art is a visual language

8/21/2019 Art is a Visual Language

1/6

Art Is a Visual LanguageAuthor(s): Paula K. EubanksSource: Visual Arts Research, Vol. 23, No. 1(45) (Spring 1997), pp. 31-35Published by: University of Illinois PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20715892.

Accessed: 29/03/2014 03:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Illinois Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Visual Arts

Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 64.62.201.15 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 03:55:09 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinoishttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20715892?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20715892?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois


2/6

Art Is a Visual LanguagePaula K. EubanksUniversity of Northern IowaAbstractArt is often referredto as a language.Artcriticscite itssimilarities o language,as doresearchers who investigate children's drawings.This new perspective isbased on language development,comparing receptive/expressive components, and form,ontent, nduse. Acceptingart as a languagemeans thatart can be useful in fosteringverbal development.Is art a language? To answer this question,we must first efinewhat a languageisand thatmay depend on the perspectiveof the person towhom the questionis addressed. Lois Bloom, a scholar inthe field of language development, defines language as a code whereby ideasabout the world are expressed througha conventional system of arbitrary ignalsfor communication (Lahey, 1988, p. 2).Nelson Goodman, a philosopher, defineslanguage as a symbol system that conveys complex ideas (Goodman, 1976).He explored extensively the nature andfunction of symbol systems inmusic,dance, the literary rts, and the visualarts, establishing a philosophical basisfor considering non-verbal representational systems. These two definitions oflanguage share common elements: signals or symbols with conventional meanings; a code or system that organizesthe set of symbols; and the use of thissystem forcommunication.Comparisons between the visual language and verbal language often referto common elements (Feldman, 1976;Cromer, 1966). The symbols with conventional meanings are phonemes in erbal language, or the elements of art invisual language. These are organized bya code, syntax inverbal language, or theprinciples of design invisual language.The symbols and the code together ere

ate meaning, semantics in verbal language, or themeaning interpretedby theviewer invisual language.Another view of common elements isbased on a language development perspective. Verbal language can be viewedas having twocomponents, receptive andexpressive (Bzoch & League, 1971). Receptive language refers to the understanding of words used by others, thedecoding of verbal symbols. Inthe visuallanguage, viewers read and interpret hevisual symbols encoded inworks of art.The art critic's job is to translate visuallanguage intowords that explicate theart forothers. Expressive language refers to communicating ideas by speakingorwriting, in ffect, the creation of codedverbal symbols. The expressive component of the visual language is thecreationof visual symbol systems, themaking ofmarks or objects thatcommunicate ideas.If the critic's job is to read the visuallanguage, the artist's job is to speak itfluently nd eloquently.Another useful view of language froma verbal language perspective is basedon Lahey's model of three overlappingcomponents of language: form, ontent,and use (Lahey, 1988). Inthismodel, formin verbal language includes sounds,words, and the way the words are arranged. The equivalent inthe visual Iangauge refers to the physical evidence ofthe artist's expression, described intermsof the elements of art and principles ofdesign. Most art shows some evidenceof the artist's concerns about form.Abstract expressionist paintings, with nosubject, except color and shape, are examples of art concerned almost exclusivelywith form. ontent in language canbe considered equivalent tomeaning inthe visual arts. Meaning isoften embed

VISUAL ARTS RESEARCH ? 1997 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois1

