I once had a bumper sticker, back in the day: "Eschew Obfuscation". I still like it.

Some artist feel pressure to create or state something profound. It is not profound, however, if it can't be understood.

Some artists and art critics seem to also feel the need to condescend to the mere mortals, which is insulting.

Some artists and art critics are just bad writers. I admire and envy a writer who can say so much with small, common, carefully chosen words.

Dear Robert,

You are never, I repeat, never obscure! Unless of course you use a word well known to North Americans but not to the rest of us - there have been one or two occasions, but why else do we have the internet? ;-)
Those who don't understand you are probably not paying due attention; I say to them your words are worth careful consideration.
I can't imagine how you come up with something worth reading every few days, and what's more it's so well-written, informative, and often hilarious.
I am filled with admiration.

Gibberish in art is annoying, but its use in business and politics is really worrying. Who knows what they're hiding.

Marvin, I love your bumper sticker.

To say that “a set of socially shared meanings the artist chooses to make visible in the space of art” means “ the artist lets people look at his stuff “ is not my interpretation.
Socially shared meaning refers to almost anything like language, objects or spaces that people collectively agree means something. So if an artist takes an image of a pot, an object which is commonly known as a cooking utensil, and then puts an image of three little boys inside the pot floating on the water the pot now has two meanings; that of cooking utensil and that of a boat or raft collectively understood among the three boys.
Communication requires quite a bit of shared understanding in order to successfully interpret meaning. This meaning can be between a large population and as few as two people. Psychology, philosophy, anthropological and social studies, just to name a few sciences, also use this terminology when considering society and culture. If you place this kind of dialogue in relation to art as gibberish then I think you do the same for any other science.
Making the viewer think about the meaning of your art can enrich the experience they take away. Many artists engage in several levels of communication just as a singer would talk about the intimate or personal subject matter of a song to a fan but to a fellow musician they may talk about cadence, tone, instruments and the process of song making.

I really liked this piece and had to laugh at the reason you give for artists using lots of big vague words or "obfuscation" as you call it. I'm keeping this one for sure.

Lots of galleries ask me for an artist's statement when I enter their shows. And so I sit down at my computer and struggle to write some long boring thing that I think will sound as if I know what I'm about. That is I did, until I found that one of my favorite artists used only a line or two for her statement. After all "one picture is worth a thousand words".

Here is a line I heard years ago from an old TV show. "He has the unique ability to make statements that are seemingly vague, but in reality they're meaningless." Whoever "he" is may be the one who is writing all of these artist's statements.

To comment on the "art speak" I wish to tell you my experience. When asked at a one man show of my work to speak to the press, I merely said "let my work speak for itself". The curators were unhappy and, after a four year relationship with the gallery, I was not invited to show there again.

Someone needed to say this! What a great post. I worked for the military for 31 years, and they do the same thing. A toothpick was an "interdental stimulator." I recently received an honorable mention in a competition, and the judge saw lyrical things in my work that I never consciously intended. Her words were much appreciated, but I had to laugh. It was at that moment that I appreciated the difficult job of judging an art competition.

So enjoy your twice weekly letters. This one on the B.S. about writing & talking about art was wonderful. I suspect that there should be a saying that" the amount of verbiage about an artist's work and the degree of obfuscation in the writing are inversely proportional to the quality and clarity of the art/artist being described...... Art speaks for itself."

I think this is what your longish ‘O’ word means. The condition has two aspects:
1. So much of the daily world is built on massive BS, sales, advertizing, marketing, it becomes acceptable.
2. People who can tear part in detail the workings of a double play or balk have no comparable skill is seeing and discussing the arts, painting, ballet, music. It is cultural, the arts are too often seen as feminine thus second rate. Thus the potential fans/buyers are at a loss for words and can only nod in agreement when presented with the flood of glossy verbage.

As a teacher my main goal is clear thinking, getting past the BS and learning reality.

I enjoy your letters and particularly loved this one about obfuscation. I'm old enough to have forgotten most of what I know and cant remember where I got what I do remember. But a line that I recall by Picasso was something like… When Art Critics and Museum people get together they talk about color theory, style, texture, etc. But when artists get together they talk about the best place to by turpentine!

