Read time: 15 mins
In the novel, The Unicorn Road by Martin Davis, we follow three different characters, set in different periods and settings, searching for different things, relying on hearsay and rumours, leading to the author to conclude in one chapter, “When words are your daily currency, it is easy to forget their power.” (Davis) Much like the art world today, words have been reduced to mere means of an expert, self-proclaimed or otherwise, imparting knowledge and thoughts. In their use of Artspeak, they become self-appointed authorities in the field, despite the fact that they perhaps have not truly grasp fully the power of words. In lacking the mindfulness that should be prerequisite in the use of Artspeak to disseminate information about artworks, these experts have proved right what Orwell said in, “make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” (Orwell)
However, much has been said negatively about Artspeak, I feel a need to elaborate on my own understanding of what Artspeak is. Over the years of critiquing art, we have seen how critics have created new words from hybrid of words or the excavating of old words. One only has to search Google Trends for specific words to see how each word cycles through rises and falls to render the visual into written for people to be included and excluded in the discussion of art. This is done when present words and theories are unable to adequately analyse ground-breaking works that push the limits and redefine the possibilities of art-making. However, historically, Artspeak has also always been used to snub the lower social circles and the less intellectual. This was due to the upper class’ need to separate themselves from the bourgeoisie, leading to the differences in language one used (Leach) (Lu, Lynn Lu). Yet, Orwell criticises politicians who speak or write in unclear proses in efforts to stop readers or listeners from understanding the point of statements in his essay, Politics and the English Language. It is also from here that I derive my own understanding of what Artspeak is, as similarly, artists and critics today use Artspeak to elevate certain works beyond their capabilities, without understanding or respecting the power words can hold. This has led to many artists and critics to avoid Artspeak in efforts to avoid what Orwell had criticised. Through my essay, I will elaborate how Artspeak can be used appropriately when artists and critics practice mindfulness in the creation and discussion of art and how it is necessary in pushing the boundaries of art-making.
Performance and visual artist, Lynn Lu, is known for her use of common, culturally specific sayings in efforts to explore human relationships between herself and others. In my essay, I will be addressing two of her performances, ground, swallow me up (2015) and being in love is like feeling the sun from both sides (2012). In ground, swallow me up, Lynn collected personal anecdotes of great embarrassment from the citizens of Nicosia, Cyprus. She then sits on a chair in a hole that used to be an old tomb in the back garden of ARTos Foundation and recounts these stories. Audiences can see her if they look into the hole, but Lynn only sees the audience through a mirror placed above the hole, reflecting her half-naked form (Lu, Lynn Lu). In her rephrasing of an old metaphor, “so embarrassed that I wished the ground would swallow me”, Lynn brings it to life and brings the audience closer to each other in the recitation of simple and intimate stories. In communication accommodation theory developed by Howard Giles, one of the socio-psychological theories posits that "the more similar our attitudes and beliefs are to those of others, the more likely it is for them to be attracted to us." (Giles and St Clair, Accommodation Theory: Optimal Levels of Convergence) In recitation of the embarrassing stories, it broke the barrier between the “art crowd” and “others” and transcended the personal in bringing both parties into a shared space where the intimacy of embarrassment were familiar to both. This allowed for each individual to converge and “adapt to each other’s communicative behaviours” (Giles, Introduction) through empathy of embarrassment. Lynn created an inclusive space in reminding her audience of their own embarrassing moments by framing the work in her use of a familiar metaphor.
Similarly, Lynn uses the familiar Finnish folk saying, ‘being in love is like feeling the sun from both sides’ (Lu, Lynn Lu) as the title and departure point for this next performance work done in Finland. Lynn, once again, gathered love stories from the locals for her work and together with a local actor, Juha Tuominen, they both committed them to memory. Lynn memorized the English stories and Juha memorized the ones in Finnish and with a spotlight in front and behind them, they invited participants to stand between them while they whispered the stories into their ear simultaneously. In framing the work with a folk saying familiar to the locals, together with the intimacy of whispering these love stories to the participants, Lynn brings the phrase to life and again, break the barrier between “art crowd” and “others” by transcending the personal through the use of emotions like love, nostalgia and heartbreak. The work echos of Giles’ convergent communication theory through the inclusive space created for her participants.
