Posted on April 18, 2008 at 10:01 am by Liam Julian

Writing for writing’s sake

I was just chatting about this after a recent and jolting visit to some of New York’s Chelsea galleries—today’s art is not judged by how it looks or the skill of the artist who produced it. It’s all about ideology, which is a shame.

But to bring it back to k-12, the article’s larger point is that writing about art has become inscrutable. An example from the Whitney Biennial:

Bove’s “settings” draw on the style, and substance, of certain time-specific materials to resuscitate their referential possibilities, to pull them out of historical stasis and return them to active symbolic duty, where new adjacencies might reactivate latent meanings.

That’s bad. But this tripe isn’t limited to the art world; lousy writing is prevalent in all subjects because it’s what students are taught (when they’re taught). Just today, one finds yet another article (this one’s from the U.K.) in which corporate bosses complain that their work-forces lack basic skills, including writing. Seventy-two percent are concerned about the quality of written English. A dose of Strunk & White (”Make every word tell,” “Be obscure clearly”) in our schools would do everyone—managers, employees, museum patrons—a lot of good.

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Comments

  1. Emmy Partin:

    Amen!

  2. Mark Bauerlein:

    If Strunk & White prevailed, then critics and academics could not implement difficult and transgressive language in order to tear down the ideologies of common sense and conventional thought that wreak such havoc and injustice in our society, and are embedded and naturalized, “sedimented,” if you will, in norms of transparent speech and putatively ordinary discourse which are, in point of fact, repositories of such havoc and injustice in our society, and which double their crimes by passing off their victimizations under the cover of innocent, referential language.

  3. Joanne Jacobs:

    Years ago at an AERA convention, I overheard a group of academics discussing their study proposal, which included a gobbet of trendy language. It wasn’t “transformative,” but it was something like that. What does that really mean? one of them asked. The rest broke into laughter. Guilty laughter, I think.

Leave a Reply