Ramblecrap...does it have a purpose?

[George E. Sheils]

Being rooted in the oriental tradition, for me - text and image coalesce in unity: the image gives its meaning as text, and text is identified as image in the pictorial form. This background has informed me more, than perhaps, the western tradition, of separating disciplines; language and critique on one hand, and image making (purity) on the other. The dialogue between the two interest me more: call it a semiotic map, or a semiotic transformation of the image if you will, however neither is the lobotomising stance of the Cartesian mentality.


Whole Plate Column

Hi RJ, thanks for your response which I enjoyed reading.

The above paragraph clarifies -for me- the principal reason why you are motivated to link your artist statement with your images and, taken in this context, I completely understand where you are coming from.

As a writer, I believe that words can convey powerful images and that images too, can inspire potent text. Yes,I would agree there can be a dialogue between the two.

However, the real skill is matching up one with the other. Very often a perceived mismatch of what the artist created and what the artist is saying inspired them to create it is what can cause disagreement between artists and critics. That is probably the reason for so many pages of internet space being used up on this thread.

I also believe that such linkage of text to image and image to text is not always interdependent. There can be mutual exclusivity between text and image which not only does not require linkage, but in some cases defies linkage. In this context I also contend that the simplicity of an image can be seriously compromised by the complexity of its textual description, and vice versa.

For instance, the cave paintings of southern France probably pre-date the earliest known language and certainly pre-date the earliest known text. But, cave dwellers found a non-verbal way of expressing how they felt about their lives, their hunting, their landscape without any recourse to textual descriptions. Just looking at the care and detail in the drawings implants even in modern man the glorious feeling of what it must have been like to live in such a simple and pristine, if somewhat dangerous environment. But who can really say what motivated the cavedwellers to make such images? Their motives for creating cave art pre-dated Dualism, Functionalism and all other such philosophical and sociological paradigms. We can't assume to know what they got out of their art - and for many people it's just not that important - it's just cave art - it doesn't need to be placed in a textual context.

The work of the Surrealists (Dali et al) often did not come with a set of reasons to explain why the artist created what they created or what they were feeling when they were creating it. In fact, more often than not the works of art were simply signed and dated in the topographical style. It was left to art critics to make a stab at what they thought Dali meant by this or what they believed Magritte meant by that...and frequently the critics came up with grandiose and improbable explanations to explain what were (more than likely) simple motivations for creating simple images.


When I say that some images are strong enough to stand on their own, I sincerely believe in the idea that image making is perhaps one of the oldest and most primal responses into describing how we feel, and as such mere words are often insufficient to convey the motives for creating such imagery.That is not to say that I support the 'dumbing down' of written expression. Far from it, but I do believe that if text descriptions accompany graphical images they should be expressed in a way that owes much to concision and brevity.

This is probably why I prefer the topographical approach. I prefer to keep it simple.

Anyway, interesting stuff. Keep up with the image making.

Regards,
G.
PS.. As much as you despise Cartesian Dualists I also found issue with the concept of Functionalism a la Durkheim and others. You know, the 'cause and effect' people. Functionalists see little value in pursuing interests for interests sake. I once knew someone who wanted to take a degree in Spanish. His boss (a functionalist to the core) could not comprehend why someone who was a computer analyst by day would want to study something other than computer technology.

[mrladewig]

I did finish reading this thread, prove once more that one can't make everybody happy, and people do intend to make fun of something they don't fully understand. In this case, RJ, write something in English that some people who don't understand even their native language is English.

That is not necessarily true. My degree is in Metallurgical and Materials Engineering and the field has a language sub-set of its own as do most fields. Although some words relating to that field have Latin origins that would make their meaning somewhat clear, one may not translate an accurate meaning without knowledge of the definition and the context. Words related to these fields do not exist in Websters dictionary. However a very particular word such as austenite could be replaced with the common term "hard phase of steel" if there were a discussion on the matter with someone outside the field. But hard steel does not exactly mean the same thing. Austenite is a very particular phase of steel and there are other hard phases with very different properties. At the same time I would have no expectation that anyone outside the metallurgical field would understand this term if it were not defined for them. Austenite may be in the dictionary and it is found in Wikipedia these days, but its an example where there is no Latin root that would provide a hint to its meaning since the term is based on the name of the man. And the variations on the word such as austenitic transformation are even more obscure without a knowledge of the root term.