These examples breaks Orwell’s rule of never using a metaphor (Orwell) and shows how in using the familiar, it can communicate in a manner that is clear and inclusive. By using metaphors to title her works, Lynn frames her works for people to access easily by rendering the intangible into visual. This allows for anyone to participate in the discussion of her works and thereby included people from all walks of life, which was what Orwell was attempting to argue for when he rejected the use of metaphors.
Another concern I have mentioned in my introduction is how Artspeak is used to include and exclude specific groups of people. On this, Gilda Williams stresses in her book “How to Write About Contemporary Art” the difference between jargon and specialized art terminology. She defines specialized art terminology as “infrequently recurring media and techniques or movements and art-forms” (Williams) and compared it to Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of jargon ‘any mode of speech abounding in unfamiliar terms, or peculiar to a particular set of persons’ (Williams). She asserts that unless indispensable, it would be better to drop the unfamiliar terminology completely. To this I would like to argue that jargon could be used knowing that they are unfamiliar terms to particular persons as a way to subvert political and social structures in place to critique a system. Example, in Ho Rui An’s lecture/performance, Screen Green (2015), superficially it appears as though Rui An was merely investigating how Singaporeans are used to the colour green due to the country’s portrayal as ‘the garden city’ (An). However, on watching the lecture/performance, one notes the artful weaving of criticisms on Singapore’s leading political party. To understand this, I need to unpack various layers of psychological studies that has led Rui An to his criticism of the political party.
Multiple studies have been done to understand the relationship between humans and plants (Lee, Lee and Park) and results show that humans react positively when surrounded by plants. So much so that researchers have now begun to recommend office workers to place potted plants to help workers de-stress. This is important in understanding how humans have been conditioned to believe that the colour green denotes positivity and favourable conditions, also known as Classical Conditioning, first coined by Ivan Pavlov (Rescorla). It is what Rui An hints the political party seems to be doing in constantly being photographed surrounded by greenery, whether natural or otherwise. He shows that by constantly being photographed or interviewed in nature, regardless of natural or artificial, citizens accept the political party’s actions as the best possible course of movement, almost akin to progress, without questioning (An). However, in watching his lecture/performance, I am bombarded by the jargon heavy speech in his lecture, which led to needing to watch the piece multiple times before I was able to unpack it. In Singapore where censorship is deeply prevalent, regardless of its overtness, I can understand Rui An’s need for a jargon heavy speech. In using phrases such as “national narratives” and “communal values” (An), it successfully subverted and excluded particular persons that would find such terms unfamiliar. By excluding such particular persons that supposedly forms the majority, it ensures that few would question and effectively ‘threaten’ the political party’s position as Singapore’s leading political party.
Yet, it cannot stop those who can filter through the vocabulary and understand the questions he rose in efforts to enable a critical discussion of Singapore’s political system. However, they are seemingly so few in numbers, that even if they were to use their own agency to critique the system, the number apparently becomes insignificant in the eyes of the higher authorities. Gilda’s and Orwell's refusal to use jargon is charged with the intention to be inclusive as they feel that jargon “do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so” (Orwell). However, Rui An’s usage of this tool of exclusivity is a constructive and effective one in evading the political boundaries of censorship in the criticism of Singapore’s governing system. Here, I must also point out that it also feeds into the problem of preventing the creation of a space where it is possible to discuss such “taboo” topics. As this is a topic that is pertinent to the citizens, opening up the discussion to a larger group of persons by making easily accessible would help add more layers to the discourse that Rui An has brought up. Unfortunately, given the current need for the higher authorities to present a utopian garden in a city to both its people and other authoritative powers, Rui An has instead chosen to self-censor by the use of jargon, rather than to face the possibility of it being pulled from the exhibition (although held in Hong Kong notwithstanding), thereby disproving Gilda’s and Orwell’s belief that language should be used to include.
