7 Answers

  1. You need to talk about art with the level of complexity that corresponds to it. Just like everything else.

    “Simple words” is a great theory. In practice, simplifications are used in simple words, after reading which you will know less about the subject than before. In simple words, they also tell ordinary lies.

    If you need to understand the causes of the First World War — you will have to delve into the history of industrialization, the arms race, the colonial system, dynastic alliances and completely wild diplomatic schemes left over from von Bismarck — and, most importantly, dozens of books will give these things different assessments and with different levels of expertise. This is a lot of literature, and there will be difficult words. But if this literature is good, it will always try to match the actual data as much as possible, and argue its conclusions in detail.

    Or you can limit yourself to writing in simple words. You know who then after the war wrote in simple words that everything is always the fault of the Jews.

    This is an extreme example, and it is also written in simple words. It should illustrate that primitive analogies do not provide real knowledge.

    That is why any popularizing literature should always be read with caution, and that is why its reputation among specialists is usually below zero. On Reddit, a good dozen forums are devoted to mistakes in populist science pop: in history, anthropology, economics, religious studies, etc.

    Art is no exception.

    Medieval art cannot be explained without explaining the symbolism that began in late Rome. The rebirth cannot be explained without a history of demographic transition after the plague. The art of India cannot be explained without explaining the terms of Hinduism. Chinese painting in general was not considered art for a long time, because it stupidly did not fit into Western historiography. Finally, closer to the present-the Impressionists cannot be explained without the Ottomanization of Paris, and any conceptualism cannot be explained without Wittgenstein, because in the 60s every dog read Wittgenstein as the New Testament. Etc.

    Someone may think that this is wrong, and art should not require an explanation. But the reality is that it requires, and most often it is specifically made to require them. To retell reality without any special knowledge is to distort it. If simplification distorts reality — it is harmful.

    And I think many people understand this in principle. The reason why simple words continue to be a resounding success for the audience is because they are the perfect means of self-deception. Simple words will give you something that you probably already agree on in advance. Yes, Medieval artists simply didn't know how to draw. You were right from the start. You're so good.

    Reality may not coincide with your beliefs. Nuances may require terminology, and wording may take time. This requires complexity, and on the part of the reader — active mental work, which he is not necessarily ready to give (just as he is not ready to admit that he is not always able to distinguish “simple about complex” from ordinary bias).

    Even worse — the truth may not be on your reality map at all. It can relate to the way of life of people with a different vision of the world in another part of the world thousands of years ago. Alistair MacIntyre has devoted an entire book to how ancient Greek concepts of honor have no conceptual analogues in the post-enlightenment era. Even the most basic cultural principles are sometimes completely, completely lost, and may require reconstruction by people who already think differently. Where even simple words don't mean the same thing.

    The truth is that art is difficult. Not entirely, but to a large extent — because without this complexity, it would be reduced to trickery, epigonism, and fawning over the most omnivorous audience. And the further away it is from the viewer, in terms of time and context, the more difficult it will be for them.

    This complexity requires matching words. If the reader wants to learn something, they need to be prepared for it.

  2. It seems to me that it is necessary. The number of letters and complex words in the text still does not say anything about the competence of the author or the truthfulness of the information. You can use a very sophisticated vocabulary and throw in terms, but at the same time completely ignore or even distort the essence of things and events.

    In a world with so much data and (hyper)However, we inevitably strive for more succinct and understandable formats – I think texts in a living language are more relevant without unnecessary clerical features, professional jargon and other charms of graphomania. This applies not only to popular science literature, but also to professional research. Art is no exception here –the aura of elitism and complexity around this subtle matter is sometimes exaggerated and also quite outdated.

    At the same time, I do not call for excessive simplification or primitivization. Perhaps my idea is perfectly illustrated by what Arzamas does, or here is a joint project of the Pompidou Center with Google Arts & Culture aboutKandinsky and synesthesia.

  3. Be sure to speak clearly and easily to the masses. This will attract and help develop the person who asks, and not push them away. Thus, clear explanations, educational work, and popularization make art more accessible and contribute to the growth of the cultural level of society, enrich the inner world of others, expand subjectivity, and therefore improve the quality of life. On the other hand, there is a bike (for what I bought, for what I sell): if you can't explain in five minutes what you are doing to a plumber who came to you to fix the water supply, then you are not a professional. So speaking simply and easily is also a test of professionalism))). There are too many stereotypes associated with artists and creativity right now. This creates a misconception about their work. But there are practically no educators. Therefore, in the eyes of ordinary people, the creator is a dude and a slacker, who is sometimes illuminated because he has a talent, but this is not the case at all. The creator is a workaholic fan.

  4. Yes.because it is necessary to popularize art in society.And in order for the listener to feel comfortable, you need to clearly express your thoughts in a language that they understand.It is necessary to involve the listener in direct complicity with everything that is happening. Bright, emotional and with a love of art.Conversely, a poor vocabulary is more likely to discourage listeners than arouse their interest .

  5. on any topic, always and everywhere, you need to speak in your usual language, observing subordination and ethics. No more than that.

    If you are also talking about a narrowly focused topic, then you need to be familiar with it and be familiar with the terms ,even if they are basic, otherwise how can you conduct a dialogue?

    And so, most of all, I was inspired by people who, in any case, said how they felt and did not build anything out of themselves, and did not push highly intelligent people out of themselves.

  6. The question does not imply alternatives in the answers.

    No one will say ” no, the more clever we are when we evaluate this work of the author's early critical period in the light of a comprehensive analysis of misogynistic attitudes in pre-class society…blah, blah, blah, so much the better for the development of our whole world.” And the point here is not even to attract the broad masses of the people, it's just that very experienced experts often get confused and wander in the dark forest of terminology.

  7. Art, as a process of self-expression in any aspect of the manifestation of personality in the surrounding world, is optimally shown in the format of accessibility of understanding. Presenting complex processes in an accessible and easy-to-understand language for any category of people is the art of teaching and communication.

Leave a Reply