images versus words

[cacian]

what do you most look for or go for when reading a book or a poem?

images/visuals
or
words/sound/feelings



I go for the latest at all times.

[Marbles]

I can't distinguish the two groups without making a big mistake. I look for a succession of artistically woven words that release images and ideas into my mind without explicitly mentioning them.

[PeterL]

I look for ideas, concepts that are expressed in words. Actual images are wonderful, and well written words evoke images very nicely, but both have their places. When it comes to communication, I think that words are better, because one word is worth a thousand images, if it's the right word.

[YesNo]

Words, whether as poetry, prose or just spoken communication, are meaningful sounds. There are no images involved although a reader or hearer might visualize something if they are so inclined. Whatever they visualize, it is not in the words, but in their minds.

The acceptance of the belief that poetry contains images has led to elevating babble over sound and meaning. However, babbling, rather than communicating, to another person is usually viewed as rude or abusive unless one is an infant or senile or crippled in some way. Those claiming to be poets too often get away with it as well.

Sound is actually more interesting. Words require time for their delivery. Images are nearly immediate. Words seem more fleeting than images and yet they form the basis of language. This is not to say that images aren't valuable, but they are not as fundamental as sounds are when it comes to communication.

[Marbles]

^ Yes, I believe images do not exist outside of, or other than, or apart from...words.

Words, not things.

Words, not ideas.

All images, things and ideas will suggest themselves through the ebb and flow of your words.

[Ecurb]

Words, whether as poetry, prose or just spoken communication, are meaningful sounds. There are no images involved although a reader or hearer might visualize something if they are so inclined. Whatever they visualize, it is not in the words, but in their minds.

The acceptance of the belief that poetry contains images has led to elevating babble over sound and meaning. However, babbling, rather than communicating, to another person is usually viewed as rude or abusive unless one is an infant or senile or crippled in some way. Those claiming to be poets too often get away with it as well.

Sound is actually more interesting. Words require time for their delivery. Images are nearly immediate. Words seem more fleeting than images and yet they form the basis of language. This is not to say that images aren't valuable, but they are not as fundamental as sounds are when it comes to communication.

Written words are NOT "meaningful sounds". They are, in fact, VISUAL IMAGES. When the reader sees (i.e. forms a visual image of) the word "cat", he can either visualize a furry animal, or imagine hearing the sound of the word "cat", or choose some other option.

[cacian]

Written words are NOT "meaningful sounds". They are, in fact, VISUAL IMAGES. When the reader sees (i.e. forms a visual image of) the word "cat", he can either visualize a furry animal, or imagine hearing the sound of the word "cat", or choose some other option.

I could not agree with that.
words are sounds.
images are visuals like a painting.
why imagine/visualise a cat sleeping when we already know what cat looks like when it is asleep?
what is the achievement of visualisng something we already know of?

[Ecurb]

Spoken words are sounds. Written words are not (they are, in fact, visual images). This is simply an obvious and self evident truth.

[PeterL]

Written language is a different system of communication from the spoken language. Although most languages use symbols that are untended to mimic the spoken language; that is not true of all languages. Most notably, Chinese has a system of written symbols that are designed to inform a reader of the image , but the symbols can be used for languages that have different words for that image or idea. Mandarin and Cantonese are not mutually intelligible as they are spoken, but they use the same written language.

On a more fundamental level the human brain doesn't manipulate words or images; it appears that it works with ideas that can be translated as necessary (don't hold me to this, because this field is changing constantly).

[cacian]

Spoken words are sounds. Written words are not (they are, in fact, visual images). This is simply an obvious and self evident truth.

i am not sure i agree here either.
a written word is a meaning with a sound to imagine it a picture would be to strip it off its own valuable feeling/truth.
anyhow what fact do you have that says a word is a visual image? :)

[Ecurb]

We SEE written words; we HEAR spoken words. Why is this hard to understand?

[cacian]

We SEE written words; we HEAR spoken words. Why is this hard to understand?

I personally think we READ words. we SEE things people pictures we don't read them.
it is hard to comprehend a picture to a word to me.

[Ecurb]

How can we read written words if we don't see them? Don't we have to see them first? (I suppose blind people can read Braille, but they still don't HEAR the words, they feel them.)

[Marbles]

We have a crisis of definition here.

If water is wet, then written words are not sounds but symbols through which we perceive images. Words become sounds only when they are uttered but their function (symbols leading to images) remains the same.

