Elizabeth Priddy on tue 10 oct 06
You may be right, there, in that it didn't ever have a
good name to begin with...
But couldn't it be a bad gal gone good, a literary
form that will always have that air of disarray that
makes it a little dangerous.
Doesn't even the worst of us deserve a second chance?
Artspeak, the other dark meat.
I am laughing and I hope you are too.
E
seriously wishing I actually had the power to revoke
the right to use certain words.
The first on my hit list is that anyone who
deliberately mispronounces "nuclear" when they have a
degree from Yale or Harvard so that they seem like one
of the good ol boys, can never use the word again.
They have to say "atomics" and sound like a Dune fan.
Philosophy of Language is a fun class. More people
who speak should take it.
_____________________________________
I applaud your generosity of spirit in trying
to rehabilitate the word, but I'm not sure it ever
had a better self. Its derivation from Orwell's
'newspeak' rather stigmatizes it as an
innately Bad Thing.
Art language (or jargon), the specialized
terminology surrounding art, art history, and
art criticism, seems different in application
(if not in vocabulary) from 'artspeak', with its
'1984' implications of deliberate obfuscation
if not outright lies. I'm prepared to let
'artspeak' live on in ignominy.
-Snail
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Elizabeth Priddy on tue 10 oct 06
Vince,
I am de-stigmatizing the word. Innocculating it
with the possibility of being a good thing.
People use it too broadly. They use it when they do
not understand the information or when they are too
lazy to look up the polysyllabic words.
They don't challenge themselves to see the difference
between artspeak and speaking about art.
And so I, a qualified speaker of the language, am
taking their word away from them, as they do not use
it with any discretion, like taking a ball from a kid
who only throws it at glass windows.
It is official. When you hear people rant about
artspeak in the future, listen with a tin ear and
evaluate whether they are just spewing sour grapes
over not getting it.
We are allowed to speak about art. We are allowed to
write about ourselves for marketing purposes, as what
we sell is ourselves. We can use ALL of the words any
time we like.
There is good artspeak and there is bad artspeak, just
as in any aother sub-category of speech acts.
So there.
E
tongue only in one cheek...
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Snail Scott on tue 10 oct 06
On Oct 10, 2006, at 6:56 AM, Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
>
> I am de-stigmatizing the word. Innocculating it
> with the possibility of being a good thing...
>
I applaud your generosity of spirit in trying
to rehabilitate the word, but I'm not sure it ever
had a better self. Its derivation from Orwell's
'newspeak' rather stigmatizes it as an
innately Bad Thing.
Art language (or jargon), the specialized
terminology surrounding art, art history, and
art criticism, seems different in application
(if not in vocabulary) from 'artspeak', with its
'1984' implications of deliberate obfuscation
if not outright lies. I'm prepared to let
'artspeak' live on in ignominy.
-Snail
Snail Scott on wed 11 oct 06
On Oct 10, 2006, at 11:28 PM, Elizabeth Priddy wrote:
> You may be right, there, in that it didn't ever have a
> good name to begin with...
>
> But couldn't it be a bad gal gone good, a literary
> form that will always have that air of disarray that
> makes it a little dangerous.
>
> Doesn't even the worst of us deserve a second chance?
Have at it, Elizabeth!
Meanwhile, I will continue my
campaign to have 'they' recognized
as the correct English-language
third-person non-gender-specific
singular pronoun. Writing 'he or she'
(or worse, 'he/she' or 's/he') is inelegant
in the extreme, and I'm just not willing
to use 'he' as the universal singular.
It's up to us to correct this gap in the
vocabulary of our benighted forbears!
-Snail
| |
|
