I agree Craig John, the confusion with the "every picture paints xxxx words" adage is that is partly misunderstood out of context.
The picture symbolically will enable recall of xxxx thousand words-worth of conceptual thought, not because those words jump out at you or can be inferred with or without any interpretation from the image, but because the story / message has already been communicated and understood - and hence associated with the image(s) thereafter. That "recall" can be much faster and efficient compared to long-winded explanation and story telling. The symbologies or the different parts of an image are just as symbolic as the different parts of a text - the symbolism may be more spatial, more compressed, more efficient and less linear as you say ... but there still needs to have been interpretation that associates the message with the images / symbols and their arrangements. Ceci n'est pas une bicyclette ? Regards Ian On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:52 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > [John] >> the verbal description is linear and >> interpretative whereas with the picture, it's all there in one quick >> gestaltish glance. > > This is the view that the later Wittgenstein argued against. > True, interpreting 'bicycle' requires knowing a language. > But a picture of a red bicycle needs interpreting too. > Does it mean a generic bicycle, your bicycle, a metal object, > > a red object, an object with two wheels, something manufactured, > > etc.? > Craig > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