[cacian]

How can we read written words if we don't see them? Don't we have to see them first? (I suppose blind people can read Braille, but they still don't HEAR the words, they feel them.)

we see them in order to read them and not to imagine them.
we see a painting because it has colours and shapes instead of words.
we don't read a painting we look at it because we can see it.
here is a question:
why a paint someone with their eyes closed
when you can paint them with their eyes opened?

[cacian]

We have a crisis of definition here.

If water is wet, then written words are not sounds but symbols through which we perceive images. Words become sounds only when they are uttered but their function (symbols leading to images) remains the same.

i dont get what you mean by water is wet then words are not sound?
water is not wet
it is the objects that water touches that become wet
water is water.

[PeterL]

i am not sure i agree here either.
a written word is a meaning with a sound to imagine it a picture would be to strip it off its own valuable feeling/truth.
anyhow what fact do you have that says a word is a visual image? :)

I understand why you would think that, but consider what I wrote about Chinese and other languages that use ideograms. And you might also do a little research into how the human brain processes languages. Spoken language is received by the ears and the sounds are sent to Broca's region where the sound patterns are converted to neural impulses. The neural impulses are sent to the left frontal lobe, where whatever content there is in the sound is processed and sent on to whatever part of the brain is appropriate. All of the sounds, impulses, etc. are built-in brain functions.
Written language is different, because the written symbols are cultural products, rather than being built-in mental processes. There also the problem of receiving the symbols in the eyes, which send the raw image to the visual cortex. After that they are sent to Broca's region and handled as is spoken language.

There have been fMRI image of brains hearing language versus brains seeing writing. It is a very interesting subject.

[cacian]

I understand why you would think that, but consider what I wrote about Chinese and other languages that use ideograms. And you might also do a little research into how the human brain processes languages. Spoken language is received by the ears and the sounds are sent to Broca's region where the sound patterns are converted to neural impulses. The neural impulses are sent to the left frontal lobe, where whatever content there is in the sound is processed and sent on to whatever part of the brain is appropriate. All of the sounds, impulses, etc. are built-in brain functions.
Written language is different, because the written symbols are cultural products, rather than being built-in mental processes. There also the problem of receiving the symbols in the eyes, which send the raw image to the visual cortex. After that they are sent to Broca's region and handled as is spoken language.

There have been fMRI image of brains hearing language versus brains seeing writing. It is a very interesting subject.

I am not sure.
i dont tend to associate science with literary devices. they are too far fetched from each other to be related.
chinese language is far too descriptive in shapes to want to engage in direct sound. it looks to me like it is about how it may appear or look rather then how it sounds. i don;t know.

[PeterL]

The underlying principles are those of Semiotics. Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted general theory of Semiotics.

Hearing language, reading language, and looking at paintings have fundamental similarities. All involve interpreting signs and associating those signs with other knowledge. The differences lie in the ways that the input of the signs is through, whether vision or hearing, and there is whether the signs are in an organized set of signs, as is the case with language (although that isn't the right way to say it), or whether the input is pure image with no symbolic meaning attached to the image. The different inputs are processed differently in the brain; although they may be parts of the same package of information.

There can be information in any expression in any form, but all types of expression are not equal.

[Paulclem]

The premise of the OP is false. It's not words v images but how words and images interact in the unique subjective experience of each person. I think that might be similar, but a more simplistic way of describing what Peter has just said.

[PeterL]

The premise of the OP is false. It's not words v images but how words and images interact in the unique subjective experience of each person. I think that might be similar, but a more simplistic way of describing what Peter has just said.

Perzactly! But I find that simplification can create confusion.

Someday we'll be reading the signals between brain cells directly, and that will be when words and images will be truly and completely united. That would be neat, but speech and writing will still be different.

[PeterL]

I am not sure.
i dont tend to associate science with literary devices. they are too far fetched from each other to be related.
chinese language is far too descriptive in shapes to want to engage in direct sound. it looks to me like it is about how it may appear or look rather then how it sounds. i don;t know.

Science can describe how the brain processes a literary device. On a fundamental level there is barely enough difference between the two to notice. Science is simply a way to describe various things in ways that show the similarity among them, to show that they follow the same rules. The science of the brain and how it operates is beyond what most people could fantasize, and they have gotten to the point where parts of the brain can be stimulated such that a persons extremities will move. I think that there is a prototype of a human-machine interface that would allow someon to drive a car or a mobility device by thought alone.

