Art Is a Visual Language Author(s): Paula K. Eubanks Source: Visual Arts Research, Vol. 23, No.

1(45) (Spring 1997), pp. 31-35 Published by: University of Illinois Press Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press is 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 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Art Is a Visual Language

Paula K. Eubanks University of Northern Iowa

Abstract Art is often referredto as a language. Art critics cite itssimilaritiesto language, as do
researchers who

ings.This new perspective is based on lan guage development, comparing receptive/ex content,and pressive components, and form, use. Accepting art as a languagemeans that art can be useful in fosteringverbal devel
opment.

investigate

children's

draw

Is art a language? To answer this ques we must first define what a language tion, is and thatmay depend on the perspec tive of the person to whom the question is addressed. Lois Bloom, a scholar in the field of language development, de fines language as "a code whereby ideas about the world are expressed through a conventional system of arbitrarysignals for communication" (Lahey, 1988, p. 2). Nelson Goodman, a philosopher, defines language as a symbol system that con veys complex ideas (Goodman, 1976). He explored extensively the nature and function of symbol systems in music, dance, the literaryarts, and the visual arts, establishing a philosophical basis for considering non-verbal representa tional systems. These two definitions of language share common elements: sig nals or symbols with conventional mean ings; a code or system that organizes the set of symbols; and the use of this system for communication. Comparisons between the visual lan guage and verbal language often refer to common elements (Feldman, 1976; Cromer, 1966). The symbols with con ventional meanings are phonemes inver bal language, or the elements of art in visual language. These are organized by a code, syntax inverbal language, or the principles of design in visual language. The symbols and the code together ere
VISUAL ARTS RESEARCH ?

ate meaning, semantics in verbal lan guage, or themeaning interpretedby the viewer invisual language. Another view of common elements is based on a language development per spective. Verbal language can be viewed as having two components, receptive and expressive (Bzoch & League, 1971). Re ceptive language refers to the under standing of words used by others, the decoding of verbal symbols. In the visual language, viewers read and interpretthe visual symbols encoded inworks of art. The art critic's job is to translate visual language intowords that explicate the art for others. Expressive language re fers to communicating ideas by speaking or writing, ineffect, the creation of coded verbal symbols. The expressive compo nent of the visual language is the creation of visual symbol systems, the making of marks or objects thatcommunicate ideas. If the critic's job is to read the visual language, the artist's job is to speak it fluentlyand eloquently. Another useful view of language from a verbal language perspective is based on Lahey's model of three overlapping components of language: form,content, and use (Lahey, 1988). Inthismodel, form in verbal language includes sounds, words, and the way the words are ar ranged. The equivalent in the visual Ian gauge refers to the physical evidence of the artist's expression, described interms of the elements of art and principles of design. Most art shows some evidence of the artist's concerns about form.Ab stract expressionist paintings, with no subject, except color and shape, are ex amples of art concerned almost exclu Content in language can sively with form. be considered equivalent to meaning in the visual arts. Meaning is often embed
of the University of Illinois 31

1997 by the Board of Trustees

This content downloaded from 64.62.201.15 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 03:55:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ded insymbols such as the lilies,symbols forpurity,found in renaissance paintings. Some artists use and arrange symbols intent of creating with the conscious meaning. Others may intendonly to pro duce work that meets their criteria for formal beauty, leaving the detection, or sometimes creation, of meaning to art critics. Use in Lahey's framework refers to the many ways language functions to achieve goals. The equivalent in the vis ual arts refers to the artist's agenda or in purpose. Art with a strong agenda cludes baroque paintings intended to re turn errant followers to the flock and David's portraits of Napoleon, intended to advance Napoleon's image as a hero. the best 20th Perhaps century example of an artistwho focuses primarilyon use is Hans Haacke. InShapolsky et al. Man hattan Real Estate Holdings, A Real Time Social System as ofMay 1, 1971, Haacke presents the viewer with 4 very ordinary New York, along photographs of a slum in with a typed text that provides informa tion about the slum lords. Concern for form is minimal, and the work contains no symbols. The artist's focus is almost entirely on how the work will function to achieve a goal. The emphasis placed on each conponent may vary,butmost works of art combine all three components, form, content, and use, just as most verbal language combines all three com Differences between the visual and ver bal languages are based on the extent towhich they are codified. Broudy (1972) views visual language as less codified than verbal language: 'The arts present us with images of feeling for which there is no dictionary save that of the totality of human experience" (Broudy, 1972, p. 78). Some codification takes place, at least according to art historians. Arnason (1986), modern art historian and critic, refers to various "isms" or styles having a vocabulary and syntax, such as "the newly invented vocabulary of cubism," (p. 164). On this subject of style, Wolf (1977) points out that the codification of
32 Paula K. Eubanks ponents.

