Failures of Language, Pt. 2

All forms of art, like literature or photography, are comprised entirely of metaphor. Even nonfiction writing is a form of metaphor, as we have to try to understand concepts using our ideas of old things to understand a new idea. That's what a metaphor is.

Does this mean that it is impossible to really properly convey an idea to someone outside of yourself? I don't know, maybe. Maybe we are really alone entirely. If we can only even believe and hope that we understand one another. But we don't even really try to do that very much, do we? When we approach a piece of art, what do we do first? Talk about what we see, then what we think about it. Again, this comes down to, often times, first impressions and quick reactions. Yes, we look at EVERYTHING, but I don't think we look very far past ourselves.

When considering the choice to incorporate a certain element, we ask ourselves "Why would I do that?". This ensures that, while we do in fact ask why certain elements exist, we don't try to understand the thought process of the artist, we just analyse our own thought process to find an answer. This is inherently misleading.

If art is a language, which I think it is, then we are only really talking to ourselves. If we take the approach that everything is open to personal evaluation before considering the intentions of the artist, then we choose to only think about ideas in terms of things we already understand. This ties back to the metaphor stuff above. If we disregard what the artist is trying  to say, and only focus on what we are hearing, we cannot possibly have new ideas, only our old ideas repackaged with new colors and compositions. In fact, in order for art to act as a language, we should probably disregard our initial reactions, because those reactions come from prejudice.

Here is what I'm not saying:

1. Art has to convey the artist's ideas/be understood
2. We can ONLY consider the artist's intentions
3. Art has to act as language

Good art can come from uncertainty, and can provide insight into subjects. Also, art can be analyzed in terms of your reaction and also provide insights. But we cannot claim to use art as a visual language when we disregard the intentions of the artist entirely, and only look at the creative choices from our pre-established understanding of art and language. When we stop looking at art as a language by deciding to ignore the possible intentions of the artist, art instantly becomes a mirror that bounces our preconceived notions back at us in a feedback loop. 

Kudos if you got this far, because I'm convinced no one reads anything anyone posts.