Franz Kline, “Mahoning”, 1956, from the collection of the Whitney Museum of American Art
IN SO MANY WORDS: THE OVER-INTELLECTUALIZATION OF ART, CULTURE AND POLITICS
by Diana Cristales
Has the way we discuss art, culture and politics become a kind of verbal masturbation? After all, who are we really speaking to? We say that we want to participate in shared dialogue, but perhaps only with those with the same educational background or those who might share the same perspective. Are we able to speak to a person whtat has a sixth grade education about their perspective on art, politics and culture? Do we even want to?
When I was in my twenties, I loved going to art shows. Hearing people discuss, analyze and elaborate. That was joyful for me. Years later I find the talking more of a distraction from the art itself. I stopped wanting to talk about art and realized that for me, making art was enough.
Remember when art was simple? As children and we didn’t have the need to attach our own opinions or understandings to other people’s artwork in order to enjoy it. We accepted it as it was. Accepted its beauty and flaws. Then in grade school you either liked someone’s work or you didn’t. Simple. It was in college where many of us learned the importance and value of a good critique. We started to project our own observations, reference points, even our own personal baggage to other people’s art. We adopted the audacious right to validate someone else’s creativity. Suddenly other people’s art became either worthy or unworthy of value, all by the mere use of words. But what use do words serve if you bore your audience by the use of too many.
In reference to politics, it is easy to be put off by the use of too many words.
I would assume that the general public wants a politician to say what they mean and make it happen. Most people learn as much as they can before voting, ask someone they trust, seek out key issues, vote and then trust that the rest will take care of itself. Then they watch the network commentators battle it out after debates or speeches and whoever resonates with what they believe the most, or speaks loudest wins. Intellectual bullies seem to have more power than the candidates themselves.
When things become too confusing we just change the channel and trust it will work itself out. Meanwhile lives are lost, decisions are made and economies are disrupted.
We are doing a disservice to ourselves by making the things we value difficult to understand. Ask yourself, can people actively participate in something they do not understand? Isn’t it easier to manipulate the general public if they don’t even know what you are talking about? Making politics understandable is a revolutionary act!
A greater understanding of the decisions being made might inspire active participation in making positive changes. Perhaps the general public wouldn’t be so wary and disenfranchised with politics and politicians and the value for arts and culture would be more widely shared
Diana Cristales is a visual artist, community worker and mother of three, who resides in Lake Tahoe, California.
As It Ought To Be 
Good points. This reminds me of an essay by George Orwell called, “Politics and the English Language.” His warnings about pseudo-intellectual language that only serves to obscure meaning are still relevant for us today.
LikeLike
I don’t know exactly what Orwell would call true-intellectual language. Perhaps language that has taken the listener/reader into account, or being able to convey ideas in a way that is understandable and even relatable. Anytime people are talking or writing and I’m reminded of the teacher in Charlie Brown cartoons I have a tendency to tune out what they are saying.
But can we truly afford to tune out politics?
I mentioned to a friend that I believe that the use of language is a discipline. For example, there is a form of Japanese poetry called waka, a precursor to haiku. It requires the use of syllables in the pattern of 5,7,5,7,7. Wouldn’t it be interesting if we used only the most essential words to convey what we “really” mean.
LikeLike
I guess it’s ironic that I’m writing this to say how much I like your article. Thank you for the provocative piece.
LikeLike
Oh, and thanks for the Japanese poetry example. My Japanese Karate teacher was also a master at saying a lot with few words. He boiled much of life down to: “Hard times come”; “Try hard”; “Be ready” and “Don’t panic, it’s coming”.
LikeLike
Thanks Diana,
I myself am a community worker. I’m constantly frustrated with funding bodies, academics and the like that use language that does not communicate to the very people they’re trying to empower.
Unfortunately as community workers we have to use both languages. But I have to say some of the most resourceful, resillient and intelligent people I’ve met are those that I work with. I think the word intelligence is totally misunderstood.
I live in Sydney, Australia. I constantly come accross people who have opinions on everything from art, history and politics that reflect social justice, etc but when it comes down to it they do not actually want to interact with the lower-socioeconomic groups in society. For me real learning is meeting people from all walks of life. But what I have also learnt is that understanding everyone including those who tend to over-intellectualise is important. No one is perfect and nor am I!
Thank you for your article!
LikeLike