Describing art is a bit like trying to write a poem. It's a feeling that is so intense, big words seem necessary. Metaphor becomes a way to describe the indescribable. A poem that says:
"the sun came up
it was pretty
I really liked it"

may be what happened. But how do we create the wonder we felt?

One man's gibberish is another man's poem.

I read an art book recently and the lofty haute explanations of the auther who was explaining9?0 the social interrpretations and the phiseo, psychological aspects of art and how it affected early caveman primitive renderings....ad nauseum- you get my point.

I was once had a dinner with an artist and an art administrator when they started doing the art talk. It was obvious that they immensely enjoyed and gave importance to that conversation. Their main point was that a piece of art is worthless unless the method, meaning and importance of it can be verbalized by someone if their kind. The talk went on and on and they even produced written notes that should be kept as a record of all that wisdom for posterity.

Karen Wardle you missed Robert's point. We can all interpret what “a set of socially shared meanings the artist chooses to make visible in the space of art” means. It is art that is needed in this world to communicate for itslef, not the parasitic hangers on who call it upon themselves to explain it.

Thanks for using the word 'obfuscation' in a sentence! When I was in college (I'm sure it was before the time of Christ -- if not during the time of the dinosaurs) I used to walk past a car on campus. It must've belonged to somebody important -- a little silver sports car always parked in the same spot right next to the main door of the Cage....

Anyway, this car had a bumper sticker that said 'Eschew Obfuscation'. Needless to say, I saw it enough times that it burned a hole in my brain. 40 years later, I still remember the spring day I took out my notebook and wrote it down.
Minneapolis, MN USA

I agree that there is a lot of gibberish written out there to explain what the artists are trying to show. Sometimes just the title of the show is good enough.

I go by one motto - Let the paintings speak for themselves. If the work is not captivating and do not get the message across – the writings are meaningless, no matter how long; fancy; flowery the words may be.

Look at the old masters work hanging in the museums. They can be summarized as “A picture tells a thousand words”, there’s only the title, date, medium and size. In modern day terms, the WOW factor has already been achieved, words are mere added information. Short and precise sentences are preferred. Nowadays, the long extended explanations on the hidden meaning behind the art work are so confusing. Does the writing mean to strengthen the work or is the work so weak that it needs words as vitamin supplements to spur growth?

I appreciate your thoughts on gibberish...I was once given an A- rather than a solid A by a professor at the University of Michigan School of Art & Design because I didn't, "...speak the language of art well enough." In class I said things like, "it's beautiful", "it's well crafted", which lacked of the assumed educated language. I argued that I liked to simply say how a work of art made me feel...but I was not the one with the power in that situation.

I got a chuckle out of your use of the word obfuscation in this context today - thanks for that.

Robert, this letter is one of your best! It gave me my belly laugh of the day – so short and deliciously sweet. So many reviews of art and artists fit the ‘obfuscation’ definition today, you have to wonder if the reviewers take courses in this ‘art’.
I especially treasure your last two sentences under “Esoterica” – ‘B.S.’ indeed! Many thanks for the giggles.

I read today's letter with amusement and nodded in agreement. The gibberish of the art world often masks an inability to speak intelligently or cogently about the work -- one's own or another's.

I came up short when I read this line: " Some religions, for example, rely on whole other languages that no one but a chosen few can understand."

I've read you for a long time and I've never detected a hint of disparagement toward others. I have trouble believing I read this correctly. As a Jew -- who just spent many hours praying in another language during Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur -- I do not think I was engaging in a conspiracy of obfuscation and trickery.

I understand what you were trying to say, but I wish you might have chosen another analogy. This one was hurtful, though I'm sure unintended.

Gibberish is everywhere, especially in political ads that, instead of making the simple incomprehensible, make complex problems seem simple.

Let's face it, in a society where we are bombarded with carefully designed visuals every minute, fine art is marketed on the premise that it is somehow "above" the common crowd, and gibberish supports this premise. If you can't understand it, it must be refined. The Emperor's clothes are too aristocratic for you to see.

Of course there are clear ways to describe art. They won't replace actually seeing the art, any more than reading a food critic's column replaces eating, but verbal explanations can supplement and add to the experience.

