you're reading...
Shop talk (anything and everything on writing)

Attack of the arty barbarians


I spend my working life editing stuff. I used to work on a national paper, editing news stories about crazed axe murderers, cute squirrels, and sex-mad politicians, but now I wade through reports by academics and marketing analysts, and occasionally have mild hysteria at what they do to the English language. Today, though, the vandalism of this beautiful language has hit a new low.

I give you Professor Olivier Richon, head of the photography programme at the Royal College of Art, who says, on the college website:

‘The programme understands photography as a medium with no fixed identity. This disregard for a fixed essence is photography’s strength: no aesthetic purity but a multiplicity of rhetorical forms used for the creation of fact, fiction and fantasy. Equally the boundary between the still and the moving image is now fluid and porous, enabling new forms of image making to be created.’

Olivier, hang your head in shame. What kind of bollocks is that? Can you not write simple English? Or are you frightened that if you wrote clearly, your course would seem boring?

There’s more:

‘We have a fluid approach to image making. Whether still or moving, analogue or digital, the photographic image is for us a visual form that aims to be thoughtful as well as playful: an allegorical and thoroughly visual form.’

What possessed you to write such tosh, Olivier? ‘The moving image is now fluid and porous’??? ‘a fixed essence’ ?? ‘a fluid approach to image making’?? Wtf? (Calm down, ed). It’s photography, sweetheart, not hydraulic engineering.

And of course photography is ‘thoroughly visual’. What else would it be? Invisible?

A hydraulic pump

A hydraulic pump

A camera

A camera

Ok, so everybody who writes has their own idiosyncrasies. Tabloid newspaper reporters cannot resist talking about people living in ‘leafy suburbia’ or ‘a neat semi-detached house’, especially if they’ve come to a sticky end. Mums-to-be are always young, even when they’re middle-aged. Brussels is full of bureaucrats, and Whitehall teems with mandarins.

A mandarin

A mandarin

More mandarins

More mandarins

The health service no longer talks about doctors and nurses and patients, but medical health practitioners and end users. Query: Is that ‘end’ as in, ‘my end is itchy’, or as in ‘my end is nigh’?

Academics always love showing off how clever they are, and their day is made, it seems to me, if they can write things that no one else understands. Their theories are disseminated upstream and downstream and are transparently solid. They love to take perfectly respectable words and force them to do jobs they weren’t intended for. Let’s have a moment’s silence here for poor old sustainable and legacy, and high income demand elasticity.

This way of writing is not pretty, but I’ve come to expect it with a fatalistic shudder.

I understand that the people involved in marketing art have to talk about auras and experiental workshops. (I have no idea what it means, but I suppose they have to have an outlet for their inner demons.)

But, a multiplicity of rhetorical forms??? Get Out Of Town.

Professor Richon, don’t do this to your students. You wouldn’t jump up and down on a camera (all right, maybe you would in an experiental workshop). Use this language properly. Say what you mean. Don’t fuck about with something millions of people hold very dear. (Bet you’d have to something to say if I spray-painted the Mona Lisa.)

Here’s a thought; if your writing is bilge, then maybe your course is, too. If you can’t write decent prose, (just try, dammit), then why not put a photo on your website that shows what the course is about? (The one you’ve got at the moment, of a dog just about to pee on a ladder, is, frankly, bizarre.)

P.S. You spelt engagement wrong in the third par.

P.P.S. In your next attempt, spare some thought for the rules of grammar, too. Image-making takes a hyphen; and the phrase ‘for us’ is a subordinate clause, and needs commas; but your piece is so woeful, you need to start again. Really, you do.

P.P.S. Okay, I’m calm. Rant over.

Images via Creative Commons, courtesy of





About elainecanham

I started blogging because I'm a writer, and I thought I ought to. Now I realise that I blog because I lwant to; even when I can't think of much to say. I do a lot of work for local businesses - get in touch if you like my style.


18 thoughts on “Attack of the arty barbarians

  1. I work a lot in the corporate IT world. I know of what you speak 🙂 Far be it for me to say any more than this, in case one of my clients comes a-wandering by…

    Posted by Jools | November 21, 2014, 1:03 pm
  2. What a pretentious prat. You’ve got me all worked up now!

    Posted by First Night Design | November 20, 2014, 7:46 pm
  3. I understood clearly everything the eminent professor had to say. What disappointed me, however, was that he didn’t say what people are saying about it on Facebook and Twitter. Perhaps, as an editor, it’s your task to add that? Enough said! I’m going off to have myself a mandarin.

    Posted by Bruce Goodman | November 20, 2014, 7:06 pm
  4. 😀 😀 😀 I’m used to double-speak from the corporate world. Made me laugh when I was working. I still double over once in a while.

    Posted by Let's CUT the Crap! | November 20, 2014, 5:30 pm
  5. Come on! This stuff is hard to write, and if it’s hard to write, it must be good. You just have to apply a multidisciplinary rhetoric to the gordian knot of creative obfuscatory dynamism. You surreptitiously attack the concept of porosity, nay (heartless wench!) even fluidity does not escape your scorn! Away with your nonsense! Professor Rochon is out in the field with his 32,000 GBP ($50,000 CAN) Hasselblad H5D-200c (paid for with a grant from the Arts Council) taking trans 20K pixelled studies of dogs relieving their vesicular angst upon humble ladders, and all you can do is carp? Away with you, philistine!

    Posted by penjedi | November 20, 2014, 4:51 pm
    • Nothing surreptitious about it; what he’s written is silly. Full of holes, if you like. And we don’t get the pee shot, either, which would have made it all worthwhile.

      Posted by elainecanham | November 20, 2014, 5:20 pm
  6. How is old Olivier as a photographer?

    Posted by michaelulinedwards | November 20, 2014, 4:17 pm
  7. Oh, my God. My eyes are bleeding. And I work in a bank, so just imagine the criminal abuses of language to which I’ve become accustomed.

    Has anyone any interest in going to find this Professor to sort him out? I could bring a cannon which fires very heavy linguistics manuals?

    Posted by Tara Sparling | November 20, 2014, 3:26 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow on Bloglovin

Follow me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: