Does language ruin art?

I was reading an interesting book the other day called ..... and in the book they talk about how kids learn to draw, how the simple act of taking something, a pencil, a crayon, a stick in the dirt, whatever and making a mark is a profound event in development. It is a statement that I have impact exterior to myself. That I can create something that stays even when I'm not there. Then kids learn to make marks more or less on purpose, they will make what seems like random marks but those marks represent something to a child. a feeling, an emotion, an item. The book discussed that we as adults are the ones who assign verbal meaning to those marks. Asking "are you drawing?" or "are you writing?" gives a definition and a purpose to those marks. If we assume or encourage that the marks are 'drawing' then we reinforce the creation of art. My feelings, translated into these marks equals art...I MADE this. where as 'writing' narrows the creative field to a set of rules and parameters. We have 26 letters in our language. therefore, no matter what my marks look like, the adult is saying "what you are making must be one of 26". That's pretty limiting wouldn't you say?

What if the questions asked of a child was "what are you creating?". Then the child could explain "this is a dog, this is my name, this is you". Those marks then might represent an object, a word or name and a concept or relationship.

It is more than possible that by the time children learn to complete whole sentences that we have already formed in their minds what is 'art' and whether we value the act of creating and creativity. Do we use words like 'good, pretty, fun, bored, do something, alone, creation, wasteful, careful, colorful,etc". What do those words connote about the act of creating. Children are taught and told pretty early whether being creative is not only acceptable, but within their reach. It's very sad how many adults I know who say that they are 'not artists' or 'can't draw' and can tell you about an adult early in their life who either discouraged art and creation or flat out TOLD them they were not artistic. When people tell me they 'can't draw a stick figure', I want to ask them 'who told you that?"

The book goes on to say that as children age into older adolescence, they tend to imitate what will bring them acceptance even in art. Are they encouraged to create or re-create? Are the parameters for creation too limiting? Teens tend to copy things. Japanese Manga art is a great example. So many people learn to draw in this socially recognized and accepted 'style' that they are limiting their creations to a sort of category, not unlike the 26 letters. The eyes are big, the features are feminine, the proportions are distorted. As an art teacher, I've given teens a mirror and told them to draw what they see and they will reproduce a Manga-ized version of what they see...big eyes, tiny mouth. There is a disconnect between what we actually see and what our brains then translate into what is the accepted representation of that thing.

The opposite can be a problem too. I want to chafe at this because I enjoy and am good at photo realism, but the exact copying of a photo or even something from real life like figure drawing or still life is limiting in the fact that if it's not really right there in front of me, I'm not going to reproduce it. It's unacceptable to my image. For example, I would have a hard time if I were drawing from life and someone said "include in your drawing what is behind that vase, or through that wall, or in that person's pockets or what the model is thinking'. If I can't SEE it, it is not worthy to be in the work.

So, returning to the question posed 'Does language ruin art?' it raises the question whether the labeling of things, even the act of creating itself limits what is or even can be created.

Beyond the age of speech, when we can and are asked to justify 'what are you doing' we are rarely encouraged to stop using words and labels and just make it up. To make a series of marks because it makes my muscles relaxed to make a certain mark or because I like the sound of the instrument on the surface. Even if we are encouraged to put in to visual form an idea or concept, we are still limited by the acceptable definition of that idea or concept. If you were given a black marker and told to illustrate the idea of BLUE you are already shackled by the parameters of the word 'illustrate' and the preconceived ideas of blue. Blue things? Again, words in a category, or the feelings attributed to blue-rest, peace, cool etc. If asked to illustrate BLUE and I drew a bunch of spirals, ripped off a corner of the page and drew a chicken with a gun, is that wrong? Maybe psychologically, but clearly that would 'buck the system' of what is acceptable in relation to the label 'BLUE'.

Even abstract artists, so labeled 'Professional Abtstract' artists are using labels at least as much as any other artist. What does this giant red canvas 'say?' What does the artist 'mean' by this? The artist might have chosen every single step of the process because of what will be inferred or connoted by those choices. How big is it? Where will it hang? who will I offend and why? How much will I charge for this?

I wish I could somehow be the 'art fairy' in a club with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus and get to visit every child pre-speech and plant the idea in their head that the stuff that comes out of their head and the physical act of transferring that to a visual representation is OK and no matter how old they get, those marks are as important and as much an exterior projection of identity as those first scribbles. That if the act of creating is pleasurable, then do it for that reason. If it's not, then find something that is, but not to let the labels of 'artist, artistic, talented, creative" etc. determine whether or not they have permission to create.

So, what's the point? If you are reading this, it's too late to implant the filter that will allow you to create as you did pre-language. I don't know, I think though that it makes me think about the words that I assign to creation and how every one of those words says loads about how I was encouraged or discouraged as that age. If there's a pre-language child in your life, maybe chose your words carefully, or better yet, use fewer.

The idea that there's nothing new under the sun may be truer to say that 'there's nothing that we haven't labeled'