Strange question:

[banalitysaves]

Do you think there is such a thing as a visual language?

Comments

[underbluemoon]

like... body language?

[banalitysaves]

No, a language which is 'written' not through words or glyphs, but through pure imagery.

[teddyboi]

no, thats just annoying art theory talk. there are visual elements that try to replicate language (visual metaphore, visual puns, visual etc) but only because we frame things around us within contexts that are familiar to us.

offhandedly, i'd say that language is something more than just representation. for example, musical notation is not language, notes on a page are mere representaion of the aural notes. words on a page however convey meaning, literal meaning, deeper meaning and metaphoric meaning and as such is much more complex. visual things do not convey deeper meaning -- the colour red is just red. the word red, however, because of metaphoric meaning can represent anger or love or passion.

when people talk about a visual language, they are usually really discussion visual symbols which we've created and given meaning as a short-hand for language. for example, a left arrow indicates something to it's left. but what it actually represents is the concept : "something to the left of this shape".

[krotkrot]

ah ha, agreed, but a 'visual language' is the annoying art theory term for a 'framework' to talk about art. recognisable signs make up a visual language that allow us to 'understand' art... or at least reference/compare it to life/other art.

[banalitysaves]

Someone has suggested I look at advertising, as that really contains the closest we have to a visual language.

[krotkrot]

tht makes sense... advertising nly works because of a 'visual language' - we understand the significance of a particular sign/sigil and respond appropriately. this works only where the particular language in which the advertisement was concieved exists - so, like verbal or written language, it will not 'translate' to another visual culture/language.

[zpoonz]

i'm sticking two fingers up to the screen right now.

[banalitysaves]

That's a physical gesture which conveys signification, not strictly visual.

[teddyboi]

oh thats not true, gesture can be language!

[banalitysaves]

but gesture is gesture, the conveyence of signs - not strictly language... or is it...?

[h0m0genised]

no two people will look at the same image and get 100% the same meaning, text can be misinterpreted and that's far more rigid.

interesting thoughts

I think an image based language would not survive being constricted to a physical canvas and only when we can read thoughts will there be a truly wordless form of communication. A mixture of imagery and empathy.

[banalitysaves]

Hello James.
I suppose this is true - well, in fact, I know it's true that no two people will look at an image and 'read' the same 'meaning'.
Does this mean, then, that you feel there is no such thing as a visual language?

[h0m0genised]

a language needs a key, a cypher or some codex for it to make sense. I don't think a visual language could be universal but I see no reason why one couldn't be constructed.
Unless you mean visual as in the image is both the message and the decoder/key which would be implausible because you would need something else besides the image to show the signifiers in the image

aargh, circles ensue

[banalitysaves]

haha - circles devoid of meaning??
I'm sure one could be constructed - I was concerned about one that is pre-existing, or concurrent; but yes, you're right about it not being universal.