The Language Metaphor in Art.

"There exists a language of the intelligence, which has come down to us as the language of the word. Art, however, is a language of the spirit, of our feeling as well as our thinking nature, our nature as a whole in all its complexity." So wrote the French aesthetician Rend Huyghe in the foreword to Art and the Spirit of Man.' He goes on: "There are two languages, and the language of art has a mission of its own." I quote these sentences because they represent a point of view which is prevalent in our time. They take it for granted that art is properly thought of as a language; and although it goes back at least as far as Eugene Delacroix, this way of speaking and thinking about art became dominant only in the present century. That art is language is now affirmed and accepted without a qualm and almost without question. Like most metaphors that have become deeply ingrained, this one has proved illuminating. The analogy with language and the consequent introduction of ideas from Information Theory have brought in their train valuable insights into the nature and functions of art and the aspirations of artists. But like all metaphors when they are taken as a matter of course, this one has also its dangers, which of recent years have multiplied. There is a danger that once the metaphor has won general acceptance on the ground of certain perceived or half-perceived similarities, it will then be applied indiscriminately, without thought, and all or any features of language will automatically be assumed to hold good of art. Or vice versa. When this happens it is time to unpack the metaphor in order to work out the respects in which it remains valid and to lay down the limits of its applicability. The present paper is an attempt to begin this job of unpack-