Words and Pictures

Pulled from old site Aug 11 2007; published here Nov 30 2007

So, three days ago I created a page called Visual Arts which would contain pictures and other visual stimuli, some of my own and some of others. The page does not, as yet, contain any significant representation of any “artwork” I might profess to offer in the visual medium.
The History of Philip and The Visual Arts (abridged)
Can’t draw worth a fuck.
Can paint a little.
Can take pictures.
THE END
I’d always wanted to take photographs (family members would attest), and with “Human, Being” I had my first ever real reason for doing so, for the chronicling. And I took a LOT of pictures, and enjoyed capturing the moments, the people, etc. It led me to continue taking pictures – I’d posted more than a few on the Beyond Second site, off an on.
I’ve since cleared it out. And I’ve since stopped taking pictures.
I play the drums, but I’m not a drummer.
I sing, but I’m not a singer.
I take pictures, but I’m not a photographer.
An axe can remove a nail, but it is suited mostly for chopping wood. Chopping wood is the axe’s particular excellence – it is its function. I can do a lot of things, but talking and communicating in as clear a manner as possible is my own particular excellence, my own function. If I am not focused and making choices as close to my function as I can, then I assault and defy the aesthetic and my ego will have its photographic dalliances.
Here’s the thing (it’s a figure of speech):
Before there were words, there were pictures.
Before there were pictures, there were images.
The eyes – the organs that bring light into the mind – place a heavy demand on the mind, for light is a MOST pervasive thing. Your eyes take in the aesthetic every single moment.
In a word, whoa. Everything is beautiful.
The mind, though…the mind has an ego and the mind has existence and the mind has fear so the mind CANNOT and WILL NOT allow you to “see” all that your eyes take in. It is, quite simply, too much for the mind to handle. If the mind attempted to process everything that the eyes could take in – all of the aesthetic that surrounds you in each moment – you would strain against 1) the overwhelming, all-encompassing vastness of beauty that surrounds you, and 2) it’s indifference to you and your comparative nothingness. YUK! Who wants to feel that? So the mind and the ego process only what it chooses to, so while your eyes take it all in, your mind “sees” only that which the mind chooses to see.
So we begin with the images the mind creates, the mind’s representation of the aesthetic.
Next, we have communication
Transmitter – Message – Receiver
I am a human, and I wish to communicate with another human.
Language does not yet exist. So I create an picture. The picture will be my message.
That message, for me as Transmitter, captures what I wish to communicate as best as I can achieve it.
It goes to the Receiver – but will they receive the message that is sent? Will they appreciate the exactness upon which that pictures connotes the Transmitter’s Message? Unknown, totally, to the Transmitter.
We know the Transmitter will make implications in the message, and that the Receiver will make inferences. Both that which is implied and that which is inferred will be based on the Transmitter’s and Receiver’s experiences that have led them to the point of this communication. One cannot be influenced by the other – Receiver cannot influence Transmitter’s inplications, and Transmitter cannot influence Receiver’s inferences.
Since there is no language, there is trust from the Transmitter that the Receiver will attempt to understand the message as it is represented. And that’s all. And if that had been effective enough, there’s a very good chance language might never have come to be.
Yeah…….like I said, had it been effective enough. But with all those implications and inferences and nothing existing to attempt to ensure a clear transfer of the idea/message from one to the other, can it be said that the method of commuication is effective? No, it cannot. Not Philip talking here, just the aesthetic stating what is real and true and independent of my fevered ego.
And so, language was created. Oh, GREAT…….now we’ll REALLY fuck things up.
A good idea, in theory:”
“If I make the same sound every time I’m talking about a tree…”
…TREE…
…and we agree beforehand that every time I make that sound,
you know I’m talking about a tree…
…then I’ve communicated TREE effectively.”
Right.
(heavy sarcasm)
I draw you a picture, what are the “prerequisites” for this manner of communication?
None. It’d be better if I could draw well, draw accurately, but it is not a prerequisite.
If I use words, what are the prerequisites?
I must know the words, I must know how to use them, and I must believe that if I used these words they would MEAN the same thing – which means another prerequisite is YOU knowing the words.
What a total pain in the ass.
Add to that, that “words” separate into spoken and written words.
Spoken words? I like them a lot. That, to me, seems to be the choice to attempt the clearest form of communication possible. Written words? To me, they’re like pictures.
These words you’re reading right now – I’m thinking them, I’m composing them, I’m pounding on the little buttons that have the same patterns and create the patterns on the screen – requiring CONTRAST to be seen (another binary – contrast allows vision to distinguish – I make my patterns in one combination of light and place them against a sufficiently opposite combination of light so they can be distinguished), and MAYBE – if you CHOOSE – you will, at a later time, look at the combination of patterns I’ve placed next to each other…………and IF you know the same language as I, then MAYBE – JUST MAYBE – the idea that is in my mind will be transferred into yours. But both of us are isolated as this communication method plays out – i’m writing this here now at this moment, you will read them later. We’re not talking.
