And Now For Something Completely Different

Pop quiz: How would you pronounce "Featherstonehaugh"?
Give up? It's not what you think.
Whaa?

New nerd crack! (Just in case old nerd crack was getting boring.)

My favorite ones are where they try to return commonly butchered names back to their original pronunciations, such as here and here. The unintended snootiness is utterly priceless.

Also, this one.

But wait! This totally contradicts their attempts at original-language authenticity. Someone should start a petition.

Navel Gazing

An extremely weak attempt at punnery. And with the wrong fruit, no less.


So, friends, it is nearly the end of April. And where does that bring us? Old MasterGote is contemplating what in the world to do next year? A weighty decision and a mighty puzzle, to which the answer seems entirely unclear. Some days, the bahn mi of Brooklyn beckon. Others, the inertia (or is that momentum?) of work makes me think I'd be a fool not to stick around. Things here are at once so easy and so clear. Everything has been pared down to the bone, a sort of delayed coming-true of some f-ed up dream I've had in the back of my mind since at least 1999. Asceticism and productivity. Simple living and all that. But, as anyone who's had a wish fulfilled would tell you, it never happens the way you'd imagined it.


I miss you guys in real life. I miss LFarns. But the most frustrating part is that I cannot tell with any clarity what might be the right decision. I don't know what goes into the scales - what I'm gaining or losing. As far as I can tell, the two seem pretty equal, each has its perks and disadvantages. It is infuriating.


What should I do, internet? Please send your carrier pigeons with the answer soon! Avoid personal bias if you can; personal anecdotes encouraged.

Native Speakers, Please Help

What is the meaning of the word aetiolate?

The closest from OED are:

etiolate: 1. trans. To render (a plant) pale or colourless by excluding the light from it; to blanch. 2. transf. To give a pale and sickly hue to (a human being or his skin). 3. fig. (See next, ppl. a. [Blanched, pallid, colourless. Also fig.]) 4. intr. To become white or whiter; to blanch; to be whitened by exclusion of sunlight, as plants.

and

ætiology: 1. The assignment of a cause, the rendering of a reason; also, the reason annexed, the wherefore of a command or utterance. 2. The science or philosophy of causation; that part of philosophy which treats of the demonstration of causes; the part of any special science which speculates on the causes of its phenomena. 3. That branch of medical science which investigates the causes and origin of diseases; the scientific exposition of the origin of any disease.

The two seem not entirely unrelated, especially in connection with conceptual art, but that is probably just a coincidence.

The original sentence, by the way, is:

Actually, what we [Art & Lanauge] want to resist is the thought that Conceptual Art is or was a readily recognized and ordered artistic style which remains inviolate in the hands of some purists and which has been variously abandoned or aetiolated by others like ourselves. (from A&L, "We Aimed to Be Amateurs")

Curious. I'm guessing the first one, but I'm not sure. What do you think?

Burdens

The conceptual art group Art & Language

intend[ed/s] to abandon the separation of competences between artists, critics and observers, and to transform the art-world into a system of communication between contributors with equal capabilities of reflection.

Maybe I'm naive, but how does one define communication? I mean, how do you (yes, you!) know you're communicating? If A & L put their "blurtings" and "annotations" up on the internet and invite people to respond to their communications, how do they know they're getting their messages across? Or, hmmm, is getting a particular message across not the point of communication? I feel dizzy.

A & L provides a clue. The group's goal

in internal discussions, [was/is] to find non-hierarchical forms of presentation with which to activate readers outside the group. The members of Art & Language developed their methodological basics within a process of »conversational exchanges« ... and they wanted to provoke readers to proceed with this process. So the form of presentation of »Blurting In« sustains a reading habit, which creates a dialogical interrelation between parts of the text/annotations as »surface-structures« ... and »set[s] of contexts« ..., which offer parts of the text. The dialogical intratextual character of the reading process should motivate further dialogues within contexts outside the group. The feedback between group-internal and group-external dialogues was the ideal case for Art & Language.

So, dialogue informed by "a reading habit" was/is the goal. But still, I don't mean to be thick, but how do you tell if your dialogue is mutually productive, that you're not talking past each other without even realizing it? This seems relevant beyond the scope of conceptual art. To teachers, for example - is our goal to inspire reading and discussion or is there content in this class? Students are, unsurprisingly, confused.

And, perhaps more importantly to me (here comes my pet gote...), are you not throwing out the baby with the bathwater when you say that

The discourse investigates functions of the art-world ..., but doesn´t explore the function of art works within the context of art ...?

That is, when you only talk about the institutional structures which support art making/looking/discussing/exhibiting/purchasing/etc. and not the art itself as art, what remains of the art? I guess that's where the idea of "blurring the boundary between art & life" turns into disregarding, denying, or erasing it altogether. Thoughts?

(Art & Language's amazing indexing project "Blurting in Art & Language" [the source of the above quotes] can be read and communicated with here.)

Man carrying a file cabinet.
Oh so painfully literal, I know.

*Please do not use the comments section to count the number of conceptual art-induced tears of boredom you have just experienced. Like A & L with "art works within the context of art," I guess I just don't care.

The Solution to the Puzzle Was...

Jellyfish. Brighton Beach is full of jellyfish. And delicious buckwheat. Nina Simone was a gift.