(By Eubanks)

I live two lives like that man on television in the 1950's. I have one foot in the art world because I am a working artist with a gallery, commissions, and exhibition responsibilities. The other foot is planted in the world of college teaching and educational research. Qualitative methods felt like familiar ground from the beginning. As an artist, I gather data in the form of photographic images, take them apart by cutting them up and put them back together, altering reality to better represent it. This activity is always coupled with extensive reading about the history of the architecture and landscapes I photograph, much like reviewing the literature. The combination of research and artistic activity evolved naturally for me into an alternate means of reporting my data from a study about the ways that art is used to foster verbal development in an oral school for children who are deaf or hard-of hearing. These data were reported in the form of a doctoral dissertation and as works of art.
In considering this new means of data presentation, first it was important to clarify definitions. Is art a language? To answer this question, we much first define what a language is and that may depend on whom we ask. Lois Bloom, a scholar in the field of language development, defines language as "a code whereby ideas about the world are expressed through a conventional system of arbitrary signals for communication" (Lahey, 1988, p.2). The arbitrary signals to which she refers are words for most of us. Nelson Goodman, a philosopher, defines language as a symbol system that conveys complex ideas (Goodman, 1976). He explored extensively the nature and function of the symbol systems in music, dance, the literary arts, and the visual arts. This exploration established a philosophical foundation for the consideration of means of representation other than verbal. Thus, the visual arts can be considered communication in a visual language.
Comparing the visual and verbal languages might help us understand how art can function as a visual language. Broudy (1972) views visual language as less codified than verbal language: "The arts present us with images of feeling for which there is no dictionary save that of the totality of human experience" (Broudy, 1972, p. 78). Some codification takes place, at least according to art historians. Arnason (1986), modern art historian and critic, refers to various "isms" or styles having a vocabulary and syntax, such as "the newly invented vocabulary of cubism," (p.164). On this subject of style, Wolf (1977) points out that the codification of verbal language may change over centuries but, compared to the visual language, is relatively stable. Stylistic changes in art can occur quickly and abruptly.
This issue of codification is the basis for Forrest's (1984) view that art is not a language. Communication in the visual language cannot be translated into another language as directly as English can be translated into Italian, for instance. No principles, outside the visual language itself, exist for the verification of meaning conveyed by those visual symbols. For example, it would be impossible to explain the meaning of red as it would vary considerably depending on the context and the culture. While art has some rules, there is no system of correct application, no structure by which one can judge whether or not a work of art is right or wrong. To return to Bloom's definition of language, art may lack enough agreed upon conventions to be considered a conventional system of signals and accepted universally as a language.
This shortcoming does not prevent artists from viewing art as a language, one that is superior to words. Kepes (1944) describes visual language as more holistic than spoken language and more efficient as a disseminator of knowledge than most other means of communication. Arnheim (1969) considers the visual language superior because it comes closer to the original stimulus, verbal language being linear, sequential, and one dimensional, by comparison. Reading a picture is like entering a room in which many conversations are occurring. There are many visual paths for the viewer's eye to follow, more sequential options than reading words because a picture can be read starting from many different places, and from more than one point of view at a time (Feldman, 1976).
Art is viewed as the first language of children (Heberholz & Hansen, 1994, NAEA, 1988) and indeed, imagery does precede verbal processes developmentally until verbal skills are acquired, and then development in these two areas is concurrent and interactive (Paivio, 1971). We learn visual language, without formal instruction, earlier and more spontaneously than verbal language. Children with modest verbal reading ability can read complex visual images yet are often presented with only simple, childish ones, "visual pablum", (Feldman, 1981b. p. 657).
The idea of art as a language is well developed in the art education literature, including comparisons between the visual language and verbal language that refer to the elements the two languages have in common. Feldman (1976) notes that works of art are expressed within a set of visual conventions just as language is expressed within a set of linguistic conventions. He also cites similarities between visual and verbal languages by referring, like Arnason, to the combination of visual elements of art into forms as syntax. Cromer (1966) developed an elaborate comparison of the two languages, in which he compares the elements of art to morphemes, the principles of design to syntax, and semantics to meaning in art, the message that art critics seek to interpret.