TALKING is real-time.
Talking is the gift that language gives us.
Talking is the very real effort that says “I wish to give you an idea” and makes the effort to do so in as clear a manner as possible.
“How do you feel, Philip?”
Let me draw you a picture.
You’re on your own as to whether you can glean my meaning
“How do you feel, Philip?”
Let me write you a letter.
Same feelings as in the picture, now words written in the (now nonexistent) past.
You’re still on your own to glean my meaning.
“How do you feel, Philip?”
Let me tell you as I stand next to you.
Same feelings as are in the letter
Same feelings as are in the picture
“Huh? I don’t understand what you mean…”
I’ll try again.
You’re no longer on your own.
Color belongs to the aesthetic.
The assertion of color by choice of the ego is fear-driven and selfish and an assault to the aesthetic.
My words need only contrast, they do not need color. They do not need hue.
I give them hue – I color my words. I assert that I will use color to create a clearer meaning. It is an assault on the aesthetic, and an assertion of the ego driven by fear.
If I attempt to communicate with you through pictures and the colors of my choosing, I am driven by my ego and by fear.
“How do you feel, Philip?”
Let me draw you a picture.
I choose not to attempt a clear communication
I believe whatever efforts I put forth to communicate
Will Fall Short
For it is something I believe I cannot describe with words.
So, rather than make the effort
I will draw you a picture
(or take a photograph)
Because I can, because it is easier than language
And my job is done, because I’ve communicated
to YOU in the manner of my choosing
Rather than make a genuine concerted effort to communicate.
Words TOTALLY BLOW. Writing TOTALLY BLOWS as a manner of communication.
Pictures – taken or drawn or painted or whatever – capture everything that can and cannot be communicated.
Pictures and images will always be a better representation of the aesthetic than language.
But since there’s people in the way, pictures will always fall far shorter in terms of communication than words and language – prerequisites, implications, and inferences all included.
CONTEST! Let us go out into the world and communicate ideas about justice
I’ll use pictures and no words
You speak with words and show no pictures
A third person writes words with no pictures
Who wins?
(”Fuck off, Philip, that argument is baseless. I’ve another contest – let’s communicate ideas about beauty, same deal.”)
Are you sure?
The TRANSFER of the idea, the movement of the message from Transmitter to Receiver, THAT is the thing.
That is the aesthetic moving from one moment in time (Receiver plus Knowledge minus Message) to the next (Receiver plus Knowledge plus Message).
The TRANSFER is the thing. NOTHING guarantees successful transfer. I think spoken words give it its best shot.
I would actually suggest that the choice to communicate in pictures is selfish, ego-driven, and either discounts or brazenly ignores (whatever the Transmitter’s motivation) the Receiver.
What happens in the aesthetic, happens.
Humankind, through their ego and self-existence, will say and do things, which will become part of the aesthetic.
But understanding your neighbor does not mean hearing what they say and watching what they do. What they say and do are merely WHAT HAPPENS, merely part of the aesthetic. Understanding your neighbor goes more to trying to glean the reasons behind what they say and do, what their motivations are, WHY they say what they say and do what they do.
If you’re never really certain, start with the ego, and start with fear, and start with the ego’s want to assert its existence.
And a person makes the choice to communicate with you with a picture.
What a freaking cop out. What disregard for the other. “Nope, language between you and I simply won’t get it done, as I’ve already predetermined for myself. So I will choose to communicate with you through a picture. Very easy for me, and then you’re on your own. You don’t pick up my meaning, that’s YOUR problem.”
(”Oh, but wait, Philip! You’re dead wrong! What about all those things that words can’t get done? What about all those things that cannot be communicated through words?”) I don’t care. If you’re trying to communicate, if you’re trying to move an idea from your mind to another, then a picture will never get it done. A picture I create will invoke whatever reaction it will – it will guarantee the creation of AN idea in the Receiver’s mind, but not necessarily the idea that the Transmitter wishes to convey. And the Transmitter doesn’t care.
The Transmitter may not even wish to communicate – they may just make a picture because they love it and want to see it exist in the aesthetic. Very true – but as it comes from humankind, there is a message contained, for every expression is a message. And if I’m transmitting without caring a tinker’s cuss about whether it is received and how “correctly” it might be received, then I’m not communicating – I’m making visual noise to add to the aesthetic.
As though the aesthetic needs YOUR goddammed help to make it beautiful.
You pompous, arrogant fuck.
(heavy sarcasm)
Thanks for “listening,”
Ego