A Word Wrapped in Light: My Final Response
April 3rd, 2005 | Published in Essays, Art and Design
For those just jumping in, here are the previous links:
- John’s Article: A Word Wrapped in Light
- My First Thoughts on His Article
- John’s Comment and My First Response
- John’s First Response
- My Second Response
- John’s Second Response
- My Final Response [you are here]
John,
I really appreciate the time and effort you have put into this discussion. I think things have cleared up pretty well as we have interacted and gotten more specific with each other.
I completely agree with your assertion that verbal language and visual language have their uses. Icons certainly have their place and, when done correctly, are often helpful.
I also agree with your example how maps can help convey the relation between distances. It is a visual representation of visual things, which visual language is perfect suited for. Words can be used, although it takes more effort to understand what is being conveyed. I think this furthers my point that words are better at conveying abstract thought, whereas visual language is not as helpful. But your point is certainly not lost and, if I understand it correctly, I readily agree with it.
Your assertion that verbal and visual language is a difference in kind not caliber is helpful. I believe you have brought up a helpful distinction. After thinking about this for a while, I believe I can say I agree with you. Perhaps I was unfair to treat them as a difference in caliber—although, if visual imagery can indeed have syntax is still seems they are still attempting to communicate through language. I would be willing to admit “each lends itself to certain uses that that other does not.” Photography conveys a specific scene exactly as it happened visually, something that would be impossible for a human to document with words. Likewise, typography conveys propositions and logic and context that a photograph never could.
Your example of visual syntax with the sentence “the purpose of education is the cultivation of virtue” was helpful and interesting. I also think you hit on something important: it is, in fact, a translation. If I read the sentence, I do not have to translate it. I understand what it means as I see it. You would probably argue that the same could be done with images if the syntax was developed enough (and with widespread visual literacy), and I do not doubt that it might be possible. But why? Words seem better at communicating such a concept as the sentence regarding education. However, I am not opposed to it being tested and seen what kind of uses it might have, which seems to be what you are proposing.
You also made a great point about how the written word can often be more precise than we ourselves wish it to be. I don’t think I have heard anyone make that point before, but I agree. That is why we read what we write with such a critical eye. Your conclusion to this, that “ideography may prove itself better suited to the ambiguities of human thought and intuition,” is interesting but I am unsure what that would mean in practice.
I don’t have much to say about your response to my speculation about the second commandment. Overall, I found myself agreeing with you and I am still struggling with some of the various interpretations that are available. It is an area that I will do some more thinking and research on, because right now it is filled with too many questions in my mind.
Thank you for the wonderful public and private discussion. It has been helpful for me and I am very glad we were able to discuss these issues—and perhaps even help others who might be thinking about the same issues. May God bless you and your family!
Sincerely,
Joshua Sowin