Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Rob C on November 27, 2008, 04:27:16 pm
-
Try this one for size:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm)
We should all start to worry!
Rob C
-
That's a very entertaining article, Rob, and the language issues raised are as relevant today as they were in 1946. However, his predictions about the future of society in 1984 were a bit off, though, don't you think?
-
Thankfully, yes; however, that´s not to say that things aren´t slowly going that way! On the matter of writing, it´s as if some of the curator-speak of today has been lifted straight off his article.
I suppose that when there is not really much to say about a picture, that´s the time when the seller feels the urgency to say much.
I might have posted this here before, and if so, please forgive me, but perhaps the incident bears the retelling. Anyway, some years ago I was in London and happened upon a show at Hamilton´s Gallery - it was by Robert Mapplethorpe´s brother. As I was walking slowly alongside the walls, looking somewhat bemusedly at the offerings thereon, I became aware of this chap and a woman standing to one side, and slightly behind me. He was telling her to notice the delicacy with which the photographer had captured the nuances of detail on the bakground to the main subject, the skill that took etc. I almost laughed out loud. The subject I can no longer remember, but the background I shall never forget: it was simply the woodchip wallpaper which the photographer had used as backdrop to the person he´d shot. I mean, how could he have AVOIDED the bloody texture using a side-light!
I have no idea whether the guy doing the speaking was an employee of the gallery or simply somebody trying to impress his girlfriend, but from the memory of the event I´d guess the former.
Sure seemed an easier route to riches than many others, including my own!
Rob C
-
Thankfully, yes; however, that´s not to say that things aren´t slowly going that way! On the matter of writing, it´s as if some of the curator-speak of today has been lifted straight off his article.
I suppose that when there is not really much to say about a picture, that´s the time when the seller feels the urgency to say much.
I might have posted this here before, and if so, please forgive me, but perhaps the incident bears the retelling. Anyway, some years ago I was in London and happened upon a show at Hamilton´s Gallery - it was by Robert Mapplethorpe´s brother. As I was walking slowly alongside the walls, looking somewhat bemusedly at the offerings thereon, I became aware of this chap and a woman standing to one side, and slightly behind me. He was telling her to notice the delicacy with which the photographer had captured the nuances of detail on the bakground to the main subject, the skill that took etc. I almost laughed out loud. The subject I can no longer remember, but the background I shall never forget: it was simply the woodchip wallpaper which the photographer had used as backdrop to the person he´d shot. I mean, how could he have AVOIDED the bloody texture using a side-light!
I have no idea whether the guy doing the speaking was an employee of the gallery or simply somebody trying to impress his girlfriend, but from the memory of the event I´d guess the former.
Sure seemed an easier route to riches than many others, including my own!
Rob C
There was an interesting program on TV last night, about lying (ie. not telling the truth). Yes, I do watch TV sometimes. Don't criticise me. I get the impression that the 'Australian Broadcasting Corporation' airs better quality programs than the 'American Broadcasting Corporation', despite the fact they are both the ABC. (Should I duck for cover? ).
There was a memorable episode which described the process of producing a painting done by a hippopotamus. The paint was applied to its tongue and it licked the canvass, producing the sort of abstract painting that might fool some folks into thinking the painting had some sort of ineffable profundity.
The painting was privately exhibited as an experiment to guage the reactions of a number of viewers, who were video recorded.
Privately, and therefore presumably honestly, a group of viewers thought the painting ridiculous. Some commented it was probably done by a monkey. Others said they could do a much better job themselves, even though they had little painting expertise. The general consensus was, the painting was crap.
In the next scene, the supposed painter walked into the room (not the hippopotamus), but an actor claiming to be the author of the work. He explained his motives, thoughts and aspirations in painting the work. He became eloquent on matters of light and shade, strength of brush technique, brilliance of primary colors which represented his unfulfilled dreams etc etc.
Suddenly, the audience responded in a completely positive way towards the painting. The viewers endorsed the painter's opinion of his work and even expanded upon it with accolades suggesting the work was a masterpiece and that it would have no trouble fetching a high price in a gallery.
Aren't we lovely .
-
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.
-
You've pointed to one of my favourite Orwell articles and the wonderful line "A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details." On that note, from a recent post on this forum....
Since our species still uses pecuniary methodology for both status competition and reciprocal altruism, it does function reasonably well with in the boundaries of the currently emotionally acceptable solution space.