Up to this juncture of my essay, I have used approximately 33 words or phrases that Gilda and Orwell have declared as Artspeak, in my discussion of Rui An’s and Lynn Lu’s works. It is also here that I wish to revisit the historical context of Artspeak that I have mentioned earlier in my introduction, whereby it was used by members of the upper class to separate themselves from the bourgeoisie and snub whom they believed were the less intellectual. In efforts to champion the lower classes, Gilda and Orwell have seemingly forgotten to address their own privilege of having a higher education, causing what seems to me as a rather condescending approach when criticizing Artspeak. In both their texts, it appears to have an assumption that readers or listeners of their words do not have the capabilities to comprehend what they have called jargon, therefore recommending that writers and speakers use simple terms. I can understand where Gilda and Orwell are coming from on referring to Giles’ Communication Accommodation theory and idea of convergence, whereby an individual “adapt to each other’s communicative behaviour” (Giles and St Clair, Accommodation Theory: Optimal Levels of Convergence). However, their tendency to insist upon simplifying and not using Artspeak leads me to believe that more than converging, both Gilda and Orwell have allowed such notions to become overly accommodative instead. This is when an individual becomes patronizing when he is overly accommodative of another's linguistic or physical disability (Giles and St Clair, Accommodation Theory: Optimal Levels of Convergence). By doing so, Gilda and Orwell make an assumption that the majority are linguistically disabled and therefore should be catered to. However, I would instead prefer to suggest that perhaps, by encouraging the “other” to accommodate to our language instead, itself could be a better way to broaden the boundaries of the discussion and creation art and include more people. This is also known as Social Cognitive Theory, first coined by Albert Bandura in the mid-1980s, where he notes that behaviour can be learned through the environment through observational means (Bandura). Likewise, by immersing oneself in a specific environment can learn language and by doing so, not only will a person’s understanding and knowledge be elevated, but they will also bring to the discussion a differing point of view from their own lived experience. This will help push the limits of the creation and discussion of art, as proven when I sent my incomplete essay to various friends from other industries (F&B, robotics) in attempt to have fresh eyes to check for any mistakes I have written. It resulted in an entire discussion of languages used in their own industries and the similarities between the art world and theirs. It did not exclude them, but rather intrigued them about art-making and in turn, I also learnt more about their industry.
Through these three examples, I have shown how Artspeak has helped pushed the boundaries of art-making, be it by giving people common ground to come together or in the subversion of higher powers for fertile discussions. I have also shown how it is not Artspeak that creates a separation between the art world and others, but people, regardless from where. If people were more open-minded, language no longer is a barrier that we think is insurmountable, only a slight bump in the road. Artspeak is necessary, it is not a way to exclude people, only, it is how it has been used that has caused critics to see it as such. When used mindfully, it is able to open up new avenues of exploration that perhaps were previously overlooked. It helps render the visual into the written so that it can transcend the aesthetics and into ideologies, which is what all artists try to convey in their works. If Artspeak is what is necessary to fully convey such ideas, then I believe that perhaps we should re-think how we use our words so as to avoid Orwell’s criticism and not avoid its usage completely.
(2377 words)
Bibliography
An, Ho Rui. Ho Rui An. 2015. 1 March 2017 <http://horuian.com/screen-green/>.
Bandura, Albert. Social Learning Theory. NYC: General Learning Press, 1971.
Davis, Martin. The Unicorn Road. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2008.
Giles, Howard and Robert N. St Clair. Accommodation Theory: Optimal Levels of Convergence. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1979.
Giles, Howard. "Introduction." Giles, Howard. Context of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 7.
Leach, Edmund Ronald. "The Categories of Shan and Kachin." Leach, Edmund Ronald. Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study of Kachin Social Structure. London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 1954. 50-51.
Lee, Min-sun, et al. National Center for Biotechnology Information. 28 April 2015. 9 March 2017 <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4419447/>.
Lu, Lynn. Lynn Lu. 2015. 20 February 2017 <https://lynnlu.info/ground-swallow-me-up/b057it3at7orx0731yyv9q40hng0wm>.
—. Lynn Lu. 2012. 27 February 2017 <https://lynnlu.info/being-in-love-is-like-feeling-the-sun-from-both-sides/>.
Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. London: Penguin Books, 2013.
Rescorla, Robert A. Pavlovian Conditioning It's Not What You Think It Is. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania, 1988.