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/6

ded insymbols such as the lilies, ymbolsforpurity,found inrenaissance paintings.Some artists use and arrange symbolswith the conscious intent of creatingmeaning. Others may intendonly to produce work that meets their criteria forformal beauty, leaving the detection, orsometimes creation, of meaning to artcritics. Use inLahey's framework refersto themany ways language functions toachieve goals. The equivalent inthe visual arts refers to the artist's agenda orpurpose. Art with a strong agenda includes baroque paintings intended to return errant followers to the flock andDavid's portraits of Napoleon, intendedto advance Napoleon's image as a hero.Perhaps the best 20th century exampleof an artistwho focuses primarily n useisHans Haacke. InShapolsky et al. Manhattan Real Estate Holdings, A Real TimeSocial System as ofMay 1, 1971, Haackepresents the viewer with 4 very ordinaryphotographs of a slum inNew York, alongwith a typed text that provides information about the slum lords. Concern forform isminimal, and the work containsno symbols. The artist's focus is almostentirely on how the work will function toachieve a goal. The emphasis placed oneach conponent may vary,butmost worksof art combine all three components,form, content, and use, just as mostverbal language combines all three components.Differences between thevisual and verbal languages are based on the extenttowhich theyare codified. Broudy (1972)views visual language as less codifiedthan verbal language: 'The arts presentus with images of feeling forwhich thereis no dictionary save that of the totalityof human experience (Broudy, 1972, p.78). Some codification takes place, atleast according to art historians. Arnason(1986), modern art historian and critic,refers to various isms or styles havinga vocabulary and syntax, such as thenewly invented vocabulary of cubism,(p. 164). On this subject of style,Wolf(1977) points out that the codification of

verbal language may change over thecenturies but, compared to the visuallanguage, is relatively stable. For example, passages from contemporary versions of the Bible might have soundedodd but probablywould have been understood in the firstdecade of the 17thcentury,when the King James versionwas translated. Stylistic changes in artare more dramatic, occurringmore quicklyand abruptly.Much of the art of the lastdecade of the 20th century, abstractexpressionism, earthworks, installationand performance art,might not even berecognized as art by contemporaries ofPeter Paul Rubens who worked duringthe time of the King James translation.The codification of visual language haschanged dramatically in300 years whileverbal language has remained relativelystable.This issue of codification is the basisforForrest's (1984) view thatart is not alanguage. Communication in the visuallanguage cannot be translated into another language as directlyas English canbe translated into Italian,for instance. Noprinciples, outside the visual languageitself, xist for theverificationofmeaningconveyed by those visual symbols. Forexample, itwould be impossible to explain themeaning of red as it ould varyconsiderably depending on the contextand the culture inwhich it is used. Whileart has some rules, there is no systemof correct application, no structure bywhich one can judge whether or not awork of art is right r wrong. ReturningtoBloom's definitionof language, artmaylackenough agreed upon conventions tobe considered a conventional system ofsignals, and accepted as a language universally.However, this shortcoming does notprevent artists from viewing art as alanguage, one that is superior towords.Kepes (1944) describes visual languagesas more holistic than spoken languageand more efficientas a disseminator ofknowledge than most other means ofcommunication. Arnheim (1969) consid

32 Paula K. Eubanks



4/6

ers the visual language superior becauseit omes closer to the original stimulus,verbal language being linear, equential,and one dimensional, by comparison.Reading a picture is likeentering a roominwhich many conversations are occurring.There are many visual paths for theviewer's eye to follow,more sequentialoptions than reading words because apicture can be read starting frommanydifferentplaces, and frommore thanonepoint of view at a time (Feldman, 1976).Art educators describe art as the firstlanguage of children (Heberholz &Hansen, 1994; NAEA, 1988). Indeed, understanding imagery does precede understanding verbal processes developmentally.When verbal skills are acquired,then development in these two areas isconcurrent and interactive, Paivio, 1971).We learn to read visual language, withoutformal instruction, arlier and more spontaneously than verbal language. Childrenwith modest verbal reading ability canread complex visual images, yetare oftenpresented with only simple, childish ones,visual pablum, (Feldman, 1981, p. 657).Children understand words before theycan say them (Owens, 1988). Similarlywith visual language, young children learnto recognize and identify isual Imagesby age 11/2 r 2 years, (Bruner, 1973)though they generally do not begin tomake meaningful marks before age 3 or

