As an artist I became interested in the various ways in which a certain 
idea of language as the form of consciousness was appealed to in 
contemporary philosophy of mind. My experience of drawing and the 
constitutive function it played in my consciousness of things and 
materials led me to believe that language is just one among many forms 
of consciousness. Whether drawing can be described as a language or a 
proto-language is, I believe problematic. Thinking about both language 
and drawing should perhaps be approached more from the angle that 
Merleau-Ponty takes in his 'The Body as Expression, and Speech' (in his 
Phenomenology of Perception). Other philosophers such as Wittgenstein 
in his later work came to view the gesture as the means to understand 
language rather than vise-versa. The idea of language as an abstract 
system of arbitrary symbols is also attacked by Vygotsky.

I think that it is important to make clear exactly what theory of 
language is being appealed to here and whether drawing can usefully be 
compared to such an idea. Too often language is viewed as something 
foreign to thought as if thought is merely expressed or communicated in 
language via some kind of translation from 'mentalese' rather than had 
in language or constituted by it. The way in which an authentic 
engagement with drawing, musical improvisation or composition, or any 
other creative activity, is both constitutive and productive as well as 
an expression and articulation of thought (where the act of drawing and 
the having of the thought are internally related and are inseparable 
moments of a single process, rather than externally and contingently 
related as means and ends) is an important corrective to the flawed 
idea of language as communication - as opposed to communion - upon 
which much philosophy of mind is based.

Martin.
On 25 Jul 2005, at 16:22, Eduardo Corte Real wrote:

> Dear Michael:
>  
> Another unapropriate use of the word language. You can say body 
> expression. Def language is not what we usually refer as "body 
> language". Once is coded, it starts to function as language.
> "Body language" is responsible for most of my teenage missfortunes. If 
> it was really a language it would have save me a lot of energy. :-)
>  
>  Best,
>  
> Eduardo
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Michael Jameson
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: Drawing as Language.
>>
>> So what's body language? Michael Jameson
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: The UK drawing research network mailing list 
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Eduardo Corte 
>>> Real
>>> Sent: 25 July 2005 15:22
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Drawing as Language.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Dear All:
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> There are some tough questions when you face an expression such as 
>>> “drawing as language”.
>>>
>>> One is, obviously: If drawing were a language we would call it 
>>> language and not drawing.
>>>
>>> From this truism we can move a little bit further: Language is of 
>>> phonetic origin and is coded to represent mostly visual ideas. Most 
>>> of the names have visual correspondence. Topology and chronology is 
>>> taken care of by grammar.
>>>
>>> Written language is visual but, by representation, it becomes 
>>> invisible as a visual fact becoming a system of transference towards 
>>> concepts.
>>>
>>> A drawing can be regarded as a language as any other visual fact. 
>>> For instance, my desk will tell instantly to others that I’m a messy 
>>> guy. My office partner’s desk will tell instantly that he is a tidy 
>>> guy.
>>>
>>> In fact drawing as a language (as a communicational device) relies 
>>> on its non-linguistic power to communicate.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Eduardo
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Eduardo Corte-Real
>>>
>>> Ass. Prof.
>>> IADE – Design School
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Norman Trewhitt
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 11:38 PM
>>>> Subject: Drawing as Language.
>>>>
>>>> Having just returned from a field trip in Northumberland I found a 
>>>> lot of e-mails referring to Picturing Problems, part of a PhD 
>>>> thesis and Jenny Soep's research into drawing as communication.
>>>>  
>>>> I started my working life as an engineering draughtsman way back in 
>>>> the 1950s where drawing in bits of scrap paper, or the back of the 
>>>> proverbial fag packet was used to exchange ideas. Or, on the shop 
>>>> floor, a chalked diagram on a piece of plate metal. These outline 
>>>> sketches were a useful vehicle in expounding ideas that went beyond 
>>>> the formal "instructions" of a prepared technical drawing. Many's 
>>>> the time an engineer has worked from these ideas on scrap paper and 
>>>> only used the official drawing for dimensional reference.
>>>> Throughout life I have used this format to supplement, if not quite 
>>>> replace formal spoken/written language to get ideas across. And I 
>>>> still do. Even showing directions to get to a place we use symbols 
>>>> which have a common currency but may never appear on an officcial 
>>>> map. eg.three circles on a vertical plane to show traffic lights, a 
>>>> circle transecting a straight line to show a roundabout etc.
>>>>  
>>>> I think drawing is used as a universal, yet unofficial, language 
>>>> more than is generally realised.
>>>>  
>>>> This is just my observation on this which may be worth noting.
>>>>  
>>>> Norman Trewhitt