Charles Davis Apr 5, 2017:

The complaint, if any, would not be that it's not what people say. People certainly do say "form and content", though perhaps not quite as much as they used to. It would be that it's not the same concept, similar, but not the same. The container is the material object; form is essentially a system of relationships.

Justin Peterson (asker) Apr 5, 2017:

Ormiston suggests "form and content ... " and, though I can hear the complaint now (that is not what people say) it just might be a better translation ... I do indeed think that is the idea, even if that phrase is not standard in the sphere of Modern Art

Justin Peterson (asker) Apr 5, 2017:

Charles, you make a profound point ... to some extent translators, and authors, tend to mimic what has been used before, for fear of "making a mistake" or using a term that is not "accepted" or "standard" ... even though at times the standard language stinks.

Charles Davis Apr 5, 2017:

To clarify You don't have to use it just because a lot of art critics do. I don't much like "container" either, to be frank. From time to time, translating this sort of stuff, I find myself rebelling against the fashionable terms. Usually it's a token protest that I abandon the next time it arises; increasing familiarity mitigates the initial distaste, and after all, the client probably wants it to read like English curatorial language.

Robert Forstag Apr 5, 2017:

Accepted usage is sometimes counterintuitive I tend to sympathize with Justin's sentiments here in finding "container and contents/contained" somehow wanting. I might have thought "vehicle and expression" sounded more natural (I actually think that such is the case.) However one can't argue with overwhelming evidence of established usage, and there are over 100,000 Google hits for the search [art exhibition "container and contained"], thus supporting Charles' assertion.

Charles Davis Apr 5, 2017:

Doesn't "container and content" count? A matter of opinion, I suppose. It's very common, and it's used in a lot of art books, that's for sure.

Charles Davis Apr 5, 2017:

Elegance Curatorial language (the language of exhibition curators, who are generally academic art critics and historians), of which I translate quite a lot, is often not notable for its elegance; quite the opposite. Curators who write clearly, elegantly, stylishly: artistically, in fact, are the (welcome) exception. Mostly their language is philosophical.

Justin Peterson (asker) Apr 5, 2017:

Charles, I rather like "vehicle" but ... what I am really looking for is a coined expression that rolls off the tongue and everyone in this world knows, as is the case with "continente y contenido" in Spanish.
Perhaps it does not exist. Which I find strange.

Charles Davis Apr 5, 2017:

@Justin I don't think anyone would have trouble with the idea of a painting having content. Well, if it has content, it's a container. A container doesn't have to be a bucket. In the case of an artwork it's simply the material object.

These are perfectly normal terms in art-speak. If you really don't like "container", you could use "vehicle".

matt robinson Apr 5, 2017:

I understand that "container" identifies the format, techniques, materials, display space, frame, etc., as opposed to the content, i.e. representations, messages, ideas, and/or feelings expressed through the work. Don't take my word for it though, as art is not one of my specialist fields.

Justin Peterson (asker) Apr 5, 2017:

"container and contents" ... for a work of art? These are paintings. There are no "containers" here.
(Perhaps my fault for not clarifying the context clearly enough)