Since I made the point recently in another thread I'll reiterate here.

Does language convey meaning by representation? Or does it only indicate, like a complex series of labels?

Can art be legitimately compared to a language? The expression of art is often strongly subordinated to the meaning that it tries to convey; people use images to convey an image, sounds to convey a sound, in art. A language is a series of pre-existing parts that must be capable of fitting any thing that we want to communicate, and does not have the freedom of other art forms.

So, is art a better form of communication than language? Or is it the same?

Language can be an art and art could be interpereted with language.

Most languages have pre-existing meanings and definitions. Therefore when one speaks a language or says even one word, they are trying to convey that meaning or definition that is already pre-determined. Then of course there are situations in which explanations need to be given of a certain word or meaning, again using other words which already have their own definition. All words in every language have a meaning or stand or describe their worth.

Art on the other hand only has the meaning which each individual decides to take from it. No two people will look at one piece of art and define it in the same way. The saying of 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' could apply to art through 'meaning is in the eye of the beholder'. Some pieces of art are self-explanatory, but its true definition will never be the same for all people who see it. The artist may have stated its meaning, but the individual viewer or listener may take a different view and attribute another meaning to it. One can try to convey a sense of well-being or wellness through their art, but not all people will feel those emotions when confronted with that art work. For example, a river and forest scene may represent peace and tranquility and nature to one viewer, but another person may see it as something sinister, the dark cover of trees and the river could represent things that are unknown, something dark. The artist on the other hand could have just painted the river and forest scene because he/she loved the play of the shadows on the water and wanted to portray what he/she finds beautiful.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we take from art what we wish to take, but from language, we take the words we wish to use to convey or hide our true meaning.

Since I made the point recently in another thread I'll reiterate here.

Does language convey meaning by representation? Or does it only indicate, like a complex series of labels?

Can art be legitimately compared to a language? The expression of art is often strongly subordinated to the meaning that it tries to convey; people use images to convey an image, sounds to convey a sound, in art. A language is a series of pre-existing parts that must be capable of fitting any thing that we want to communicate, and does not have the freedom of other art forms.

So, is art a better form of communication than language? Or is it the same?Language can be art, at least to my point of view, since you can construct whatever you want with it. It's like asking if a pencil can be art, it depends what you draw with it.

I also think that you can get across your meaning by simply meaning something while you say it (the words will somehow organize themselves to reflect what you mean).

"The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten. Where can I find a man who has forgotten the words? He is the one I would like to talk to."
Chuang Tzu

BigBlueHead,
Does language convey meaning by representation? Or does it only indicate, like a complex series of labels?
Well, my first reaction would be to regard language as a grammatically bound series of labels, but... take your signature "Great Tealnoggin!" for example. I've no idea what Tealnoggin is, but it does seem to convey some kind of humorous atmosphere. Apparently, Tealnoggin has no value for me as a label, but nevertheless it is able to carry a meaning... despite the fact that my interpretation of it can be incomplete or rather more likely completely misguided.

So, is art a better form of communication than language? Or is it the same?
As noted by others, art usually is less clear but on the other hand, it can also be very specific. What communicates the concept of "panic" better
this (http://www.museumsnett.no/nasjonalgalleriet/munch/eng/innhold/fullsize/ngm00939.html) or "Help!"?

Until one brain can be connected directly to another, there can be no true communication. The next best thing is poetry and art.

Just checked this out for the first time.
CYPERIUM, good comments there kiddo!
CIRCE~great quote; in fact, I copied it. Thanks
SPIDERGOAT, oh my, I have to disagree. Poetry and art? Come on. How about the communication that comes without words. To me, that is the greatest!

Cheers to all, and good night. :) pmt

"How about the communication that comes without words. To me, that is the greatest!
"

good point P.M. Thorne!

Why, I thank you, Sir. Anytime I can get a compliment on this forum, I will take it.

Cheers, Spidergoat.

pmt

In the strict sense of communication langauge takes the cake. What mouse sees as a cry for "help" i clearly see as complete terror. with art many different emotions and messages can be sent but with the written or spoken word i can make myself clear and i have the ability to make a specifc point.