#institutions #work #language #InternationalArtEnglish
Writing in Triple Canopy last year, Alix Rule and David Levine coined the term “International Art English” (hereby referred to as IAE) to describe a linguistic mode that is part polyglot, part jargon—peppered with French, German, and Latin but based on the structure of English. The authors took this hybrid language to task for lending a veneer of substance to numerous examples of art world vapidity, which they culled from press releases circulated via the e-flux listserv. The resulting dialogue has identified a troubling but well-known tendency in the art world: making the pretense of saying something while actually saying nothing.

Sketch Engine Module #1: Concordance (Search Term: Language), from Rule & Levine's "International Art English"
Numerous writers more prominent than I have addressed IAE in recent months, but none of their responses has hit the nail square on the head. What exactly is so dangerous, so insidious, and so telling about the over-abundance of inscrutable language in the press blasts that flood our inboxes daily? Why be concerned with this ephemeral space of language when more influential and elitist modes of expression yet exist within the arts? Before we can even address these questions, we ought to establish a few facts about e-flux. The subscription-based email service is open to nonprofit and state-run institutions but not to commercial galleries. Income from the subscription-based listserv underwrites e-flux journal, a publication edited by e-flux’s founders that promotes sharp and thoughtful debate around global and postcolonial perspectives in the arts. E-flux’s founders, and many of the journal’s contributors, are also prominent exhibiting artists on the international museum and biennial circuits.
Upon its publication, International Art English generated some buzz and some chuckles but little backlash. Months later, in February 2013, Triple Canopy editor Peter Russo and e-flux cofounder Anton Vidokle met on a College Art Association (CAA) panel about art magazines and the scheiβe promptly hit the fan. Vidokle asserted that the article’s focus on e-flux press releases was uncharitable, given that so many are generated by public and nonprofit art institutions outside the English-speaking world and produced by entry-level staff or volunteers. Russo defended the piece as being well researched and methodologically sound, arguing that press releases are as representative of institutional priorities as any other texts produced there.
At CAA, I was troubled by the suggestion that any museum, whether a large corporate venue in a major city or a small state-affiliated venue in a developing country, could be above institutional critique. While many of e-flux’s clients are small compared to the behemoths of MoMA or the Guggenheim, they are nonetheless official spaces of culture, supported largely by public funds. These institutions are situated globally, with the majority in Europe, where there are fewer alternative spaces and nonprofits that exist without state support than in the United States. This latter category, more common in the United States and increasingly in the developing world, is generally unable to afford e-flux’s services. As such, the listserv’s clients do represent a certain conflation of state, cultural, and market interests that warrants examination. While I thoroughly agree that neocolonial power structures are rampant within global contemporary art, I disagree with Vidokle’s assertion at CAA that Rule and Levine’s conclusions constitute a colonial imposition of language standards on an otherwise democratic mode of expression. This argument, which has since been reiterated in texts on IAE by Martha Rosler and Hito Steyerl in e-flux journal, leaps over real concerns raised by Rule and Levine regarding the public accessibility of e-flux’s client institutions and quickly assumes a perch of moral superiority from which the blame for art world elitism can be comfortably shifted elsewhere.
Read More »