The Analogy and Its Limits
Calling Art a language is our founding metaphor. It is worth taking seriously to see where it fails.
What the analogy gets right:
- Images rely on conventions that must be learned. A halo means sanctity only if you know the rule.
- Images have a syntax. Spatial arrangement carries meaning, such as placing an important figure in the centre.
- Visual signs are culturally specific. Meaning can become opaque over time.
| Verbal language | Images |
|---|---|
| Discrete units (words) | Continuous variation of tone and colour |
| Explicit negation | No direct visual way to picture absence |
| Fixed vocabulary | No finite inventory of elements |
| Preserved by paraphrase | Lost by paraphrase |
Nelson Goodman argued that notation requires distinct characters. Painting lacks this because it is a dense symbol system with infinite gradations.
Goodman also distinguished art forms by production:
- Autographic: arts where original and forgery differ, such as painting.
- Allographic: arts defined by notation, such as music or literature.
Ways an Image Refers
Charles Sanders Peirce offered a useful triad for visual reference:
- Icon: refers by resemblance, like a portrait.
- Index: refers by direct physical connection, like a cast shadow or a photograph.
- Symbol: refers purely by learned convention, like a flag or a halo.
A single artwork often combines all three modes at once.
Why the Question Matters
If images function as a language, the art historian's primary task is translation. If not, verbal descriptions remain approximations.
The metaphor is productive and imperfect. It directs attention to visual structure without pretending words can replace looking.
Common pitfall: treating "art is a language" as literally true. It works for convention and syntax, but breaks down with dense visual media.