I am continually amused, baffled and irritated in equal measures by artspeak: that special brand of pretentious adjective-laden language employed by writers about the arts. Take this example I noticed the other day:
"The ... paintings ... are without concern for mimetic skills or for evoking literary sentiments from the freely arranged colours, forms and perspectives, whose final combinations using oil paints on canvas are aiming for a reality which is joyously decorative, almost pretty in style." - Bridport Open Studios 2006 Venue Guide
Huh - what's that all about? Looking at the accompanying illustration, I can sum it up in a few words: "Impressionistic oil paintings of landscapes in bright colours". OK, we don't want to reduce everything to plain words, and it might be interesting to know about the painter's motives - but you'd never know what drove him from the above nonsense.
Anything that mentions 'vibrant', 'exciting', 'powerful', 'energised', 'bejewel', 'groundbreaking' and similar terms (all from the same publication) - without actually saying what you might see when you get there - is a waste of words, in my opinion!
(And anyone who uses 'whose' for inanimate concepts, and 'which' instead of 'that' should try to do better next time.)
15/09/06 @ 21:40