Like so many of the "what's the problem?" posts this treats the language associated with art theory ( and indeed cultural & social ideas in general) as if it is transparent and uncontested which of course, even on a daily basis ( think party politics, war and peace, healthcare, popular culture), it is absolutely not. It's a particularly bizarre blindness coming from the very folk who seem to be most enthusiastic about academia* whom one would have thought would have welcomed a "question everything" approach. Essentially the argument seems to be that Martin is stupid which strikes me as rude, deeply condescending and untrue. Awkward, yes, and not always entirely clear but "let him/her that is without sin..." michael
* and by academia let me say what I mean -I don't mean "teaching" in whatever context -like Renee I'm utterly in favour. Nor do I mean the art school tradition at least up to the 70s. I'm referring particularly to developments over the last 30 years or so. I'm amazed that people can be so sanguine about the university research culture ( which has swallowed the art schools) when it is being constantly more colonised by the market & market values - again there are surely deep issues here in the way this affects what constitutes "research" and indeed "art" as defined within the academy, which doesn't of course float Zeppelin-like above the rest of society ( and I'm very grateful to Rob for the Art and Language quotes which I previously knew nothing about and which both made me laugh and struck me as enormously pertinent). And I'm *not* trying to make some easy or pat argument - I'm saying there are *unanswered and legitimate questions* and there is *room for discussion*... --- On Sat, 1/9/10, mark cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > From: mark cooley <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Call for Submissions: Multichannel > VariableEconomies Screening Programme Deadline 28th January (Helen Sloan) > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, January 9, 2010, 1:45 AM > Helen, > Thank you for the generous restatement of a > perfectly understandable original. Frankly, I wouldn't > have had the patience. It always amazes me just how bold > idiocy can be. One would think that an unfamiliar language > might spark one's curiosity to well... want to > learn something rather than be offended at your audacity of > straying from a 5th grade vocabulary. > what excitement a few well placed words can > create! i've found it interesting that there is often a > violent reaction to the language of cultural studies or art > criticism on some lists, but techno jargon is used with a > badge of pride. i can't imagine that if every time i > heard some tech speak that i didn't understand that i > accused the authors of being elitist > technocrats. > btw. sounds like an interesting > show. > > > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