Love your articles and enjoy your opinions about the arts and the execution thereof. I must say that your comment about religions using "other languages" may be at best .... misguided! The Roman Catholic Church (after Vatican II) moved away from latin as the language preferred over the vernacular, but the advantage of a common language worldwide gave a unity to all the mass participants world wide. A person could go to mass in Uganda, Ecuador or the United States and knew the meaning of each and every word spoken by the priest ... sometimes they used an interpretive missal, but they always had the opportunity of understanding the words ... NOT A RUSE!

I had a wonderful teacher at art school in Halifax a million years who delivered a lecture on gibberish during which he told us to avoid it, to speak the plain truth and not worry about being "articulate" because if we were articulate for heavens sake we'd be be writers. Artists speak a different way, through their visual media and that we should accept and revere that.

Words can be gibberish, it is true, but they also can be as much fun as paint! Public art words really do need editors, rather than advert writers, perhaps.

I'm so sick of artists' statements I could gag. They should just start showing the statements and forget the art, the way things are going. (ps before we come down too heavily on some of the dreadful writing, it might be kind to bear in mind that they feel pressured, especially by the public galleries, to come up with this stuff. Since most of them are visual artists not writers, no wonder it's dreck! I've done it myself, I hate to say.)

Very funny and fun to read! I think I must write a letter to the editor of the last Harper's about obfuscation. One article had it in spades. Either that or I am too illiterate for the magazine(I think not). It was filled with obfuscating terms and long super-intricate sentence structures that would take a grammatician to resolve. Thanks for the entertainment and observations.

For a painter Robert Genn has an excellent understanding of human nature.

Good letter on a fun topic! Two tidbits worth sharing come to mind...

A quote attributed to Stanley Kubrick: "In the end, the test of a work of art is our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good."

Also, here is a link to a random art-speak generator. Type in any 5 numbers and hit enter to generate typically bewildering yet surprisingly familiar-sounding art critiques:
http://www.pixmaven.com/phrase_generator.html

I had a great laugh at this one.

Your comments could not be more applicable than they are today with all the obfuscation going on in the presidential election!

Seriously, I took my non-artist husband to an art talk ONE time… never again. Although he has a great eye and is my best critic, he could not understand how anyone could talk on and on and never say anything! Why couldn’t they just say, “I made the wheel red to draw attention to it”? So much simpler!
Cambridge, MD

Thank you for this on gibberish. Your letters are a balm for this strange and often confusing painting life. One of the most meaningful phrases I know was said by Mark Rothko:

"Silence is so accurate."

Why don't we all just pretend that we're musicians? A musician never has to put strings of letters after his/her name, never has to present a gibberish-filled statement. We can say something like ... "Joe Jones is showing new work at the Downtown Gallery this month. His work is astounding. Stunning. Takes the breath away. "

When I was a young man I had the fortunate experience of being taken under the wings of some "older" smarter people than myself who didn't allow me to shoot my mouth off without having the information to back it up. These people weren't arrogant intellectuals. They didn't consider themselves better or smarter than anyone else. They felt that if you participate in a conversation, know something of which you speak. Find the information to speak correctly and informatively. This has stood me in good stead for years and I sleep well at nights knowing I've been as truthful as I can whenever I talk with others. This isn't the case in today's society where lying, cheating and "obfuscating" an issue is the norm. You find the kind of situation especially when there is a sale involved, when the speaker doesn't know about the issue they are talking about or when a product they are selling is not worth the money. Gibberish hides the fact you don't know what your taking about but sounds like you do.

Our politicians, our investors, our officials find this process of gibberish easy and have no difficulty speaking without the facts. It takes all kinds to make a world, but if seek out proper information, you should have little difficulty seeing when the wool is being pulled over your eyes.

I was once given an A- rather than a solid A by a professor at the University of Michigan School of Art & Design because I didn't, "...speak the language of art well enough." In class I said things like, "it's beautiful", "it's well crafted", which lacked of the assumed educated language. I argued that I liked to simply say how a work of art made me feel...but I was not the one with the power in that situation.

I got a chuckle out of your use of the word obfuscation in this context today - thanks for that.

I read a quote once (and cannot remember the author).... "talking about art is like dancing about architecture" !

When I started painting and selling my work, I started my prices at what I thought was a fair price based on the prices of other artists in the area. Although I've sold some work, I haven't been selling like my friend who has much lower prices. I'm concerned that I initially priced my work to high. You have always said that you shouldn't lower prices, so now I think I've painted myself into a corner. Is there a way to bring prices down so I can sell more of my work? How do I know where my prices should be?