The question's answer is, generally & structurally speaking, yes. With the technological advances of the last few decades, information can move faster than it can be valued. So any restriction on its movement will tend to decrease its utility and "progress" generally.
Prior to these technological advances, information was often reliant on reciprocal altruism for movement. That is no longer the case, once infrastructure is paid for.
I'm sure the writer knows English too.
John
-
What a wonderful memory you have, John! Also, how kind not to name names...
But curiosity rears its prurient head!
Rob C
-
What a wonderful memory you have, John! Also, how kind not to name names...
But curiosity rears its prurient head!
Rob C
Try post #17 today: from the Coffee Corner, about Copyrights. (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29716&st=10)
-
Try post #17 today: from the Coffee Corner, about Copyrights. (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=29716&st=10)
Hey, it's not fair to "out" an individual so rudely. You should join the effort to translate it before it wins a prize (http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/goldenbulls.htm). Let's start with "our species" becoming "we", "pecuniary methodology" can be "payment", and "with in [sic] the boundaries of the currently emotionally acceptable solution space" just makes you appreciate the elegance of colour management....
John
-
Hey, it's not fair to "out" an individual so rudely. You should join the effort to translate it before it wins a prize (http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/goldenbulls.htm). Let's start with "our species" becoming "we", "pecuniary methodology" can be "payment", and "with in [sic] the boundaries of the currently emotionally acceptable solution space" just makes you appreciate the elegance of colour management....
John
We could try getting one of the online language translation systems to render it into, say, Italian or Japanese, and then retranslate it back into English. Might be interesting.
P.S. I just checked out three of the prize winners at random at the link you provided and found all of them easier to understand than the quote you offered. Do you want to submit it, or should that honor go to the OP?
-
Well, Eric, to submit it on your own personal account would be analogous to the theft perpetrated upon an original Marlboro imager by the secondary creation of a second representation of the work of the former by a further imager within a fine-art context which apparently legitimises the theft by removing it from normal commercial constraints of copyright by depositing it fairly and squarely within an anything goes panorama defined by parameters coveniently veiled fom layman scrutiny by the best efforts of reputable and efficient galleristas and their legal representatives. Don´t you just love the free market! In any language.
Rob C
-
I just checked out three of the prize winners at random at the link you provided and found all of them easier to understand than the quote you offered. Do you want to submit it...?
No that would be cruel and unwarranted. After all, the same author is also capable of the stunning clarity of "Creativity, as commonly studied or discussed, is a mental process."
John
-
You know, i find this diatribe rather offensive itself. Why don't you point out this conversation to the author you so desire to belittle, and allow him to defend your ignorant attacks.
" The great enemy of clear language is insincerity "
Orwell.
I found his comments to be quite clear. What seems to be the problem.
-
No desire to belittle its author, which is why I didn't link to him (after all, he uses his name rather than bravely hiding behind a pseudonym). The post, though one can understand it, is a perfect example of the absurdly-inflated style against which (edit - typo) Orwell was arguing. Is it defensible?
-
It doesn´t have to be difficult to communicate about photography, about the art of it, the spirit and soul of the thing.
http://www.horvatland.com/pages/entrevues/07-moon-en_en.htm (http://www.horvatland.com/pages/entrevues/07-moon-en_en.htm)
(Note: in the typed link, there is a dropped - between en and en which doesn´t show up in the "Preview Post" window...)
And consider, this is a translation into English. If it doesn´t explain one style of creative process, then nothing ever will.
Should you care, this is where to find some of the work by which I best know her:
http://www.pirellical/thecal/calendar.html (http://www.pirellical/thecal/calendar.html)
I can´t get a closer link, but once in the site, click on 1972.
I think the series illustrates the previous article very well.
Rob C
-
The post, though one can understand it, is a perfect example of the absurdly-inflated style against while Orwell was arguing. Is it defensible?
It might help if you get your English correct before professing your expertise on how this language should be expressed.
"is a perfect example of the absurdly-inflated style against while Orwell was arguing" What was the word you were after, no?
Absurdly-inflated style? Define this for me, or better, define how you think Orwell was trying to express it. Because, i don't think the posters comments you refer to are that inflated at all. Rather, i see them as being a little more intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and reason"), sure. However, far from absurd.
-
It might help if you get your English correct before professing your expertise on how this language should be expressed.
"is a perfect example of the absurdly-inflated style against while Orwell was arguing" What was the word you were after, no?
"Which" (HTH, HAND)
-
It might help if you get your English correct before professing your expertise on how this language should be expressed.