My view of art as a language is based on a language development perspective, because my research deals with how art is used to foster language development. Verbal language can be viewed as having two components - receptive and expressive (Bzoch & League, 1971). Receptive language refers to the understanding of words used by others, the decoding of verbal symbols. In the visual language, viewers read and interpret the visual symbols encoded in works of art. The art critic's job is to translate visual language into words that explicate the art for others. Expressive language refers to the ability to communicate ideas by speaking or writing, in effect, the creation of coded verbal symbols. The expressive component of the visual language is the creation of visual symbol systems, which is the making of marks or objects that communicate ideas. An artist could be defined as a person who speaks the visual language fluently and eloquently.
Another useful, and expanded, view of language from a verbal language perspective is based on Lahey's model of three overlapping components of language: form, content and use (Lahey, 1988). Using this model, form in verbal language includes sounds, words, and the way the words are arranged. The equivalent in the visual language refers to the physical evidence of the artist's expression, described in terms of the elements of art and principles of design. Abstract expressionist paintings that have no subject, except color and shape, are examples of art that are based primarily on form. Content in language can be considered equivalent to meaning in visual art. That meaning is often embedded in symbols such as the lilies, symbols for purity, found in renaissance paintings. Use in Lahey's framework refers to the many ways language functions to achieve goals. The equivalent in the visual arts refers to the artist's agenda or purpose. Hans Haache's work is focused primarily on use. For example, one work consisted of photographs of New York slums and a text that traced the ownership of these buildings. Some of the slum lords exposed in this piece were also trustees of the Guggenheim where this piece was hung, then removed rather quickly. Most works of art combine these three components, form, content, and use.
If we can agree to accept art as a visual language, then we must ask whether or not it is appropriate as a means of presenting data. Presentation of analyzed data in a form accessible to readers is a component critical to understanding any study (LeCompte & Priessle, 1993). Readers from the academic community may find that the visual language offers a means by which data can be quickly and holistically accessed. Research can have a broader application if we can make it accessible outside the academic community, and one way to do that is to translate data into the visual language, which we all learned early and without special instruction (Paivio, 1971, Feldman, 1981b).
Todd Siler, contemporary artist and scientist, does large installation pieces about his scientific theories. He makes his data accessible to the art world and the world of science, providing a precedent for the presentation of research data in visual form. Siler refers to this combination of art and science as ArtScience, which he defines as a way to explore and communicate ideas that can be extended to become an open-ended means of inquiry and knowledge. At the center of ArtScience is a process he calls metaphorming, a combination of creative and critical thinking, a universal way of drawing likenesses between things. "To metaphorm something is to transfer --- or relate from one object to another --- a new meaning, pattern, or set of associations. A metaphorm is a combination of metaphor, analogy, hypothesis, figure of speech, symbol and story" (Siler, 1995, p.33). In the Neurosphere, an installation about the relationships between mind and nature, the tall thin bronze sculptures that stand in his installation, are metaphorms referring to the nervous system's core.
The scientist in Siler was not content with the verbal language for the expression of his ideas, because scientific procedures required an implicitness that blocked the full expression of his ideas. He sought more flexible formats and open-ended vocabularies found the arts (Siler, 1995).
Similarly, art educators might also find useful the visual language for expression of their ideas, because they have training and experience in the visual expression of feelings and ideas. The visual language might also prove useful in developing ideas. Artists often work out their thoughts through visual means such as drawing, just as writers work out their thoughts by writing (Bruner,1983; Wolcott, 1990). But as useful as the visual language may prove, I am not ready to abandon words entirely in the reporting of data.
Words are universally agreed upon conventions and, therefore, precise. The combination of words and images offers the advantages of both visual and verbal language. Word/image combinations also represent a compromise between traditional means of data presentation and radical new means. It is a comfortable combination for me, because I have been combining words and images in my own art for many years.
The combination of words and images has a long history, from storytelling with pictures in the ancient world to cutting edge contemporary art. These combinations form a continuum of changing emphasis on the words as a part of the whole. The word can dominate completely as in Jenny Holzer's work which is just words, plain and simple. Words can dominate, but other visual elements are present, as in the work of Robert Indiana, where words are artfully and colorfully arranged. Words can be an important artistic element in art that also includes images such as the Bayeux tapestry (1073-83 A.D.) which tells the story of the Battle of Hastings in words and pictures. The 20th century is rich with examples such as the collages of Dadaist, Hannah Hoch, the work of Barbara Kruger which combines images from the media with brief captions, and the pop art cartoons of Roy Lichtenstein. At the image-dominated end of this spectrum, we find art that includes words incidentally, because they are captured in the image, as in the work of photorealists painters like Richard Estes.
