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.

Total bollocks

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.”

Order yours now…

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.

Bring back Buck’s Bollocks, so to speak…

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.

Or perhaps you deserve one of these?

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!!

Wine wankers at work

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.

Never mind!

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”

BIG Bollocks

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.

This end is more popular for patting than the other end..

Perhaps some people really enjoy all the bollocks? Of course, some people take it too far…

Sorry, can’t talk now, my mouth is full…