism; Patterson suggests that it “often doesn’t
seem to be all that critical”. Of course promotional writing and catalogues
(the examples of language in the article) are not going to be critical – their
aim is to attract visitors, and yes, sometimes buyers. As for actual critical
writing, I would say that contemporary criticism is more balanced than it used
to be. I often read reviews of exhibitions in which the writer says what they
felt was missing, how they would have liked to have seen the works displayed.
Surely this is better than the days when taste makers told us what to think and
tarred exhibitions with the phrase: “A pile of rubbish!”
Patterson also suggests
that art galleries use this language to hide something: “that the work wasn’t
very good at all.” Surely art is objective? Furthermore, Patterson says that
this artwork that they are over exaggerating may not be “worth thinking about”
and that artists keep asking the same questions, leaving all the answers to us.
I would like to suggest that art is supposed to make us think, make us feel
something – it provokes discussion, which in a world of mind-numbing television
is surely a good thing. For example, the work of war artist Xavier Pick makes
us ask questions about the humanitarian situation in Iraq in a way that five
minutes of biased news coverage cannot.
Now to the accusation of
false anti-capitalism: “you might wonder why, if the artist hated capitalism so
much, that the work was so often for sale”. When this issue is brought up and
people are complaining about the huge sums art is sold for, I think of artists
from working-class backgrounds laughing behind the backs of the ‘fat-cat’
bankers who paid the extortionate amounts for their work. This may be my inner
socialist talking, but I reckon taking from the rich and giving to the poor has
got to be a good thing, even if it’s not quite anti-capitalism. The fact that
contemporary artists such as Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst then give generously
to charities makes this even better. Someone once said (though I can’t now
remember who): “You have to be part of the system in order to corrupt it.”
Although I agree with
Olivia Patterson that there needs to be more clarity and accessibility in The
Arts, I think there is a time and a place for descriptive, academic language. I
believe that language is an intrinsic part of the artwork and that
‘dumbing-down’ our language would be a great loss. I think that a balance is
being re-addressed in the art world: galleries are focussing on education and
discussion and criticism is becoming more unbiased, artists are donating their
time and money to communities in need and social media is enabling a creative
revolution. At a time when The Arts is being cut we need all the support we can
get, and language is the key.
Interesting Links:
The original article by
Olivia Patterson:
‘End Oil Sponsorship of
the Arts’: http://www.artnotoil.org.uk/about
And ‘Liberate Tate’: http://liberatetate.wordpress.com/
War artist Xavier Pick: http://www.xavierpick.co.uk/
Another interesting
contemporary war artist Derek Eland: http://derekeland.com/
Tracey Emin’s charity
work: http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/tracey-emin
Tracey Emin’s website: http://www.traceyeminstudio.com/