Another analysis of word/image combinations, based on the relationship between the visual and the verbal, divides combinations into two categories. (1) Words and image can repeat or complement the same message, like partners, expanding the message, such as in Duane Michaels, A letter from my father, which includes a photograph of a family, captioned by a paragraph explaining the father/son relationship. (2) Words and image can communicate contradictory messages, leaving an interpretive space for the viewer to ponder the message, as in Magritte's painting of a pipe with the caption: This is not a pipe.
Analysis of word/image combinations offers a menu from which to choose the most appropriate combination for data presentation, just as researchers choose the most appropriate methods of data collection or analysis. Categories of word/image combinations can also be used to express categorization of data by presenting related data using the same visual protocol. For example, I used images and words that contradict each other to illustrate practices in a school for children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, which do not offer opportunities for expression. Two photographs of children engaged in a painting project in which almost all decisions are made for them by an adult include the following quote: "'Authenticity is a principle that should be observed by every artist, but in art education it has special urgency because no child should be required to make anything that does not grow directly out of his or her experience.' Edmund Burke Feldman" (Feldman, 1995). The children are following directions in order to produce a product, much like factory workers, referenced by the images of factories inserted in the background behind the children. Just as this kind of activity contradicts the philosophy and intent of right-thinking art educators, the words contradict the images. An interpretive space is left for the viewer to decode the image, compare it to the writing, and come to a conclusion.
In searching for factory images, I discovered some wonderful bridges and used them in works that report how children's drawings are used to identify concepts that need clarification. Because communication for children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing is difficult, they sometimes misunderstand or incompletely understand concepts. The bridge is a visual metaphor, or metaphorm, for the cognitive pathways through which concepts are communicated. The bridge under construction is combined with an image of a child whose concept of "pet" is any animal in the house, including rats. The words, observational data, reinforce the visual imagery, filling in the gaps for the viewer. The visual image expands our understanding of the data.
Siler refers to the exploration of ideas that is possible by combining art and science. In the bridge pieces, making the visual images led to a deeper understanding of the meaning of the data. At other times, visual images and understandings precede verbal images. Early in my field work, I had conceptualized communication as a fragile connection like a spider web being spun by the teacher to connect with the students and connect the students to each other. This idea found expression through string that winds around points connecting teacher and students and sometimes hangs loose when connections break down.
Connections between the data and a broader audience may be the greatest virtue of visual data presentation. The visual language offered an opportunity to express both ideas and feelings. It could be argued that feelings have no place in research, but if we operate without them then our work lacks the strength that heart-felt convictions can give it. The visual language offers more freedom of expression because of its looser codification as a symbol system and because this form of data presentation is new and free of the conventions that have developed concerning scholarly papers. As researchers expand the ways in which data can be presented, conventions will develop. I hope that those conventions will require us to speak with clarity, to say true things from our hearts. Perhaps, through the visual language, research may be reported to a wider audience and will more readily have social application.

References:
Arnason, H.H. (1986). History of Modern Art. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc./Harry Abrams, Inc.
Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual Thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Broudy, H. (1972). Enlightened cherishing. Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press.
Bruner, J.S. (1983) Child's talk: Learning to use language. New York: Norton.
Bzoch, K. & League, R. (1971). Assessing language skills in infancy: A handbook for the multidimensional analysis of emergent language. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Cromer, J. (1966). History, theory, and practice of art criticism in art education. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Feldman, E. (1976). Visual literacy. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 10 (3/4) 195-200.
Feldman, E. & Woods, D. (1981a). Art criticism and reading. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 15 (4) 75-95.
Feldman, E.(1981b). Art is for reading: Pictures make a difference. Teachers College Record. 82 (4) 64-66.
Feldman, E. B. (1995). Philosophy of art education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Forrest, E. (1984). Art education and the language of art. Studies in art education. 26 (1) 27-33.
Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of art. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Co.
Heberholz, B. & Hansen, L. (1994) Early childhood art. Madison, Wisconsin: Brown and Benchmark Publishers.
Kepes, G. (1944). Language of Vision. Chicago: Paul Theobald.
Lahey, M. (1988). Language disorders and language development, New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
LeCompte, M. & Priessle, J. (1993) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.
National Art Education Association. (1988) Art is the first language poster. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt Rhinehart and Winston.

Siler, T. (1995) "The artscience of metaphorming." Keynote addresses, NAEA Houston, TX April 7-11, 1995. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Wolcott, H. (1990). Writing up qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
Wolf, T. (1977). Reading reconsidered. Harvard Educational Review. 47 (3)., 411-429.