verbal language may change over the centuries but, compared to the visual language, is relatively stable. For exam from contemporary ver ple, passages sions of the Bible might have sounded odd but probably would have been under stood in the first decade of the 17th century, when the King James version was translated. Stylistic changes in art are more dramatic, occurring more quickly and abruptly. Much of the art of the last of the 20th century, abstract decade expressionism, earthworks, installation and performance art, might not even be recognized as art by contemporaries of Peter Paul Rubens who worked during the time of the King James translation. The codification of visual language has changed dramatically in300 years while verbal language has remained relatively stable. This issue of codification is the basis for Forrest's (1984) view that art is not a language. Communication in the visual language cannot be translated into an other language as directly as English can be translated into Italian, for instance. No principles, outside the visual language exist for the verification of meaning itself, conveyed by those visual symbols. For would be impossible to ex example, it would vary plain the meaning of red as it on context the considerably depending and the culture in which it is used. While art has some rules, there is no system of correct application, no structure by which one can judge whether or not a work of art is rightor wrong. Returning to Bloom's definitionof language, artmay lack enough agreed upon conventions to be considered a conventional system of signals, and accepted as a language uni versally. However, this shortcoming does not prevent artists from viewing art as a language, one that is superior to words. Kepes (1944) describes visual languages as more holistic than spoken language and more efficient as a disseminator of knowledge than most other means of communication. Arnheim (1969) consid

This content downloaded from 64.62.201.15 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 03:55:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ers the visual language superior because itcomes closer to the original stimulus, verbal language being linear,sequential, and one dimensional, by comparison. Reading a picture is likeentering a room in which many conversations are occur ring.There are many visual paths for the viewer's eye to follow,more sequential options than reading words because a picture can be read starting frommany differentplaces, and frommore than one point of view at a time (Feldman, 1976). Art educators describe art as the first & language of children (Heberholz un Hansen, 1994; NAEA, 1988). Indeed, derstanding imagery does precede un develop derstanding verbal processes mentally.When verbal skills are acquired, then development in these two areas is concurrent and interactive, (Paivio, 1971). We learn to read visual language, without formal instruction, earlier and more spon taneously than verbal language. Children with modest verbal reading ability can read complex visual images, yet are often presented with only simple, childish ones, "visual pablum," (Feldman, 1981, p. 657). Children understand words before they can say them (Owens, 1988). Similarly with visual language, young children learn to recognize and identifyvisual Images or 2 years, (Bruner, 1973) by age 11/2 though they generally do not begin to make meaningful marks before age 3 or 4 years (Dyson, 1990; Lowenfeld & Brit tain, 1987). Mark making or drawing, the expres sive component of the visual language, is a step from the internal visual repre sentation of ideas and feelings to the external visual representation of those ideas and feelings (Golomb, 1992; Good now, 1977; Krampen, 1991). Drawing de velopment is predictable and regular (Goodnow). The graphic symbol systems that develop have a structure similar to language and therefore, graphic symbol theory is often presented as analogous to language (Strommen, 1988). The social and cultural aspects of drawing devel opment are also similar to language in