I think I must write a letter to the editor of the last Harper's about obfuscation. One article had it in spades. Either that or I am too illiterate for the magazine (I think not). It was filled with obfuscating terms and long superintricate sentence structures that would take a grammatician to resolve. Thanks for the entertainment and observations.

Real art happens when a close up of the texture just painted looks like gibberish, and then you stand back and it takes form. Right before your very eyes!

My primary medium is a visual art.

But guess what? I've a book of poetry ready to go to print, and after a year and a half I'm completing a 23 chapter intense metaphysical book.

I spent my early years playing a cello- and have been a music programmer for more then 30 years.

Robert is both painter and writer.

These multiple creative things are not mutually exclusive.

Or.....Robert we could look at this kind of language as a way to elevate the art and the institution placing it in the realm of “high culture.” This is the language that identifies art and ideas with academia and museums. Note that in the marketplace, auction houses will use a different vocabulary when describing art. To separate the art and put it on a linguistic pedestal seems to give it a place of honor. I am more interested in what art actually does, with the wordless power of images. They are powerful precisely because no words can come close to saying what beauty describes so eloquently.

I got off this site on Saturday night and have spent the time since fed up with much of what I read above.

A few letters back many comments were made about a woman who demanded an apology because some jurors asked her- in public- to explain and defend her work.

Really folks- some of you just don't get it.

A unique piece of art must be interesting enough to stand on its own and speak for itself. If your work isn't that good and doesn't do that- you have failed.

But guess what?

If 4% are creating but only 2% are buying- to think any artist anywhere on the planet wouldn't take the time to give an explanation of both their work and their vision and their process to the potential buyers- as an educational service for all of us- is just plain pathetic.

So- GROW UP.

If you can't explain your work- what the hell are you actually doing?

If you can't paint AND write- where'd you get your useless education.

Yes- a lot of artist's statements are trash. Where's the problem? Oh- with the artists themselves.

My medium is fiber- which came out of a female-based handicraft. Handicrafter hobbyists make BS artist's statements.

Believe me.

If you can't explain what you are doing- why are you doing it? Because you can't even explain it to yourself.

There is magic in producing great art. Explaining that magic is difficult. Not explaining it is BS.

Some people are visual. Some people are intellectual. Right brain- left brain- us lucky ones ARE BOTH.

But for a person who is more left-brained- the WORDS describing a wonderful successful visual work of art still help the left-brained person truly appreciate that beauty.

Any artist unwilling to explain their work and self do a huge disservice to every other single artist on the planet.

When will you all learn?

Artspeak is the insider language that helps build the mystique of work that falls short of or goes beyond plain truth and beauty. In advanced, controversial and entertainment art, this language is necessarily a part of the art.

Regarding "metapoints," they are points (often of view) based on previous points of view. Metapoints of view come about when people are willing to look into their previous points of view and make changes based on them. Comprendo?

As usual Robert's topic spurs responses that dash off madly in all directions. Curator/critic art speak must be incomprehensible as they rush to justify salaries ludicrous compared to the paltry sums most Canadian artists can command. Of course it is bull hockey but to paraphrase Andy Griffith, "It's high classed bull hockey. On the slightly different topic of 'artist's statements': why not demand that all authors must produce a 'writer's painting' describing their latest work in sophisticated colour, line and form? Music composers could be forced to knit elaborate but cozy explanations, dancers could be asked to provide sculptures or static installations to explain their hard to understand movements. etc. Get the picture????

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit...

The words I had to type into the comment form, to prove I am not a spam program were "taryop proclivities"... 'Nuff said !

For an insightful read on how art acadaemia has inflicted damage to art history through the use of obfuscation, bs and other verbal weaponry I suggest " Rape of the Masters " by Roger Kimball

I have a billy-club, too.

I had a gallery owner put it simply to me once, while looking at an abstract piece he loved of mine that I was struggling to title. "I don't want anyone to tell me what to think." That openness to the work itself clarified what my own hope for any viewer is; a personal connection between him/her and the work itself. Just as titles can overstate the visual, I think words which describe can complicate the pure emotion of reacting to a painting on it's face for the viewer. Books need titles to draw the reader in, and the text which follows tells the story. But art is different. It speaks to the viewer in some way, in that one look. That being said, every artist has an internal process which develops the work, but how that connects to the viewer may just be irrelevant to all but art writers and critics. I like Helen Frankenthaler's quote "I wanted things that I couldn't at times articulate." So she painted.