I also do not make the assumption that someone is of lesser intelligence or incapable of understanding because they are not familiar with the language associated with my field. Martensitic transformation is as foreign a term to you as Weltanschauung is to me. It does not imply that either of us have a lesser grasp of language or a lower level of intellect. We may likely be intellectual peers focused on different spurs of the common language. There are many such spurs in the grand construct of our English language, but within that there is a common set of words whose meanings are clear and well known. And that binds all of us together. We do not have the finite construct of language enjoyed by the French, and that gives us great flexibility, but also leads to great confusion.

My point is that many artists, curators and critics have developed a language subset which is not accessible to those outside that profession. And it while may be true that the term Weltanschauung holds a particular meaning within this context that cannot exactly be mirrored in term perspective or view, it is not a common term in the English language.

I understand the purpose of writing for an audience and if RJ's intent is to write for the audience of curators and critics, then his language is appropriate. But it is either inaccessible or cumbersome reading to the general population and I would expect that he knows this in his assayed and distilled interiority. If not, then RJ has taken residence in the ivory tower for far too long and has lost touch with society. (I do mean this in jest)

Where I think this story becomes confused is on this point. Why has the art curatorial and critic community chosen to adopt language sub-set where the meanings are obscured in terms that not part of the common language for a reason other than to segregate itself from common society? Much of the language used in the discussion of art within these finite circles appears to be overly wordy, and unnecessary for the task in which it is employed.

What is the purpose of making the language associated with art inaccessible?

AKA, what is the purpose of ramblecrap?

That is the root question that has been raised not only in this thread, but also in a recent thread referencing the writing of a curator at MOMA. And it has not been answered here. A translation of RJ's writing is not an answer to this question. I think it is unfortunate that RJ's writing was the central point of this discussion because it has confused the issue. The question has nothing to do with RJ other than the fact that his statement was used an an example.

I think George made it clear that he meant to ask a different question entirely, but this question created in the heading of his topic remains unanswered.

[walter23]

Very well written and concise discussion of this issue! I think you've really hit the nail on the head, and driven it in perfectly to boot. Very insightful.

I have noticed that there are certain professions or disciplines where this linguistic segregation seems to earn less respect from the general population. Nobody is really going to contest that developing a concise language with terms like "austenite" is necessary for a structural engineer, because this language is practically a technical necessity to get physical tasks that serve the general population (like the building of safe bridges) completed effectively.

However it seems we're less understanding of the desire for artists (and those of other intangible professions like philosophy) to use jargon. Maybe one reason is that art serves no purpose if it doesn't speak to an audience, and an audience of other artists is a pretty limited audience. This especially becomes an issue of public resentment if the arts are receiving public funding... but I suppose we see similar complaints lodged against scientific researchers - just look at the political and public controversies surrounding evolution, for example, and the fact that scientific research without immediate and obvious practical application is often generally maligned (which is a pity!).

I guess art jargon might serve a purpose for artists who are communicating with one another to refine their art, but when it enters the domain of the art itself it turns that art into something that only speaks to the artistic community. We've all seen the cliche modern art installation which "redefines the boundaries of the gallery experience and brings sculptural post-relativism into a new era of neo-spatialist dynamic" (I'm making up art-jargon here) but that doesn't have any other purpose (in fact we'd be tempted to call it boring stupid crap because we don't understand the insider's references). It'd be like a photographer making a photograph where the only subject is "dodging and burning" or "acutance" or "high dynamic range / tonemapping"; ineffective at communicating with a general audience.

I guess this is going off on a bit of a tangent, as we weren't talking about the art itself, just the description of the art... but if the description is full of art-world jargon and is also given alongside the art, it does taint it and remove it somewhat from the general audience.

That is not necessarily true. My degree is in Metallurgical and Materials Engineering and the field has a language sub-set of its own as do most fields. Although some words relating to that field have Latin origins that would make their meaning somewhat clear, one may not translate an accurate meaning without knowledge of the definition and the context. Words related to these fields do not exist in Websters dictionary. However a very particular word such as austenite could be replaced with the common term "hard phase of steel" if there were a discussion on the matter with someone outside the field. But hard steel does not exactly mean the same thing. Austenite is a very particular phase of steel and there are other hard phases with very different properties. At the same time I would have no expectation that anyone outside the metallurgical field would understand this term if it were not defined for them. Austenite may be in the dictionary and it is found in Wikipedia these days, but its an example where there is no Latin root that would provide a hint to its meaning since the term is based on the name of the man.

My point is that many artists, curators and critics have developed a language subset which is not accessible to those outside that profession. And it may be true that the term Weltanschauung holds a particular meaning within this context that cannot exactly be mirrored in term perspective or view, it is not a common term in the English language.

