To this end I have been thinking about issues around jargon/ specialist terminology vs. plain English, clarity vs. simplicity, ambiguity vs. transparency etc.
It's a fraught area in every specialist field I can think of - sales and marketing, politics, science etc.
It seems to me that the real reasons behind the use of, let's call it 'specialist language', are at the crux of the matter. Obviously if the obscure language is intended to hide unpleasant or unwelcome messages, then there is little to justify the use of such language.
However even if this less common language is used to make ideas or situations clear, precise and unambiguous, this can still result in the message not reaching people it should or could.
What is the answer? Regarding 'art-speak' which is intended to elevate the 'aesthetically cultured' speaker or writer, obviously clarity is not the intention and the language is often newly fabricated and metaphorical to the point of obscurity.
But what of genuinely complex and new ideas which require language not in common use?
Say I want to try and explore a way of depicting the beautiful iridescence of some scarab, yet, (not surprisingly) fail to do this. And if I then try and describe my process of exploration in language, is it possible to do so without resorting to metaphors or big words and you having to look up every second word in a dictionary?
Do you think I should try and write my exegesis in plainer English?