Some with the fancy sprinkles after their names like to poo poo anyone who doesn't use their language
But the curious thing is, I never see this anywhere.
Quite the contrary in fact, people who have spent a lifetime sometimes studying and trying to understand art, provide new insights or a different way of thinking about it are constantly denigrated as "ivory tower academics" or have their writing dismissed as "meaningless" or are called "so-called experts".
All too often, someone attempting more than the most superficial reading of an artist's work, or using language that is above kindergarten level, is treated as if they are somehow frauds, out to cheat and dupe the poor uneducated rubes (who, by contrast, with their plain speakin' and literalism, are seen - by themselves I suspect - as experts in the "real")
Yet the weird thing is, no-one blinks an eye when physicists or cosmologists or chemists describe their work in ways that are, almost literally, incomprehensible to someone without a doctorate in the relevant discipline. The argument then goes, presumably, along the lines of "oh well that's about real things, real science,
art isn't like that" ... to which my riposte is, well OK, now explain to me why art isn't like that, and why it is wrong to think about art in theoretical ways. But nobody ever does.
Even more incomprehensibly, there seems to be some assumption that artists go about their business in some sort of mystical way, that they do their work as a result of some sort of upwelling of transcendent wooziness; whereas the most cursory reading on the history of art reveals movement after movement of artists who write manifestos, books, pamphlets, create extraordinary theories about art, declare the end or the future of painting or sculpture or photography, whose own libraries are jammed with books on philosophy, psychoanalysis, and history, who start magazines and invite critics to debate with them ... it goes on and on (and not just in the modernist period; one only has to look at Leonardo's diaries and notebooks to see that, and he wasn't alone. Think of the invention of perspective in western art - it didn't happen by accident.)
All the professional artists I know (and I know painters, performance artists, sonic artists, musicians, dancers) have a very clear set of ideas and understandings that they are expressing, and they are all extremely well-read and well-educated people, many with "fancy sprinkles" after their names too.
If artists can be bothered to think properly about their artistic practice, then it seems to me fantastically arrogant to assume that superficiality and ignorance is somehow advantageous for the people who are looking at the products of that practice (or reading it or whatevering it).
