Full Thread: Jews in Art
View Single Post
Old October 25th, 2013 #39
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,048

Originally Posted by Alexander M. View Post
The first and most sweeping swindle perpetrated upon the West by its enemies was the obfuscation of the definition of Art.


........the greatest and most influential Artspeaker was Clement Greenberg, the Picasso of Artspeak.
It is the job of the modern art critic by means of Artspeak to:

make stupidity seem profound
make incompetence seem philosophical
excuse mediocrity by claiming it is something utterly new

The major rules for writing Artspeak are roughly speaking:

use at least two hundred words where you could have used ten. (flatulence)
use obscure terms especially when writing esoteric theory. (obscurant)
when stating your subjective opinion make it sound like it is universally accepted as unquestionable truth. (belief)
drop names of famous people wherever possible. This advertises that you are well read. ( I'm a genuine intellectual)
humor should sound obscure, even grave. (Later modern Artspeak does contain a bit of humor.) (very very serious)
when writing a long statement that means practically nothing, use your skills to construct it in such a way that it never occurs to your reader to analyze it. (vacuous)

Artspeak generally addresses some of the following themes:

it is a subjective way of saying what amounts to, "I like this particular quality in the picture." In very longwinded prose. (I l-l-like it)
it proposes esoteric theories around unrelated subjects for example the fourth dimension, quantum mechanics, sociological stuff and psycho-babble. (profound theory)-
it deals with pedantic comparative stuff. The best example is found in five-pound Mondrian books which spend time talking about how he could have influenced Vermeer. (pedantic)
it often contains descriptions for the blind. (For the blind)

Artspeak aims at two audiences:

the Artzy-fartzy who claims he comprehends the deeper meaning of what is said--until he's asked.
the non-Artspeaker for whom the obscure terms and flowery inflated syntax are designed to make him feel intellectually inadequate and factually uninformed. It serves to prevent any thoughts that the object in question might really be just another put-on.