In today’s
world, there is still a place for the Official Style, and “Cubism,
Futurism, Anarchism: The 'Aestheticism' of the "Action d'art" Group,
1906-1920,” published in the Oxford Journal by the Oxford University Press in
1998, written by a Dr. Mark Antliff, is exactly that place.
“Cubism,
Futurism, Anarchism: The 'Aestheticism' of the "Action d'art" Group,
1906-1920” is 19 pages long, with 96 sidenotes supporting Antliff’s
thesis. Thick with jargon, references,
citations, and obtuse prose, Antliff’s article is written in the Official
Style. Antliff separates himself into a
more elite realm of writing and distances himself from the casual reader in
carefully selecting his words and referencing names within the art community
that hold little resonance for someone arbitrarily pulling up this article on
JSTOR.
A quick
google search revealed that Antliff is now a professor at Duke University,
having received his Ph.D. from Yale. The
Duke University website says that Antliff’s “research and teaching interests
focus on art in Europe before 1945, with special attention to cultural politics
in all its permutations, as well as the interrelation of art and
philosophy.” I’m betting that the
article I dug up from the archives was part of a senior thesis, a grad project,
or something of the sort. Sifting
through the google results on Antliff, I arrived at his ratemyprofessor page.
One of the
reviews of Dr. Antliff on ratemyprofessor.com reads, “I had Antliff for modern
art. His lectures are terribly boring and his tests cover ungodly amounts of
information.” http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=32424&all=true.
In terms of prose style, Antliff’s 1998 article aligns fairly well with
that student’s comment. While sitting
through an Antliff lecture sounds like it could put you to sleep, using a
dense, slow prose style within his scholarly writing is permissible.
A
determinant of the use of Official Style within this article is the fact that Mark
Antliff’s career teaching at Duke and his standing within the academic world is
at stake with this article (or, more likely, his future career as a professor
would stand on the shoulders of this article and others like it). He can’t pour out whatever he feels on the
subject, regardless of how much research he has to support what he’s
saying. There is a specific way to
comport oneself within the academic world, and Antliff has followed those
guidelines in crafting this article.
His
academic career aside, Dr. Antliff is writing for a very specific audience, and
there is no need to broaden that audience; only people seriously interested in
“Cubism, Futurism, Anarchism: The 'Aestheticism' of the "Action d'art”
Group, 1906-1920” are going to show up to this party, so there’s no need to
cater to other factions. The Oxford
Journal chose to publish his piece for that fact: Antliff’s article fills a
niche within an academic activity system.
Antliff is writing for the art community (students, professors, freelance
learners and the like), the political community, as well as anyone researching
the specifics of cubism, futurism,
anarchism, and the "Action d'art" Group. This piece of writing is not to instruct a
layman; it is to inform a learned man.
There is a place for plain language, for raw noun-action sentences, but
for Antliff, there is thick, gnarled prose, elevated language, the removal of
the personal “I,” and references that will make or break the reader’s
understanding of the 19 pages of dense, highly cited fact that Antliff is
discoursing.
Looking at
the opening paragraph of Antliff’s article:
“The question of how art and politics interrelate is a vexing one: this is particularly true when one considers various attempts in pre-World War I France to forge a rapprochement between the aesthetic and the political. Perhaps the most understudied group to develop such a synthesis were the anarcho-individualist artists and writers associated with the doctrine of 'Artistocracy', first propounded in 1906 by the anarcho-individualist Gerard de Lacaze-Duthier in his book L'Ideal Humain de I'Art. Joined by artists and critics, Lacaze-Duthier succeeded in founding a number of literary venues promoting the Artistocratic creed, the most significant of which was the journal L'Action d'art, founded in 1913. Although L'Action d'art appeared intermittently, ceasing publication after 1913 and only reappearing in 1919, the journal forged a link between anarchists and some of the most significant literary and artistic figures of the day, including Neo-Symbolists associated with Vers et prose (1905-14) such as Paul Fort and Guillaume Apollinaire; the Futurists Ugo Giannattasio and Gino Severini; the Cubist Albert Gleizes, and Atl (Gerardo Murillo), later the leader of the Mexican Muralist movement. The Artistocrats' adaptation of the theories of the philosopher Henri Bergson to their anarchist doctrine won them the support of Bergsonians within the Neo-Symbolist and Futurist milieux. Thus avant-garde aesthetics and aestheticized politics were conjoined under the banner of Artistocratie; this paper will examine the complex history behind that synthesis.”
Word Count
238
Words per
Sentence 34.0
Flesch-Kincaid
Reading Ease 14.1
Average
Grade Level 18.6
Antliff
opens his article, “The question of how art and politics interrelate is a
vexing one...” He could have entered the
discussion immediately, showing his audience how it is “vexing,” but does not,
instead opening with a dragging clarification of something that he has yet to
explore. Bypassing more common words and
foregoing the definition of abstract terms, Antliff throws everything into the
mix within the first 250 words of his article.
Every who’s-it of the art world is mentioned, terminology explodes into
a Jargon Festival, and the reader is launched into a maelstrom of Official
Style.
Elevated
Language:
interrelate
vexing
rapprochement
aesthetic
anarcho-individualist
Artistocracy
propounded
Neo-Symbolists
milieux
avant-garde
conjoined
synthesis
References:
Gerard de Lacaze-Duthier
Paul Fort
Guillaume Apollinaire
Ugo
Giannattasio
Gino
Severini
Albert
Gleizes
Atl
(Gerardo Murillo)
Henri
Bergson
In the way
of the Official Style, Antliff removes the personal “I” from his piece to
elevate it to an academic level--though does use “I” within the first sidenote
of the piece.
Despite
this being a personal thanks to those persons who helped him complete his
thesis, and despite using “I,” this sidenote is no less formal than the content
of his essay. He did not “look into
facts.” No, “research was
undertaken.” He wouldn’t like to say
thanks to the people at those libraries; he is “grateful to the staff of those
institutions.” Antliff loosens for the
last sentence of this sidenote, writing “thanks” to Matt, Allan, and Patty--but
doesn’t address them casually; he uses their first and last name, and if Allan
Antliff shares any family ties with the author, Dr. Antliff makes no mention of
it. As well, they didn’t “chat” or
“nitpick;” those persons listed gave “comments and suggestions.” By washing his personal mark from this
article, Antliff presents a sterile, academic piece of prose.
This is
necessary, though, as was discussed before.
The Official Style is present because the recipe for this article
doesn’t call for a dash of Mark Antliff.
The activity systems that Antliff is working for are best served by the
Official Style. Artists looking for
information on Cubism and politics aren’t looking for an opinion on “The
'Aestheticism' of the "Action d'art" Group,” and they aren’t looking
for something stripped down to the who-kicked-whom of everything. They are looking for an intelligent,
objective, researched presentation on this topic. Dr. Mark Antliff, with his Official Style and
96 sidenotes, accomplishes just that.
The world outside of his activity system can’t quite understand what
he’s talking about, but that’s okay. We
don’t need to.
~Kali
Brokaw
No comments:
Post a Comment