I understand the purpose of writing for an audience and if RJ's intent is to write for the audience of curators and critics, then his language is appropriate. But it is either inaccessible or cumbersome reading to the general population and I would expect that he knows this in his assayed and distilled interiority. If not, then RJ has taken residence in the ivory tower for far too long and has lost touch with society.

Where I think this story becomes confused is on this point. Why has the art curatorial and critic community chosen to adopt language sub-set where the meanings are obscured in terms that not part of the common language for any reason other than to segregate itself from common society?

What is the purpose of making the language associated with art inaccessible?

That is the root question that has been raised not only in this thread, but also in a recent thread referencing the writing of a curator at MOMA. And it has not been answered here. A translation of RJ's writing is not an answer to this question. I think it is unfortunate that RJ's writing was the central point of this discussion because it has confused the issue. The question has nothing to do with RJ other than the fact that his statement was used an an example.

[mrladewig]

Ultimately, I don't think there is a real answer for this. Its probably one of those things that has grown from convention and taken a life of its own.

It would be equally unfair to ask that the field of my education dispose of its internal language. It is necessary for concise discussion and clear meaning within that field.

This is the other thread of which I spoke.
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=23934

[RJ-]

However, the real skill is matching up one with the other. Very often a perceived mismatch of what the artist created and what the artist is saying inspired them to create it is what can cause disagreement between artists and critics. That is probably the reason for so many pages of internet space being used up on this thread.

I also believe that such linkage of text to image and image to text is not always interdependent. There can be mutual exclusivity between text and image which not only does not require linkage, but in some cases defies linkage. In this context I also contend that the simplicity of an image can be seriously compromised by the complexity of its textual description, and vice versa.

Hi George,

Thank you for your thoughts.

There is a phenomenon of multiple discourses operating within this singular thread. Perhaps I thought this was self-evident, and indicative, of how the polysemous text works. Language which is polysemous, can be denounced as 'ambiguous'. However its very nature is rich enough for a plurality of interpretations, like different sides of a dice, reflected through different perspectives.

The dead text of simplistic thinking which argues for the monosyllablic domination of thought and thinking however...is not.

Much like your disdain of functionalism, this kind of 'teleological' text, particularly in the artist statement, disinterests me as much as the vogue for 'bling' photography. It may indeed be the only level of operation for many on a predominantly technical forum, however this is inevitable, when a question of aesthetics is posed outside of its relevant field within the photographic profession.

Art criticism relies on the polysemous text and semiotic transformation of both image and text. The plurality of interpretations is destined, as a consequence of the artist' work and text. If this is so, then it strikes me as arrogance, for someone to judge that an artist's work and text is mismatched. The blind voyeur who looks upon text or image as 'thing' rather than a 'thou' or 'you', cannot apprehend sense from nonsense (Gadamer).

The hypersaturation of images in the world, coupled with the rise of the internet forum warrior mentality, presupposes that Gadamer's view of interpretation is in retreat. Equally, illiteracy (and ignorance) is on the rise:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/302972.stm

The BBC's John Andrew: Many adults are embarrassed about their problem
The report, by the Basic Skills Agency, urges the government to introduce new national tests to assess adults' basic reading, writing and arithmetic skills.

It reviews evidence that adults in England have poorer literacy and numeracy skills than those in any other European country apart from Poland and Ireland.

It calculates that one in three adults cannot work out the area of a room, while one in five would be unable to find a plumber in the Yellow Pages telephone directory.

The discourse here, varies from talking about the Yellow Pages, to art criticism, however, is the vacillation between the two, not of interest to you?


Kind regards,

RJ

Whole Plate Column

[RJ-]

I also believe that such linkage of text to image and image to text is not always interdependent. There can be mutual exclusivity between text and image which not only does not require linkage, but in some cases defies linkage. In this context I also contend that the simplicity of an image can be seriously compromised by the complexity of its textual description, and vice versa.

Hi George,

I had wondered if you were willing to say whether you refused the semiosis, inherent in the world of modern art, given to us as critical theory. On reflection, what arises is a premise which I think will make sense to you.

May I venture that it is the very world or the Renaissance world view and outlook revealed in the artist statement which affronts you.

The conceptual form of the statement, being irreducible to pure description does not help either. If so, then it must be frustrating..... not being able to shear text from images. Or at least practice a little reductionism to accommodate the images within a pre-determined Cartesian worldview dressed under attractive propositions such as 'clarity'; 'simplicity', 'purity' with a phenomenological or topographical description, instead of the paradoxical and multi-layered text.

