Certainly most image making is conditioned by language; but there are many other contributing factors, particularly other images, as well as our intrinsic, inherited visual processing system. The question really is to what degree different factors contribute, which will vary greatly from individual to individual.
As for the ineffable - I'm all in that camp. That there might be always something pertinent to be said does not mean that words cover the territory of what can be communicated. Cheers; Chris On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 6:38 PM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > This exchange below between Saul and Cheerskep reminds me of Derrida's term > 'differance' He claims that any statement is incomplete and that nothing > can be > fully explicted. There is always a remainder, something left over, to be > noticed by someone...ad infinitum. > > i don't think I said that drawing is superior to language, or if I did, I > erred. > I do think drawing is a fundamental form of communication. It might be a > product of language and not its antecedent. I don't know and I don't think > anyone knows for sure. Did the early man grunt and point at the same > time to > tell his pal that the bison is just ahead? Was that pointing a mode of > drawing? > Was his grunting a performative act of 'drawing sound' or was it language > and > was language therefore born with 'drawing'. In the practical terms of our > daily > lives, I think that the drawn or performed images we make are likely > conditioned > by language. I think historical man is so deeply immersed in language that > all > of his concepts are shaped and limited by language. Whatever shape we make > as a > 'drawing' (again, I use the term in its broadest performative sense ) > already > has a name and many names. We 'draw' what we say; we say what we draw. > This > leads me to side with those who do not accept the ineffable in aesthetic > experience. I think we are forced to explicate experience and what we say > is > merely tacit is that which cannot be firmly explicated but is 'explained > away' > or 'talked around' or said and re-said until every word known has been > used and > the matter is still incomplete. There is always something pertinent to be > said, > not enough, but no experience is truly 'speechless'. > wc
