There are many ways to communicate-- sign language, visual art, music, spoken word (in a countless number of languages). However, there are limitations: sign language requires that you have learned the language before (same as spoken language). Do you believe that visual art and music have these same limitations? I think that as long as the art or music speaks to an audience member (because art is supposed to be contagious), it has accomplished its task. Certain forms of communication, such as visual art and music, do not necessarily need previous knowledge in order for someone to understand them. Does that mean, then, that music and art can be considered universal languages?
You need to be a member of wdydwyd? to add comments!
I don't think art is a universal language. The Greeks believed that their music (which is quite different from the music we listen to today) could evoke certain emotions. People today, however, do not feel the emotions that these works were intended to evoke. Works of art can also have many different interpretations (intended or unintended). Since each work of art can be interpreted in many different ways, I don't really think it would be possible to consider it a universal language.
Replies
I don't think art is a universal language. The Greeks believed that their music (which is quite different from the music we listen to today) could evoke certain emotions. People today, however, do not feel the emotions that these works were intended to evoke. Works of art can also have many different interpretations (intended or unintended). Since each work of art can be interpreted in many different ways, I don't really think it would be possible to consider it a universal language.