ART AND LANGUAGE
Writings about Philosophy can be tough read. This is partly because they were typically written long ago and translated from other languages. The main reason for their notorious impenetrability, though, is that philosophers tend to create their own jargon. They introduce new terminology because new concepts can only take root in new language. Having a customized vocabulary allows philosophers to revolutionize thought.
Languages don't always have words ,though. In one sense, language is anything that communicates meaning, and in that way, art qualifies as a language. As a means of expression, it gives shape to our ideas and can even surpass words in its ability to reveal our most indescribable feelings. So, does this mean that art can expand our conceptual framework in t he same way words do?
There is no question that art can offer us new perspectives on the world, but to say that, without words, it can introduce new abstract concepts is harder to sell. Philosophers of language tend to agree that grammar and words are required for the cultivation of new ideas. Art is wonderful in the way it captures the intangible, but to analyze the impressions it imparts to us and apply them in other places, we may need words after all.
How do you consider art to be a language?
How much do you rely on the language of words to help you understand an art experience?
No comments:
Post a Comment