FREUD, IN HIS EARLY WRITINGS, considered the making of visual art a primitive or infantile stage of expression to be followed, and improved upon, by the development of language. Linguists do not consider the possibility of a language that is solely visual. It’s true that some contemporary art is consciously molded to linguistic rules, which makes it easier to write about critically, and the explanations, interpretations, and analyses from the press become a part of the work, since the work is set up to include them. But painting seems for the most part to have its own, nonlinguistic dimension. Though it can almost be described in words, even analyzed in linguistic terms, there is always a place where language fails to engage within the languagelike rules given in the work, which, after all, is directed to issues of nonverbal meaning as well as to external ones of culture, politics, and so

to keep reading

Artforum print subscribers have full access to this article. If you are a subscriber, sign in below.

Not registered for Register here.

SUBSCRIBE NOW for only $50 a year—65% off the newsstand price—and get the print magazine plus full online access to this issue and our archive.*

Order the PRINT EDITION of the December 1989 issue for $17 or the ONLINE EDITION for $5.99.

* This rate applies to U.S. domestic subscriptions.