Being honest, I rarely look at other photographers' work, or that which I see, seems to have little experience of the 'faux mystical ethereal experience bestowed on the select few'. In any case, I find it too unbecoming to talk of someone or their work as 'thing': this is the forum modality of engagement, and perhaps you can identify with this tendency, which refuses knowing and participation in discovering more than one's predetermined limits.

Yet your view seems to abide by the assumption that transcendent beauty, or mysticism within the philosophy of the landscape photographer, is projected topographically, either geographically heavenwards in some kind of uncloaking of the infrared sky; or perhaps located inwardly, that is, solipsistically, as if it had a élan vital of its own (after Bergson). This view of transcendental beauty could only serve to alienate you, since the visceral, or sensual beauty of the concrete form, is more sensible to both Jansenists and those akin to launch into the protestant protest at the pre-Cartesian worldview.

Of Durkheim's students, it was Bergson who had a generous view of the world; not as incapacitating as the Cartesian one which judges everything beyond immediate knowing, as anathema. It is quite correct, that I refuse the tenets of Cartesianism (disdain is not the right word), and its false claims for the virtue of simplicity (whenever did simplicity become a virtue?), yet whilst it simplifies everything until man is stripped of being.

The multi-layered text which is the Renaissance ideal, is polysemous. Inexperienced readers grasp this as 'ambivalent', 'confusing' and find that wandering through it, creates an effect...of 'defamiliarisation'. This indeed can be grasped as an 'unpleasant' or off-putting sensation which turns off reading the text. Some say that it is an elitist venture, to use language this way: I find such political correctness disinteresting - since it only mirrors the unreflecting viewer, who is not interested in anything beyond decorative art, even if to straddle this boundary, is no reason to imply inferiority.

In the world of the image, and text, I'm reminded, that it is a privilege to enter and share someone's work. Not a god-given right of entry. To say nothing of the passage thereafter. Perhaps you may recall the inscription hung outside of Plato's allegorical cave then? Only on reflection can such a defamiliarisation make sense; when a reader realises, that ..stumbling along the text, he discovers in parallel, the journey the photographer makes in physically stumbling into a landscape...

Take for example:

On "valorisation of light", I am surprised no one picked up on the subtle meaning, given that you're all steeped in Adamsianism (of the Ansel variety).

Light has value, eg. from 0 to 11 (depending on the medium), and to valorise the light in a scene is to give it the proper value on the medium (film).

My own humble opinion is that there were too many big/foreign words in such a short statement. One would have been ok, maybe even meaningful.

Thus, the student who grasps 'valorisation' as a function of the Zone System in photography, is not mistaken: this much was intended as a minor technical meaning derived from the polysemous (original) reference which is richer, denser, and more 'defamiliarising' to modern eyes. That he fails to apprehend, the aesthetic concept of 'valorisation', is a structural (conceptual) deficit, which is his alone. Does he apprehend the meaning of 'valour'? Perhaps not. If he cannot comprehend nor grasp 'valour', then he is bound to fail at the first obstacle. In this case, immediately after the first multisyllable. What is valour, translated into experience, when faced with obstacle, either rock in the landscape, or the frightening multi-syllable concept in text?

The reader as such, can but still derive meaning from where he is at, from his own peculiar optic, yet he is refused full entry into the richness of the polysemous text. This is not elitism: it is is the real limitation of the reader, who needs distanciation in retreat from this unfamiliar worldview.

Bachelard's discovery of man as 'half-open beings' bears relevance here. In no small measure, if a viewer is able to engage with a photographer's work which reveals to him, a world other than his own, then this is a small step in being 'half-open'.

Then there are those who are better described here as 'canned beings', closed off within their armour of scorn who can only view things from the split-off and reductionistic Cartesian acceptance of the world. This really is too bad. Thus my invitation for them to walk on by, and look elsewhere.

Thank you George for your comments on surrealist art and cave art too. Perhaps these examples diverge slightly, however I do appreciate the time you've spent to describe the kind of sensual beauty which motivates you. Both are bound by an appreciation of the autochtonous nature of man's experiences which deserves discourse on its own right (of which, there is a huge body). I have fond recollections of surrealism in my studies, most of which was spent on the south bank of Paris reading "Nadja" (André Breton) in hand, along with his first, second, and possibly third surrealist written manifesto. Given the furlongs of efforts ploughed by Breton to engage the literary world with the new movement in recognising his manifesto, it might be incumbent on you to read all three, over and above a 9 sentence artist statement

Kind regards,

RJ

Whole Plate Column