4 years (Dyson, 1990; Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987).Mark making or drawing, the expressive component of the visual language,is a step from the internal visual representation of ideas and feelings to theexternal visual representation of thoseideas and feelings (Golomb, 1992; Goodnow, 1977; Krampen, 1991). Drawing development is predictable and regular(Goodnow). The graphic symbol systemsthat develop have a structure similar tolanguage and therefore, graphic symboltheory is often presented as analogousto language (Strommen, 1988). The socialand cultural aspects of drawing development are also similar to language in

that children learn to draw from eachother. They develop a system of symbolsthat is not entirely personal but growsout of the shared symbol system of thegroup, (Wilson & Wilson, 1982, 1984;Wilson, 1985). Individuals adopt, combine, and extend these graphic configurations which are culturally specific andas conventional, regular, and predictable as thewords of a given language(Wilson, 1985, p. 92). Children's drawingsfrom different cultures share commonunits of visual form called graphemeswhich, likephonemes, are put togetheraccording to a set of rules, a visualsyntax, to form meaningful drawings(Krampen, 1991). These graphemes areuniversal, like the universal deep structureof grammar (Chomsky, 1968). All thesimilarities between art and languagepoint toward the perspective that art isa language, a system of symbols usedfor ommunication. As such, artmay playan importantrole inthe development ofverbal language.The relationship between art, thevisuallanguage, and verbal language development is a strong one. Young children'svisual expressions can be an importantpart of theirdeveloping symbolic repertoire (Dyson, 1990). Drawing is anotherway for children to make meaning, andis often interwoven with verbal expressions which romance the drawings(Golomb, 1992). Pictures and words canshare equal footing; theycan be partnersinmaking meaning (Hubbard, 1989). Children's drawings offer cognitive pathwayinto the their understandings, allowingtheir teachers to check student understanding of new vocabulary and correctsyntax (Eubanks, 1995). Drawing andother visual means of thinking an fosterthedevelopment of written language, because itprovides an opportunity to rehearse, develop, and organize ideas priortowriting (Caldwell & Moore 1991; Sinatra, Beaudry, Guasstell, & Stahl-Gemake, 1988).Art criticism has also been shown tobe helpful in teaching students to learn

Art Isa Visual Language 33



5/6

to read because deciphering the code inworks of art is preparation fordecodingthe printed word (Feldman & Woods,1981). Reading works of art acknowledges and engages the intelligence ofyoung children. They learn to rely onvisual clues for informationand understanding. Art criticism has a place intheart room, and perhaps it hould have aplace inthe classroom too.Works of artbring objects and ideas into the classroom so that verbal language can bemapped onto them,and are more excitingthan the visual pablum illustrations thatoften accompany educational materials.Classroom teachers are experienced insoliciting language, and the art specialisthas the training to identify nd locaterelevant works of art. A partnership between the classroom teacher and artspecialist mightmaximize the benefits ofart criticism in developing verbal language.The art specialist can also play a vitalrole indeveloping a strong expressivecomponent of the visual language. Thepotential impact of drawing on the development of symbol formation arguesfor a program of instruction inart thatemphasizes reporting personal experiences and personal expression of ideas.The students' repertoireof symbols mightbe expanded by drawing instruction related to representation of the human figure. For example, instruction,opportunities, and encouragement inaltering thehuman figureschema to representmovement would allow expression of a widerrange of actions, a bigger visual vocabularyof verbs (Ellett& Eubanks, inprogress). Instruction inthe representation ofspace expands the page, creating moreroom for these actions to take place.Students' vocabulary of emotion descriptors is often limited,though they understand and react to a broad range ofemotions. Increased perceptual awareness of facial expressions and practicereproducing themmay lead to a broaderexpression of feelings and an increaseinvocabulary related to emotion. When

drawing and writing are combined, thescale of the drawings is usually small. Inwhich case, colored pencils and finetippedmarkers may be the betterdrawingtools to encourage elaboration than theubiquitous crayons (Salome, 1968).Drawings provide a visual representationof the students' ideas onto which language can be mapped and an opportunityfor students to request new vocabularyrelevant to their interests. Classroomteachers, art specialists, and parents allneed to be sensitive to this opportunityfor language development, giving students time to talk about theirdrawings.Productive partnerships between artspecialists and classroom teachers canmaximize the potential fordeveloping artas a means of communication, a cognitive pathway. Art is a visual language,with receptive and expressive components, inwhich ideas are both spokenand heard. This perspective can lead toan understanding that art can become avaluable partner in language development. Art can move from the fringes ofthe curriculum toward thecore of learningfor all young children, especially thoseforwhom language acqusition isdifficult.

