I’ve talked about the language of Management Gobbledygook Bollocks Talk (MGBT) many a time before. I’ve often maintained that in the world of Management it’s used as a form of academic snobbery in order to underpin a clique. The normal people aren’t allowed to join this clique or club. Membership as stated previously is by invite only.
It’s the same in other worlds as well. Information Technology dresses its clique language in the elaborately woven dress of acronyms, also known as TLA’s (three letter abbreviations). I’ve heard some ridiculous ones in many places and it makes you wonder what came first – the acronym or the proper name. So insidious are these clique languages that the use of the acronym now pervades the entire English language. So much so that even numerical parts of the language such as dates are affected. After all we now refer to 9/11 instead of September 11th for example and how often do you hear the phrase “twenty four seven”. I too am not immune to this creeping malaise because I’d never get through a day at work if I didn’t use or understand MGBT. I am also a golfer, a sport renowned for its mystifying use of terms
such as Birdie, Double-bogey, fade and draw amongst many others.
But nowhere is the language bastardised into a mystifying clique language more than the world of Art. Here, it is taken to new extremes of pretentiousness and academic snobbery all designed to baffle and bemuse the average art punter like me. Now don’t get me wrong I am not dismissing Art per se – in fact I love all aspects of Art with the exceptions of the ridiculous, such as brick walls or unmade beds. Even some of the Classic painting are best described as …shit. The question “But is it Art?” occasionally needs the answer to be “No! of course it fucking isn’t…it’s a urinal you pompous twat” .
Now read on good people for a prime example of utter pomposity, anally retentive academic
snobbery and utter delusion. The exhibit is a glass of water on a shelf and ….get this…..was
lent to The Tate from a private collection! I am about to become an artist and make loads of
money from spouting utter garbage that explains utter garbage. Dunno why I didn’t think of this before.
Artist : Michael Craig-Martin (born 1941)
The Exhibit – An Oak Tree (1973)
While this appears to be a glass of water on a shelf, the artist states that it is in fact an oak tree. Craig-Martin’s assertion addresses fundamental questions about what we understand to be art and our faith in the power of the artist. The work can be seen as an exploration of Marcel Duchamp’s declaration that any existing object can be declared a work of art. In his accompanying text, Craig-Martin provides the questions as well as the answers, allowing the simultaneous expression of scepticism and belief regarding the transformative power of art.
Q: To begin with, could you describe this work?
A: Yes, of course. What I've done is change a glass of water into a full-grown oak tree without altering the accidents of the glass of water.
Q: The accidents?
A: Yes. The colour, feel, weight, size...
Q: Do you mean that the glass of water is a symbol of an oak tree?
A: No. It's not a symbol. I've changed the physical substance of the glass of water into that of an oak tree.
Q: It looks like a glass of water...
A: Of course it does. I didn't change its appearance. But it's not a glass of water. It's an oak tree.
Q: Can you prove what you claim to have done?
A: Well, yes and no. I claim to have maintained the physical form of the glass of water and, as you can see, I have. However, as one normally looks for evidence of physical change in terms of altered form, no such proof exist.
Q: Haven't you simply called this glass of water an oak tree?
A: Absolutely not. It is not a glass of water anymore. I have changed its actual substance. It would no longer be accurate to call it a glass of water. One could call it anything one wished but that would not alter the fact that it is an oak tree.
Q: Isn't this just a case of the emperor's new clothes?
A: No. With the emperor's new clothes people claimed to see something which wasn't there because they felt they should. I would be very surprised if anyone told me they saw an oak
tree.
Q: Was it difficult to effect the change?
A: No effort at all. But it took me years of work before i realised I could do it.
Q: When precisely did the glass of water become an oak tree?
A: When I put water in the glass.
Q: Does this happen every time you fill a glass with water?
A: No, of course not. Only when I intend to change it into an oak tree.
Q: Then intention causes the change?
A: I would say that it precipitates the change.
Q: You don't know how you do it?
A: It contradicts what feel I know about cause and effect.
Q: It seems to me you're claiming to have worked a miracle. Isn't that the case?
A: I'm flattered that you think so.
Q: But aren't you the only person who can do something like this?
A: How could I know?
Q: Could you teach others to do it?
A: No. It's not something one can teach.
Q: Do you consider that changing the glass of water into an oak constitutes an artwork?
A: Yes.
Q: What precisely is the artwork? The glass of water?
A: There is no glass of water any more.
Q: The process change?
A: There is no process involved in the change.
Q: The oak tree?
A: Yes. The oak tree.
Q: But the oak tree only exists in the mind.
A: No. The actual oak tree is physically present but in the form of the glass of water. As the glass of water was a particular glass of water, the oak tree is also particular. To conceive the category "oak tree" or to picture a particular oak tree is not to understand and experience what appears to be a glass of water as an oak tree. Just as it is imperceivable, it is also inconceivable.
Q: Did the particular oak tree exist somewhere else before it took the form of the glass of water?
A: No. This particular oak tree did not exist previously. I should also point out that it does not and will ever have any other form but that of a glass of water.
Q: How long will it continue to be an oak tree?
A: Until I change it.
Later, Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with
a Pict (well if he can do it…..)
2 comments:
So you're back then. Thought you'd had a stroke or something - what with the blood pressure and all that. Glad you didn't. I read the other day you should test the pressure in the other arm as they can differ substantially, although I think you did that. Try your ankle.
Loved the letter from your nutty neighbour - at least mine only have cats that crap all over my garden and a dog that thinks I'm its mother.
Anyway, I seem to remember that it was me that brought The Oak Tree to your attention some years ago now. Is it still in the Tate? Haven't been for a couple of years but, if it is, I would recommend your readers go and sit and watch people looking at it (there used to be a chair just to the right). The expressions on their faces is Mastercard Priceless.
Hi Anonymous
Blood pressure is still an issue as it isn't great. Ironically my resting pulse is apparently around 50 - which is good. Confused? You bet.It's good to hear from you, if you're who I think - The Oak Tree was the clue.
Post a Comment