Philosturbation Most High

I watched the classic film Blowup (1966) yesterday and did some reading about its many layers and deep meanings. In one article I read the following from Peter Goldman, an English professor in Salt Lake City:

Antonioni [the film's writer/director] suggests that meaning is discovered in the creative process rather than being determined by a preformed authorial intentionality. The mimesis of empirical reality is subordinated to a collaborative process involving the audience and actors. Modernism follows realism in questioning the role of the artist as the origin of meaning, reflecting the larger problem of cultural authority in market society. [Eric] Gans [a professor at UCLA] comments,

The realist esthetic includes for the first time a critical model of its implied audience, whose situation with respect to the scene of representation it attempts to redefine . . . . The esthetic experience of the work becomes a critique of universal cultural assumptions such as the mediating narrator or the formal self-substantiality of the painted universe.

WTF? Really? Can anyone translate this gibberish into something intelligible?

This is a perfect example of why philosophers and ethicists--even lawyers and physicians--so often cannot communicate effectively with anyone but each other. They use terminology (jargon, cant) so peculiar that it is understood only by the members of the particular discipline. It is totally obscure to the general population and even to well-educated professionals from other fields.

I suppose I should admit the rather distinct possibility (read: certainty) that I am not of the intended audience. Goldman's work was an academic paper for Anthropoetics: The Journal of Generative Anthropology. It seems that "generative anthropology" has something to do with the theory that human culture is a genetic (generative) process that stems entirely from the development of signs and language. (By the way, Professor Gans, whom Goldman quotes, created the field and founded and edits the journal mentioned above.)

Whatever. If Goldman's and Gans' syntax is any indication of our language-based genetic progress, we've a long way to go.

---
An added note: 
This post will tie in nicely to something I'm working on that involves Marshall McLuhan, "the medium is the message," and the current state of political discourse. So, as they say, "Watch This Space."