The reason Art writing is so poor

Amongst the worst writing existant today as that which you find in art catalogues. What should be there to demystify and help viewers understand the work seaks to do the opposite at its' best, at its' worst becomes mere linguistic riddles. The reason for this is clear. Marcel Duchamp , Dada changed art forever with the ready made, anything could be art. Hereafter conceptualism followed. A concept or an idea is a linguistic construct and hence the real work is the writing about the art object. Sadly, most of the concepts are elementary when read by philosophers. Virtually all art writing is based on French Deconstructionist philosophy, Baudrillard, Barthes, Leotard, Foucault are all used to fill tracts between the pictures in catalogues. These writers were mainly born in the 1930s and write, by their own admission, linguistic riddles. Baudrillard openly says, 'I'm fucking with you', 'Don't take me too seriously.' They sought to expose the idiocy of language, the impossibillity of a word being anything more than a symbol to represent an object. The word 'table' is not a table. When read, untranslated, in French, they are fun to read, equally as fun as the surrealism they are part of. But to take this, translate it in to English and use it to to deconstruct art is laughable, it appears moronic. At first you try to decode what these writers have written, then you start to lagh; not at the knowledgeable deconstructivism of the French but at the writers stupidity in thinking it can translate. Entire chapters boil down to, 'this picture is pretty'. It is time for this to end, time for an English art writing to evolve to match the great Brit art of the last few decades. Unless we accept we Brits are visual artists and leave the writing to the French.