I once thought like this too, but it is a severely flawed train of thought...
Originally Posted by Synthesis
I've found that direct translations from thought --> language leave a great deal to interpretation, consequently mussing up (No, not 'messing'; mussing) True meaning and therefore promoting inaccuracy.
[blah blah blah]
(...) art/visuals can serve as better conduits, because they bypass the initial barrier that is language, ergo making the inaccuracies a thing to be forgotten.
You are terribly mistaken in claiming that 'art' bypasses language. It might not be spoken
language, but it still is a 'visual' or 'acoustic' or 'formal' language (system of symbols)... and therefore so-called 'art' is equally (and in most cases I would say much much
more) prone to the same post-modern post-structuralist semiotic pitfalls as written/spoken language...
Originally Posted by Synthesis
There rests in every artist's hands the ability to cause certain variables within their artwork to be interpretted a specific way without redundancies or mis-translations due to equal parts skill and manifestation of meaning - which can be read by an audience with artistic conditioning, as it were.
Are you familiar with "art education" and "art critics"? People tend to mock them in general, but the truth is that one does learn how to (vaguely) read a visual language that the average person is only occasionally aware of.
How is this any different than what happens with literature and the usual learning of the written/spoken language?
There rests in every writer's hands the ability to cause certain variables within their text to be interpretted a specific way without redundancies or mis-translations due to equal parts skill and manifestation of meaning - which can be read by an audience with literary conditioning, as it were.
Certainly, some music or other 'artworks' can be quite intense and have a wide appeal, usually an emotional effect... but I wouldn't dare to call that anything close to being full of 'accurate, clear meaning' and 'free from interpretation' nor 'true meaning'.
So no, you cannot escape the evils of inaccurate communication that easily.
If you think literary theory is a pain, believe me you don't want to get into the brain-raping madness of 'art' theory... 'art' is much much more messier than written/spoken language... (and I am sure some people will insist that its greatest asset is indeed its very vagueness).
Even if one could somehow manage to keep a language static and enforce with all users a single sign for a single concept, it would soon become evident that the sheer amount of signs would increase to unsustainable levels, and the signs themselves of ever increasing complexity... (*cough* chinese *cough*)... not to mention the inherent flaws in the structure of the language itself that can lead to all sorts of ambiguities...
And finally, there is the massive assumption that thought is in itself clear and accurate rather than messy, fuzzy, semi-random, serendipitous... so even in the case of perfect direct transmission of meaning, it would still turn out to be a dissatisfaction...
You can despair now.