What you say about Chinese is true. the written languages is all about images, rather than reflrcting words. It is different, but it tells us that there is more than one way to communicate.

[stlukesguild]

The written word is a a visual image, symbol, or cipher that may evoke visual images, other sensations (auditory, tactile, even taste or scent), feelings, abstract concepts, etc... Read... whether aloud or in our mind... we may find ourselves embracing the sound or music of these words. Personally I see little value in any attempt to separate all the levels upon which language/literature works and limit it to a single "best"/"most important" (to whom?) element.

[YesNo]

Spoken words are sounds. Written words are not (they are, in fact, visual images). This is simply an obvious and self evident truth.


I am glad you admit that spoken words are sounds. That is what should be obvious here.

The written word is a storage device. Like sheet music. And what do you do with the words stored on paper? You convert them back to sound. What do you do with the sheet music? You convert it back to sound.

[cacian]

The written word is a a visual image, symbol, or cipher that may evoke visual images, other sensations (auditory, tactile, even taste or scent), feelings, abstract concepts, etc... Read... whether aloud or in our mind... we may find ourselves embracing the sound of music of these words. Personally I see little value in any attempt to separate all the levels upon which language/literature works and limit it to a single "best"/"most important" (to whom?) element.
stlukes i was meant ot ask you
what would you prefer or what is best
a portrait of someone with their eyes closed?
or
a portrait of somebody with their eyes open?

[free]

what do you most look for or go for when reading a book or a poem?

images/visuals
or
words/sound/feelings



I go for the latest at all times.

Images are important for me both in poetry and prose. Then, in poetry, I am attracted by its rhythm, something like music in it. Feelings ad ideas, as well. It comes as a general impression. What is the idea supported in a poem and how does it feel. I prefer to listen a poem recited by an actor, for instance, by someone who knows how to read or recite it.

[Marbles]

i dont get what you mean by water is wet then words are not sound?
water is not wet
it is the objects that water touches that become wet
water is water.

Lol

Is wetness an inherent quality of water? Yes

Can wetness and water be separated? No

Same with fire and heat etc. These are intrinsic characteristics of those things.

I used 'water is wet' as a kind of given statement, the truth of which is simply indisputable and non-arguable. But you still came up with "water is not wet" :D

[cacian]

Lol

Is wetness an inherent quality of water? Yes

Can wetness and water be separated? No

Same with fire and heat etc. These are intrinsic characteristics of those things.

I used 'water is wet' as a kind of given statement, the truth of which is simply indisputable and non-arguable. But you still came up with "water is not wet" :D

i did haha.
let see from my knowledge water is pure condensation only dense so dense it forms water which a mass of 'liquid'
wet is when water gets into contact with non water.
if water was wt it would not turn into ice because ti would be too slippery or wet


I mean that is how i see it :D

[YesNo]

Science can describe how the brain processes a literary device. On a fundamental level there is barely enough difference between the two to notice. Science is simply a way to describe various things in ways that show the similarity among them, to show that they follow the same rules. The science of the brain and how it operates is beyond what most people could fantasize, and they have gotten to the point where parts of the brain can be stimulated such that a persons extremities will move. I think that there is a prototype of a human-machine interface that would allow someon to drive a car or a mobility device by thought alone.

What you say about Chinese is true. the written languages is all about images, rather than reflrcting words. It is different, but it tells us that there is more than one way to communicate.

My limited experience with Chinese suggests that the Chinese characters represent what we would call the syllables of a word. These syllables are sounds, not images. Ezra Pound and Ernest Fenollosa seem to be primarily associated with this view of Chinese characters as images. Here is one source that criticizes this view that popped up when I searched for it: http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/ezra_pound_chinese.html

There seem to be three main reductionistic explanations in science that are falling apart. There is the reduction of matter to subatomic "particles", the reduction of life to selfish genes and the reduction of mind to neurons. The problem with each of them is that they don't explain enough. In the case of stimulating parts of the brain to move an arm, people being experimented upon can distinguish when their arms have been moved by the researcher or by themselves. In either case someone chooses to move the arm. The neurons don't make the choice and the reductionism fails because of that.

How does this relate to whether there are images in poetry or whether there are images in words at all? I don't know. Perhaps this is another reductionist belief at work? So, let's ask ourselves: Can everything be reduced to images? I doubt it.