"is a perfect example of the absurdly-inflated style against while Orwell was arguing" What was the word you were after, no?
Ha ha. So fxxxing what? A slip of the "pen". Use apostrophes correctly, and capitalize too, before getting on your high horse - I hope your knuckles no longer scrape the ground from a loftier position.
"A little more intellectual". Oh come on! As in most academic or bureaucratic gobbledegook, there was a coherent point or argument, yet those paragraphs' lurid decoration was about as intellectual as a royal wardrobe change. Just shows you'll always find someone who'll defend the indefensible though.
I rather agree with you about "diatribe" and wish one had just taken a single swipe at that utterly-ridiculous passage. But I'm done arguing any more with someone who is so bravely anonymous. Is this dpReview?
-
Ha ha. So fxxxing what? A slip of the "pen". Use apostrophes correctly, and capitalize too, before getting on your high horse - I hope your knuckles no longer scrape the ground from a loftier position.
"A little more intellectual". Oh come on! As in most academic or bureaucratic gobbledegook, there was a coherent point or argument, yet those paragraphs' lurid decoration was about as intellectual as a royal wardrobe change. Just shows you'll always find someone who'll defend the indefensible though.
I rather agree with you about "diatribe" and wish one had just taken a single swipe at that utterly-ridiculous passage. But I'm done arguing any more with someone who is so bravely anonymous. Is this dpReview?
Actually, my sentence structure was fine. It is possible to start a sentence with the word 'because' you know.
No anomymity needed here John. Brad Fernihough is my name and if you wish to continue with your diatribe give me a tinker - [email protected]. Go for your life mate....enlighten me with your thoughts.
You start a dialogue filled with vilification and when someone else bites back, you get all defensive and back peddle.
So full of it.
-
Note "the posters comments" lacks an apostrophe, and "i" is usually capitalized. I rest my case.
/unsubscribe
-
Hey, it's not fair to "out" an individual so rudely. You should join the effort to translate it before it wins a prize (http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/goldenbulls.htm). Let's start with "our species" becoming "we", "pecuniary methodology" can be "payment", and "with in [sic] the boundaries of the currently emotionally acceptable solution space" just makes you appreciate the elegance of colour management....
John
'Xcept, for example, "payment" is not synonymous with "pecuniary methodology". Seems that the writer's principal sin is to write in a way that you find hard to understand.
-
Absurdly-inflated style? Define this for me, or better, define how you think Orwell was trying to express it. Because, i don't think the posters comments you refer to are that inflated at all. Rather, i see them as being a little more intellectual (from the adjective meaning "involving thought and reason"), sure. However, far from absurd.
Inflated language such as that quoted is not "intellectual": it just pretends to that appearance. True intellect is reflected in clarity of expression, not in obfuscation.
I'm as fond of flowery writing as the next man (fonder, in fact; too fond, as some have pointed out) but to call a spade a flat-bladed manually operated agricultural earth-moving tool is too much even for me. The purpose of language is to express concepts, not to get in the way of comprehension. Text which is purposelessly hard to understand is simply badly written.
Jeremy
-
What the hell is it with you guys? We start something perfectly innocent and possibly even quite amusing, and in moments it turns into a fight! Relax, it´s all in fun, there´s nothing to get excited about because none of us is going to alter a damn thing that´s going on in the world of gallery hype. At best, we can smile a wry smile in the understanding that it is people other than the photographers who usually engage in the game of emperor´s clothes, those blessed others who know how to turn a snap into a work of art.
Unless, of course, the real name of the game is getting threads closed down.
Rob C
-
What the hell is it with you guys? We start something perfectly innocent and possibly even quite amusing, and in moments it turns into a fight! Relax, it´s all in fun, there´s nothing to get excited about because none of us is going to alter a damn thing that´s going on in the world of gallery hype. At best, we can smile a wry smile in the understanding that it is people other than the photographers who usually engage in the game of emperor´s clothes, those blessed others who know how to turn a snap into a work of art.
Unless, of course, the real name of the game is getting threads closed down.
I don't see how continuing a discussion which is directly related to the article to which you referred us all when you started this thread can be said to be "fighting": it's part of a spirited discussion and (I very much hope) couldn't lead to the thread being closed. Maybe I'm just too accustomed to robust argument which remains good-humoured to recognise that some people don't see things that way.
Michael quite reasonably closes threads when they descend into ad hominem attacks or personal abuse, and we're some way off that (as yet).
Jeremy