It’s uncomfortable to say this, but sometimes architects talk a load of old bollocks. I think we have all been subject to that at one stage or more in our lives – in my case it was from the hands (or mouths) of the learned architects who taught me how to be an architect, all those many years ago. Too many to count, or make public, I suspect. Hopefully the lecturers of today no longer speak such tedious arci-bollocks to their students, although having met a few of them in mine time in Wellington, I’m sure there are some people who still talk total bollocks to their students. Sadly, and despite the rampantly sexist language, some of the female lecturers are just as bad – possibly even worse! than the male members. Oh dear. It’s hard to say anything without getting done for innuendo these days. I’m tempted to name them – but I won’t, despite them deserving to be named, shamed and textually inflamed. Hmmmm. Inflamed.
The reason I mention this, apropos of nothing much, is that there is a wonderful article on the Guardian website today, which goes into the big question : Why do Architects talk such Arci-bollocks? It starts off by saying this:
“Architects are notoriously bad communicators. They have a tendency, while attempting to stride the multiple disciplines of construction, philosophy, sociology and art, to speak an opaque private language that is legible to none. Countless are the exhibitions where visitors are confronted with indigestible word salads of materialities, typologies, morphologies and phenomenologies, garnished with a good sprinkling of liminal palimpsests. It makes you want to run for the nearest the permeable threshold.”
I could not have said it better myself – which of course is why I copied it here for your delectation and erudition, allowing you the pleasure of going direct to the Grauniad and reading it yourself. Luckily, I know (or at least, surmise, in an effort to avoid potential obfuscation), that erstwhile readers of the Oculus of the Piscean wildlife are mostly well versed in the terse verses of the architectural Hoi-polloi, if there be such a thing, and so have a better than average chance of discerning what the heck I’m babbling on about.
My apologies – this is being written while I listen to the RNZ Concert program when Bryan Crump is on, and he tends to make me verbose, as well as obtuse, obese, and eat cheese – ipso facto, ergo sum. Italo-bollocks that time.
Sadly however, I have some proof that talking arci-bollocks is indeed still rife amongst the student world – indeed, maybe that is the last bastion of the tendency to do so. Through some dubious means of being roped into something I did not want to do, I’ve come across a prime example of interstitial arci-bollocks that I cannot bring myself to copy and reprint for your tender eyes – mine are still bleeding from having to ingest and digest this dose of verbal diarrhoea that comes from someone so young, and sadly so full of bullshit. Oh tedium in extremis!!
Of course, it is not just Architects who talk bollocks, or, to try and address the inbuilt sexist attitude in talking about such things, to make a complete tit of themselves. Wine wankers are also another group who should be strung up and spanked sternly, although methinks that they might just like that too much, in a Stephen Milligan MP kind of way, if you know what I mean – and oh yes, Frank, you know what I mean. I’m sure you’ve had your fair share, so to speak. Oh good grief, once you’ve put your foot in it, its hard to come pull it out and come up smelling of roses.
The Arts World is of course also one of the greatest proponents of perfidious perfunditry, and here’s a great example of said such speech:
“…A GROUP OF SCULPTURAL WORKS THAT AIMS AT A VOID THAT SIGNIFIES PRECISELY THE NON-BEING OF WHAT IT REPRESENTS…”
“…THIS SUGGESTION OF PERFORMANCE PSYCHOLOGICALLY INVOLVES THE VIEWER WITH THE MAKING PROCESS, PROVOKING INSTINCTIVE RESPONSES TO HER PRECARIOUS ASSEMBLAGES”
But I do try and avoid such worldy wanky words whenever I can, for there are far too many in the world already, and the point of the Eye of the Fish is to look directly at the City and the Architectural Realm and talk plain simple talk – Mano y Mano – or perhaps Manu tu Manu in whatever pharyngeal epiglottis is your local tongue. So, be relieved, or be bemused, the Fish is still not dead (pulse still vaguely detected, for reasons unknown to humankind), and so with a flap of a fin and a flick of a tail, I can say with Arnie-like certainty that I will indeed be back. In the mean time, I’ll leave you with this image to ponder.
Perhaps some people really enjoy all the bollocks? Of course, some people take it too far…
You’ve sunk to your lowest point today, little fish. A base post, if ever there were one.
Surely not, Alan! I’m sure I’ve done worse before? How low can the Fish go? Granted, it’s not a very architectural post, but I’m sure there are future depths I could plumb? If plums are not to your taste ? Don’t get me started on a bunch of old cock !
A case of writer’s bollock?
I see what you did there…
It’s all balls. A question though – Do Fish even have testicles ?
Indeed they do, Ted, except that they generally don’t trail them around outside their body like you mammals do. Fish testes are all safely tucked away inside the fish, as are the ovaries. What is even more interesting, is that some species of fish can, and indeed do, change gender, without anyone objecting or worrying that the fish are using the wrong bathroom. As an example, in my local favourite the Banded Wrasse, if there are too many large female fish around, one of the big girls will change her sex and become a male, so that she can fertilise the others. Don’t tell the rightwing Christian militia though, or they will get all angry and militant, and want fish banned or something.
I don’t know, Nemo, but you always seem like someone who is perfectly capable of talking a complete load of old bollocks to me. Words, like testicles, roll off your tongue. I think that the truth is in your very nature – you’re an artitet, and therefore, you speak a load of mangy old festering sweaty salty chocolate great balls of fire. ‘Nuff said.
Err – is no-one going to mention sociology?
If you want bollocks they’re making them by the yard over there
Philosophy?
Can be pure unadulterated testes in that direction too
But if you are really wanting to talk balls professionally, it’s hard to go past the man himself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjrdanK4LSY
I see Alfy 202 has also added a nod to the famous SNL sketch with one of the Baldwins talking about his sweaty balls
Another good one for purely technical bullshit is this old classic from the States – ladies and gents may I present the Turbo-Encabulator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLDgQg6bq7o
In the 80’s it was words like “seminal” which was a hallmark of bollocks, I think “dialogue” or “in dialogue with” might be the new one
Those words are like red flags in a new relationship – in this case I translate them to mean “bollocks ahead”
Does anyone else have such words that make their bullshit detector go off?
OK. I’ll bite. Have a look at this – someone who loves to talk about architecture – and it shows..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AeQovP7F3o
I should probably clarify – I’m referring to Reyner, not the TED Talk guy.