that children learn to draw from each other. They develop a system of symbols that is not entirely personal but grows out of the shared symbol system of the group, (Wilson & Wilson, 1982, 1984; Wilson, 1985). Individuals adopt, com bine, and extend these graphic configu rations which are culturally specific and "as conventional, regular, and predict able as the words of a given language (Wilson, 1985, p. 92). Children's drawings from different cultures share common units of visual form called graphemes which, like phonemes, are put together according to a set of rules, a visual syntax, to form meaningful drawings (Krampen, 1991). These graphemes are universal, like the universal deep struc ture of grammar (Chomsky, 1968). All the similarities between art and language point toward the perspective that art is a language, a system of symbols used forcommunication. As such, artmay play an important role in the development of verbal language. The relationship between art, the visual language, and verbal language develop ment is a strong one. Young children's visual expressions can be an important part of their developing symbolic reper toire (Dyson, 1990). Drawing is another way for children to make meaning, and is often interwoven with verbal expres sions which "romance" the drawings (Golomb, 1992). Pictures and words can share equal footing; they can be partners in making meaning (Hubbard, 1989). Chil dren's drawings offera cognitive pathway into the their understandings, allowing their teachers to check student under standing of new vocabulary and correct syntax (Eubanks, 1995). Drawing and other visual means of thinkingcan foster the development of written language, be cause itprovides an opportunity to re hearse, develop, and organize ideas prior to writing (Caldwell & Moore 1991; Sin atra, Beaudry, Guasstell, & Stahl-Ge make, 1988). Art criticism has also been shown to be helpful in teaching students to learn Art Is a Visual Language 33

This content downloaded from 64.62.201.15 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 03:55:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to read because deciphering the code in works of art is preparation for decoding the printed word (Feldman & Woods, 1981). Reading works of art acknowl the intelligence of edges and engages young children. They learn to rely on visual clues for information and under standing. Art criticism has a place in the art room, and perhaps itshould have a place in the classroom too. Works of art bring objects and ideas into the class room so that verbal language can be mapped onto them, and are more exciting than the "visual pablum" illustrations that often accompany educational materials. in Classroom teachers are experienced soliciting language, and the art specialist has the training to identifyand locate relevant works of art. A partnership be tween the classroom teacher and art maximize the benefits of specialist might art criticism in developing verbal lan
guage.

drawing and writing are combined, the scale of the drawings is usually small. In which case, colored pencils and fine tipped markers may be the better drawing tools to encourage elaboration than the crayons ubiquitous (Salome, 1968). Drawings provide a visual representation of the students' ideas onto which lan guage can be mapped and an opportunity for students to request new vocabulary relevant to their interests. Classroom teachers, art specialists, and parents all need to be sensitive to this opportunity for language development, giving stu dents time to talk about their drawings. Productive partnerships between art specialists and classroom teachers can maximize the potential fordeveloping art as a means of communication, a cogni tive pathway. Art is a visual language, with receptive and expressive compo nents, inwhich ideas are both spoken and heard. This perspective can lead to an understanding that art can become a valuable partner in language develop ment. Art can move from the fringes of the curriculum toward the core of learning for all young children, especially those for whom language acqusition is difficult.

The art specialist can also play a vital role in developing a strong expressive component of the visual language. The potential impact of drawing on the de velopment of symbol formation argues for a program of instruction in art that

emphasizes reporting personal experi ences and personal expression of ideas. The students' repertoire of symbols might be expanded by drawing instruction re lated to representation of the human fig ure. For example, instruction, opportu nities, and encouragement inaltering the human figure schema to represent move ment would allow expression of a wider range of actions, a bigger visual vocab ulary of verbs (Ellett& Eubanks, inprog ress). Instruction in the representation of space expands the page, creating more room for these actions to take place. Students' vocabulary of emotion descrip tors is often limited, though they under stand and react to a broad range of emotions. Increased perceptual aware ness of facial expressions and practice reproducing them may lead to a broader expression of feelings and an increase in vocabulary related to emotion. When
34 Paula K. Eubanks

References
Arnason, H.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc./

Inc.