What I think has occurred is that early in the 20th century Imagists succeeded in convincing people to pass on the belief that poetry contained images. That belief was accepted mindlessly, that is, uncritically. Social psychologists would say that such a belief became a "premature cognitive commitment". And that is why you still hear people saying that there are such lovely "images" in some poem they like.

Personally, I don't see any images in verbal communication, let alone poetry. True, people visualize all kinds of stuff. But that is not in the poetry. It is in their minds. Other people will visualize something else which proves that the image was not in the poem. True, you can code the sounds of words into various scripts with a wide range of fonts, but those scripts are not what the poem means. The poem is not the script. A script is a storage device.

If there are images in poetry, please provide a simple example of one. Suppose you had the line with just the word "cat". Is that an image? If it is, you should be able to tell me immediately where the cat is, what color it is, how big it is, whether it is sleeping or not. And everyone reading that word would have to agree with you.

[Ecurb]

If there are images in poetry, please provide a simple example of one. Suppose you had the line with just the word "cat". Is that an image? If it is, you should be able to tell me immediately where the cat is, what color it is, how big it is, whether it is sleeping or not. And everyone reading that word would have to agree with you.

You provide a hint in your very denial of the notion that language creates visual images. "What color it is" can ONLY refer to a visual image, since color is a purely visual concept. If the cat is "red", the notion of "redness" is a visual notion, and can only refer to our mental image of "red", which is visual. Of course (as with the word "cat") we don't know if one person sees "red" in the same way as another person. Each of our mental processes is different. Nonetheless, we can all identify "red" and differentiate it from "blue" -- and the distinction is visual.

Your argument that verbal descriptions must provide exactly the same image to different readers in order to be described as offering visual images is silly. We don't see the same things even when we LOOK at exactly the same scene, let alone when we merely read about it. Two people looking at a painting see different things in the painting. Two people witnessing a crime see the events differently. So two people reading a descriptive passage will form distinct mental (visual or non-visual) images as a result of their discourse with the text. So what? Does that prove that painting is not visual art?

[PeterL]

My limited experience with Chinese suggests that the Chinese characters represent what we would call the syllables of a word. These syllables are sounds, not images. Ezra Pound and Ernest Fenollosa seem to be primarily associated with this view of Chinese characters as images. Here is one source that criticizes this view that popped up when I searched for it: http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/ezra_pound_chinese.html

In some cases Chinese ideograms are used as syllables, and in other places they are images or symbols of things. Fundamentally they are images of things, but they can be used for other things, as can letters in an alphabet.


There seem to be three main reductionistic explanations in science that are falling apart. There is the reduction of matter to subatomic "particles", the reduction of life to selfish genes and the reduction of mind to neurons. The problem with each of them is that they don't explain enough. In the case of stimulating parts of the brain to move an arm, people being experimented upon can distinguish when their arms have been moved by the researcher or by themselves. In either case someone chooses to move the arm. The neurons don't make the choice and the reductionism fails because of that.

How does this relate to whether there are images in poetry or whether there are images in words at all? I don't know. Perhaps this is another reductionist belief at work? So, let's ask ourselves: Can everything be reduced to images? I doubt it.

What I think has occurred is that early in the 20th century Imagists succeeded in convincing people to pass on the belief that poetry contained images. That belief was accepted mindlessly, that is, uncritically. Social psychologists would say that such a belief became a "premature cognitive commitment". And that is why you still hear people saying that there are such lovely "images" in some poem they like.

Personally, I don't see any images in verbal communication, let alone poetry. True, people visualize all kinds of stuff. But that is not in the poetry. It is in their minds. Other people will visualize something else which proves that the image was not in the poem. True, you can code the sounds of words into various scripts with a wide range of fonts, but those scripts are not what the poem means. The poem is not the script. A script is a storage device.

If there are images in poetry, please provide a simple example of one. Suppose you had the line with just the word "cat". Is that an image? If it is, you should be able to tell me immediately where the cat is, what color it is, how big it is, whether it is sleeping or not. And everyone reading that word would have to agree with you.

I don't disagree, but I would have put it otherwise. For example, poetry is sometimes designed to evoke images to the reader or hearer, but there are no images in poetry itself; stating it that way is just an abbreviated way of talking about conjuring images.

[stlukesguild]

stlukes i was meant (to) ask you
what would you prefer or what is best
a portrait of someone with their eyes closed?
or
a portrait of somebody with their eyes open?

