Reading time: Less than one minute
This is my weekly installment of “writing about writing,” in which I scan the world to find websites, books and articles to help other writers. Today I discuss an article written by Ken Davis.
Back when I was a features editor at a metropolitan daily newspaper, I felt particularly ill-equipped to edit two subjects that fell under my purview: architecture and art.
I had never studied either discipline, and, to be honest, didn’t have much interest in either. Instead, books and theatre were my long-held passions. Luckily, many of the reviewers in my department did a really good job of writing about art. (Including one, who was colour-blind and briefly turned into an art reviewer by a particularly nasty boss who wanted to make the poor man’s life miserable.)
I don’t recall anyone in my staff using the clichés cited by Ben Davis in his ArtNews piece, 30 Art-Writing Cliches to Ditch in the New Year. Interestingly, however, I’ve seen a number of them used in other types of writing.
They all strike me as examples of laziness. For example, it’s easy to describe something as “controversial” (#6), particularly if you want to make your story sound more interesting or worthwhile. It’s far more work, however, to demonstrate exactly how your subject or issue is contentious. Ditto for the adjective “haunting.” (#10) It’s an evocative term but what, exactly, does it mean?
Being specific and precise, and writing in Plain English (with 25-cent words rather than $2 ones) is what will make your subject more interesting to more readers — whether you’re writing about art, or anything else.