ReferencesArnason, H. (1986). History of modern art.Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall Inc./

Harry Abrams, Inc.Arnheim,R. (1969). Visual thinking.erkeley,CA: Universityf California Press.Broudy,H. (1972).Enlightened herishing.Urbana, IL:Universityf Illinois ress.Bruner,J. (1983).Child's talk: earningtouselanguage. New York: Norton.Bzoch, K., & League, R. (1971). Assessinglanguage skills in infancy: handbook forthemultidimensional nalysis of emergentlanguage. Baltimore, MA: University ParkPress.Caldwell, H., & Moore, B. (1991). The art ofwriting: rawingas preparationfor arrativewriting ntheprimary rades. Studies inArtEducation,32(4) 207-219.Chomsky,N. (1968).Language and mind. NewYork: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

34 Paula K. Eubanks



6/6

Cromer,J. (1966).History, heory,nd practiceof art criticism in art education. Reston, VA:National Art Education Association.Dyson, A. (1990). Symbol makers, symbol

weavers: How children linkplay,pictures,and print.YoungChildren,45(2), 50-57.Ellett,J.,& Eubanks,R (inprogress). Teachingchildrentodepictmotion.Eubanks, R (1995).Art s a visual language insupportofverbaldevelopmentinyoungchildren who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Unpublished dissertation. Athens, GA: UniversityofGeorgia.

Feldman, E. (1976). Visual literacy. Journal ofAestheticEducation, 70(3/4),195-200.Feldman,E. (1981).Art is forreading:Picturesmake a difference. Teachers College Record.82(4), 649-666.Feldman,E., &Woods, D. (1981).Art criticismand reading. Journal of Aesthetic Education,75(4),75-95.Forrest,E. (1984).Art education and the language ofart. tudies inArt ducation.26(1),27-33.Goodnow, J. (1977). Children drawing. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity ress.Golomb, C. (1992). The child's creation of apictorialworld. Berkeley:Universityf California Press.Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art. Indianapolis, IN:HackettPublishingCo.Heberholz,B.,& Hansen, L. (1994).Earlychildhood art. Madison, Wl: Brown and Bench

mark Publishers.Hubbard, R. (1989). Authors of pictures, draftsmen of words. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Kepes, Gyorgy. (1944). Language of vision.

Chicago: Paul Theobald.Krampen, M. (1991). Children's drawings, iconiccode of the environment. New York/London:Plenum Press.Lahey, M. (1988). Language disorders and lan

guage development. New York: MacmillanPublishingCompany.

Lowenfeld,V., & Brittain,W. (1987). Creativeand mental growth. New York: Macmillan.NationalArtEducation Association. (1988).Artis the firstlanguage (a poster). Reston,VA:NationalArtEducation Association.Owens, R. (1988). Language development.NewYork: Macmillan.

Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston.Salome, R. (1968). Perceptual training ndreading readiness and implications orarteducation. Studies inArtEducation. 70(1),58-67.Sinatra, R., Beaudry, J., Guasstell, F., & Stahl

Gemake, J. (1988). Examining the use ofphoto essays on students'writingability.Reading Psychology,9, 399-408.Strommen,E. (1988). A centuryof childrendrawing:The evolution of theory nd research concerningthedrawingsofchildren.VisualArtsResearch, 74(2),25-37Wilson, B., &Wilson, M. (1982). The case ofthedisappearing two-eyedprofile: r howlittlehildren influencehedrawingsof littlechildren. Visual Arts Research, 8, 19-31.Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1984). Children'sdrawings inEgypt;Culturalstyle acquisitionas graphic development. Visual Arts Research, 10, 13-25.Wilson, B. (1985).The artistic ower f babel:Inextricable links between culture andgraphicdevelopment.VisualArtsResearch,11, 91-103.Wolf,T (1977).Reading reconsidered.HarvardEducational Review, 47(3), 411-429.

Paula EubanksThe University of Northern IowaDepartment of Art104 Kamerick Art BuildingCedar Falls, Iowa 50614-0362

Art Isa Visual Language 35


art is a visual language

Documents