"2. People who can tear part in detail the workings of a double play or balk have no comparable skill is seeing and discussing the arts, painting, ballet, music."

As always, I've enjoyed the comments, laughing in appreciation at some; shaking my head at a few.
But this point of yours, Norman, left me obfuscated! ;-) Is it perhaps a result of editing your sentence and forgetting to read it again for sense before posting? I'd love to know what you actually meant.

===

"Right brain- left brain- us lucky ones ARE BOTH." It's "we". Leave out 'lucky ones' and you'll see why. Confuses a lot of people.
Actually, you've missed the points people have been making: it's fine to explain your work in simple language; using gibberish to make you seem cleverer than the rest of us (not we) is the problem. ;-)

A picture, object, writing, music is not always perfectly understandable to someone who encounters and experiences it for the first time. As a green (salad green, green with envy) 19 year old, I saw for the first time Gericault's "Raft of the Medusa" in the Louvre. I was gob-smacked, but feeling very much ignorant of what the painting referred to. Yes, the subject was entirely clear, but the content of the picture eluded me because of my own ignorance. What was the "Medusa"? What back-story was not to be known by me? A lot, as it happens - the historical aspects, the research done by Gericault, some aspects of visual design, the cutural context of the work escaped me.
Sometimes there is more than meets the eye in art, which requires for the mind to become fully engaged, to be curious about. And, yes, sometimes words must be used to throw light onto patches of non-knowing, or not understanding.
Language is not always simple and mono-syllabic. Nouance often has to be expressed in slightly more complex ways. Visual art is not always straightforward or an easy direct read, obtainable in totality of meaning at first glance. Say, the difference between a simple melody picked out with one hand on the piano, and a full symphony interwoven of many harmonic components.
Me, I like both the simple hummable melody and the more complex arrangement. If we can accept there is a range from the simplest to the most complex in many situations, why does it rankle to accept the same capacity in the visual arts?

Most writing about art is an attempt to make the ineffable "effable" . It is like trying to wrangle a cloud. Left brain vs right brain

Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings : "If you can't bewilder them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t

@J Wilcox: I know this isn't a debate but the reason we artists and crafts people have OTHER people speak for us is because we, by trade, are less capable with words - maybe verbally more than written. Our art is our language. We should just say no if we don't want to speak about it. Our paintbrush/pen/quill/medium is our loudspeaker. We 'speak' all the time but make no sound. For that matter, many musicians make lousy speakers, and also many writers. I've been bugging a certain artist I know to tell me about his process in painting, his choices, his point of view, for months and he won't. He's very obtuse. But I love his work. He forces me to think about it because there's no explanation. And most art isn't meant to explain to you anything. It's for you to explain it to yourself. Lots of dead artists can't "defend" their work - you either like it or you don't.

Dear Patsy!

Thanks so much for correcting me!!!!!!!!!!
Henry Miller be damned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Us artists and Us writers and Us humans sometimes like to abuse the so ridiculous to the absurd English language.

Why you're right about your writing! Nothing like a rite of passage, is there? Which passage were you talking about? Thanks, I'll pass.

Gail- I can't even believe you could say: You have OTHER people speak for you. (So let me be rude to the max, here.)

Is that a female thing?

I can't even believe it. You let other people put words out there for you? You just wrote a paragraph to me!

Artists need to learn to speak for themselves- do so succinctly- intelligently- and be honest and direct about both what they are producing and what they are saying about it.

Viewers will get it.

Dear Bruce!

Believe me, it was an enormous pleasure!!! Unlike you, I believe in admitting when I've made a mistake, because that's how to learn what's correct. Pretending to mock the English language for its foibles? Pull the other one. I would have respected you more if you'd said, "Oops".

But don't feel bad; you're not the only one I've annoyed over the years by pointing out language errors they make because it isn't important to them. It is to me, but most of the time I grit my teeth and keep quiet.

At least I don't constantly insult men for being male... or women for being women, or anyone else for being whatever they are.
Gail merely put her point of view - would you have been as rude if her name was John?
You might be interested to know that here in Ireland Patsy is a diminutive of Patrick (may that give him sleepless nights). ;-)