A portrait with closed eyes may suggest sleep or death or simply looking away. Such an image suggests a vulnerability.
A portrait with the eyes open... especially with eyes looking toward the viewer... suggests awareness, communication. or even confrontation. It's not surprising that the tradition of the female nude in art was dominated by the passive eyes closed/eyes averted:

https://41.media.tumblr.com/bcb27c00ef35084f6e22fae0cb720cc1/tumblr_na61u0hIA11tb46kno1_500.jpg

http://www.rudolfsiffer.be/Reizen/reizen2007/reis03/Gezien2/fotoosGR/bouchermunch.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VkthoiNZI5Y/UmFHH4L6fqI/AAAAAAACVlw/KBPhDo0_iGY/s640/Zinaida+Serebriakova+1884-1967+-+(35).jpg

It's not surprising that many of the nudes that made/make (male) viewers uncomfortable are those in which the woman returns the gaze. It was this that outraged Mark Twain with regard to Titian's Venus D'Urbino:

http://www.unique-canvas.com/media/images/popup/tizian-venus-von-urbino-09651.jpg

... to say nothing of Manet's Olympia:

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/visualarts/images/olympia.jpg

It is also what made Cranach's large nudes recently exhibited in London unsettling 500 years after they were painted:

http://images-2.drive.com.au/2010/11/17/2049128/The-Three-Graces-420-420x0.jpg

Oddly enough... while the 19th century voyeur preferred to ogle the object of his affection in privacy... without her returning the gaze... most 20th century pin-ups and centerfolds boldly return the gaze... often coyly of flirtatiously:

http://www.thepinupfiles.com/elvgren/gil-elvgren-pinup_215.jpg

Perhaps Picasso had the best answer to your question. It's not a question of whether the subject should have eyes open or closed... but rather the artist:

"To draw you must close your eyes and sing." -Pablo Picasso

[YesNo]

I don't disagree, but I would have put it otherwise. For example, poetry is sometimes designed to evoke images to the reader or hearer, but there are no images in poetry itself; stating it that way is just an abbreviated way of talking about conjuring images.

I agree that words can suggest things the reader can imagine such as locations or people. This provides a foundation on which more complicated ideas can be expressed.

What amazes me about sound is its ability to contain all this precise meaning that we can understand and share with each other. Sound seems so unreal almost like awareness itself.

[YesNo]

You provide a hint in your very denial of the notion that language creates visual images. "What color it is" can ONLY refer to a visual image, since color is a purely visual concept. If the cat is "red", the notion of "redness" is a visual notion, and can only refer to our mental image of "red", which is visual. Of course (as with the word "cat") we don't know if one person sees "red" in the same way as another person. Each of our mental processes is different. Nonetheless, we can all identify "red" and differentiate it from "blue" -- and the distinction is visual.

Your argument that verbal descriptions must provide exactly the same image to different readers in order to be described as offering visual images is silly. We don't see the same things even when we LOOK at exactly the same scene, let alone when we merely read about it. Two people looking at a painting see different things in the painting. Two people witnessing a crime see the events differently. So two people reading a descriptive passage will form distinct mental (visual or non-visual) images as a result of their discourse with the text. So what? Does that prove that painting is not visual art?

I agree with you that what each of us sees is not exactly what the other sees even when we are looking at an image. However, for there to be an image in poetry, there needs to be some agreement between the readers what that image is.

The problem with belief in images in poetry is that it discredits the sound of the text which I maintain is the carrier of meaning in words, whether those words form prose or poetry.

[ennison]

So we see words therefore they're images. Abair! Consternation strikes. Hmm. "Grr". Mar a thubhairt am bard ud. And King in "On Writing" proves there's telepathy by sending a white rabbit over space and time. Me, I hear a voice when I read (whaddya mean my inner demon... Stopped fighting him longtime). Called tone. Eek. All self-evident truths are smoke 'n mirrors. I hear a voice says one man. I see a voice says another. Another hears a voice from a burning bush. But it's the bush he sees ever after when he thinks of what he heard. I think Cacian's straightforward question opened a can of wiggly worms. What colour are they? Can you feel them on your hand. Ever eaten a razor fish raw?

[PeterL]

So we see words therefore they're images. Abair! Consternation strikes. Hmm. "Grr". Mar a thubhairt am bard ud. And King in "On Writing" proves there's telepathy by sending a white rabbit over space and time. Me, I hear a voice when I read (whaddya mean my inner demon... Stopped fighting him longtime). Called tone. Eek. All self-evident truths are smoke 'n mirrors. I hear a voice says one man. I see a voice says another. Another hears a voice from a burning bush. But it's the bush he sees ever after when he thinks of what he heard. I think Cacian's straightforward question opened a can of wiggly worms. What colour are they? Can you feel them on your hand. Ever eaten a razor fish raw?


We have other reasons for believing that language involves telepathy. It deserves being known, so I'll write it as a blog post soon.

[PeterL]

I agree that words can suggest things the reader can imagine such as locations or people. This provides a foundation on which more complicated ideas can be expressed.

What amazes me about sound is its ability to contain all this precise meaning that we can understand and share with each other. Sound seems so unreal almost like awareness itself.

Two items there. First, we humans have been practicing with language for a few million year, so we have had time to learn how to pack things in, and there is the question of whether language involves telepathy.

[YesNo]

I think we have been only around for a few hundred thousand years, but I suspect other species have language abilities as well. You are probably right about telepathy. Language may be based on it.

[ennison]

I don't suppose many of you got what I said above. I'll say it in different. Many think pictures is vis but music's the universal language. Remember a scream is not a word. What's the ancient art of alliteration if not aural imagery. You can taste things through the ear - if you're alive. I read poetry and listen to the feel of words. Someone said words are images. To be sure a c is not the shape of z nor u but o i though intosticated AM. Geddit? Read Crane then.

[cacian]

stlukes i was meant (to) ask you
what would you prefer or what is best
a portrait of someone with their eyes closed?
or
a portrait of somebody with their eyes open?

A portrait with closed eyes may suggest sleep or death or simply looking away. Such an image suggests a vulnerability.
A portrait with the eyes open... especially with eyes looking toward the viewer... suggests awareness, communication. or even confrontation. It's not surprising that the tradition of the female nude in art was dominated by the passive eyes closed/eyes averted:

https://41.media.tumblr.com/bcb27c00ef35084f6e22fae0cb720cc1/tumblr_na61u0hIA11tb46kno1_500.jpg

http://www.rudolfsiffer.be/Reizen/reizen2007/reis03/Gezien2/fotoosGR/bouchermunch.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VkthoiNZI5Y/UmFHH4L6fqI/AAAAAAACVlw/KBPhDo0_iGY/s640/Zinaida+Serebriakova+1884-1967+-+(35).jpg

It's not surprising that many of the nudes that made/make (male) viewers uncomfortable are those in which the woman returns the gaze. It was this that outraged Mark Twain with regard to Titian's Venus D'Urbino:

http://www.unique-canvas.com/media/images/popup/tizian-venus-von-urbino-09651.jpg

... to say nothing of Manet's Olympia:

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/visualarts/images/olympia.jpg

It is also what made Cranach's large nudes recently exhibited in London unsettling 500 years after they were painted:

http://images-2.drive.com.au/2010/11/17/2049128/The-Three-Graces-420-420x0.jpg

Oddly enough... while the 19th century voyeur preferred to ogle the object of his affection in privacy... without her returning the gaze... most 20th century pin-ups and centerfolds boldly return the gaze... often coyly of flirtatiously:

http://www.thepinupfiles.com/elvgren/gil-elvgren-pinup_215.jpg

Perhaps Picasso had the best answer to your question. It's not a question of whether the subject should have eyes open or closed... but rather the artist:

"To draw you must close your eyes and sing." -Pablo Picasso

Stluke i salute your enthusiasm towards these images/portraits.
I cant possibly look at these all at once or singly my eyes simply do not take the intensity of it all.

[ennison]

Whaaat! Cacian. I thought you were a nice girl but you're some pisstaker.

[YesNo]

I don't suppose many of you got what I said above. I'll say it in different. Many think pictures is vis but music's the universal language. Remember a scream is not a word. What's the ancient art of alliteration if not aural imagery. You can taste things through the ear - if you're alive. I read poetry and listen to the feel of words. Someone said words are images. To be sure a c is not the shape of z nor u but o i though intosticated AM. Geddit? Read Crane then.

Music does seem to be a universal language. Words would be more specific to cultures, though based on sound as well. The script used to store the words would be a kind of image on the page. As long as one looked at it, it would remain an image. If one went further and read the words in the image, then the sound of the words would come into play and their sense be known.

[Eiseabhal]

You are intoxicated by words Ennison. I reckon I know what you mean. Good poetry is synaesthetic.