(1986).

History

of modern

art.

Arnheim,R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of CaliforniaPress. Broudy,H. (1972). Enlightenedcherishing.Ur of Illinois Press. bana, IL:University Bruner,J. (1983). Child's talk:Learning to use Bzoch, K., & League, R. (1971). Assessing A handbook for language skills in infancy: themultidimensionalanalysis of emergent
language. Press. Baltimore, MA: University Park language. New York: Norton.

Harry Abrams,

Caldwell, H., & Moore, B. (1991). The art of narrative writing: Drawingas preparation for writing intheprimary grades. Studies inArt Education, 32(4) 207-219. Chomsky,N. (1968). Language and mind. New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

This content downloaded from 64.62.201.15 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 03:55:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and practice Cromer,J. (1966). History,theory,

of art criticism in art education.

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). Teaching children to depictmotion. Eubanks, R (1995).Artas a visual language in supportof verbaldevelopment inyoungchil
dren who published Feldman, are deaf dissertation. E. (1976).

Reston,

VA:

W. (1987). Creative Lowenfeld,V., & Brittain,

and mental

NationalArtEducationAssociation. (1988).Art is the firstlanguage (a poster). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. New Owens, R. (1988). Language development.
York: Macmillan. A. verbal pro Paivio, (1971). Imagery and cesses. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Win ston.

growth.

New

York: Macmillan.

sityof Georgia.

or hard-of-hearing. Un Athens, GA: Univer literacy. Journal

Visual

of

Salome, R. (1968). Perceptual trainingand reading readiness and implicationsforart education. Studies inArt Education. 70(1),
58-67.

AestheticEducation, 70(3/4), 195-200. Feldman, E. (1981). Art is forreading:Pictures

make a difference. Teachers

82(4), 649-666. Feldman, E., & Woods, D. (1981). Artcriticism

and

College

Record.

75(4), 75-95. Forrest,E. (1984). Art education and the lan ArtEducation. 26(1), guage of art.Studies in
27-33. Goodnow,

reading.

Journal

of Aesthetic

Education,

Press. bridge,MA: Harvard University Golomb, C. (1992). The child's creation of a of Cal pictorialworld. Berkeley: University
ifornia Press. N. Goodman,

J. (1977).

Children

drawing.

Cam

Gemake, J. (1988). Examining the use of photo essays on students' writing ability. Reading Psychology,9, 399-408. Strommen, E. (1988). A centuryof children drawing: The evolution of theoryand re search concerning thedrawingsof children. VisualArtsResearch, 74(2), 25-37 Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1982). The case of the disappearing two-eyed profile:or how little children influence thedrawings of little
children.

Sinatra,

R., Beaudry,

J., Guasstell,

F., & Stahl

anapolis, IN:Hackett PublishingCo. Heberholz, B., & Hansen, L. (1994).Earlychild

hood mark art. Madison, Publishers. Wl: Brown and Bench R. (1989). Authors of pictures, drafts Hubbard, men of words. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

(1976).

Languages

of art.

Indi

Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1984). Children's drawings inEgypt;Culturalstyleacquisition as graphic development. Visual Arts Re Wilson, B. (1985). The artistictowerof babel: Inextricable links between culture and graphic development. VisualArtsResearch, Harvard Wolf,T (1977). Reading reconsidered.
Educational Review, 47(3), 411-429. 11, 91-103. search, 10, 13-25.

Visual Arts Research,

8,

19-31.

Kepes, Gyorgy. (1944). Language of vision.

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

PublishingCompany.

Paula Eubanks The University of Northern Iowa Department of Art 104 Kamerick Art Building Cedar Falls, Iowa 50614-0362

Art Is a Visual Language

35

This content downloaded from 64.62.201.15 on Sat, 29 Mar 2014 03:55:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions