Comments on: How to put people off contemporary art

By: Nicky Getgood

Nicky Getgood — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:59:00 +0000

Hi Keri, just caught onto this post.

Wholeheartedly agree with you and VERY glad I didn’t read that properly before going to see it, it’s really off-putting. Thing is, amongst all the tosh there can be some really cool stuff. I loved the story of Tercerunquinto proposing a San Francisco New Langton gallery ’sacrifice’ its entire archive and start afresh with zero assets to its name. Their sheer gall really grabbed me.

To me, Tercerunquinto are a group that make brave and bold statements that speak for themselves and Ikon’s sludgy, verbose blurb is in danger of diluting that and diminishing the work, which is seriously self-defeating. Yes, intelligent commentary has its place but I think with these guys it needs to be kept to a minimum so they can be left to hit their audience hard between the eyes.

Thanks for saying Digbeth Is Good is excellent, it made me smile wide! YAY!

By: dp

dp — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:19:03 +0000

Pseudo-academic is probably apt – since it defines a class of people that pretend to be academic, and who confuse fancy words with intellectual expertise. But there’s more to it than a bit of make-believe intellect. The person who wrote those words is probably employed by the arts establishment and is expected to write that way for a living. The language comes with the territory, and the territory is defined by powerful people who want to obscure the obvious so as to make it seem profound.

In plain English, if you want money from the Arts Council, be prepared to describe your work with tosh words.

By: Created in Birmingham » Links for July 19th

Created in Birmingham » Links for July 19th — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:19:55 +0000

[...] How to put people off contemporary art – The Eclectrician Stuart Whipps on the new Ikon Eastside exhibition – “The exhibit looks great, but oh, how my heart sank as I read the accompanying blurb”. [...]

By: keridavies

keridavies — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:05:30 +0000

Is there a fear, do you think, that unless the language is abstruse the writer will be considered shallow, simplistic?

By: bobeotm

bobeotm — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:39:08 +0000

As an artist I think there exists the ability to be both intelligent and accessible. You don’t necessarily have to be one or the other. That sentence could have easily read :

“the inscription of language onto buildings particularly corresponds with Tercerunquinto’s established interest in how institutions define themselves through architectural language.” It would be saying essentially the same thing, without sounding unnecessarily pretentious. One doesn’t have to sacrifice accessibility to make people understand you know what you are talking about.

By: Major Tim

Major Tim — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:07:50 +0000

Don’t be so thick Keri. “Institutional self-definition through architetonic modes” means writing what you do on a wall. I believe shops often do it with signs.

I agree the exhibition looks great – I must get down there – but I don’t tend to read the waffle. Even if I understand it I never agree!

By: Leonardo Morgado

Leonardo Morgado — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:00:28 +0000

“Architectonic?” Isn’t that an energy drink. I believe it’s very popular amongst free runners