CAN A PICTURE BE USED TO TAKE THE PLACE OF SOMETHING                                   SPOKEN OR WRITTEN IN WORDS?      Pictures play a very important part in our everyday life. Sight is our most widely used sense and as a consequence of this, pictures play a significant role in communication. The question that this essay will address however, is can pictures replace words or language as a means of communication? Over the course of this essay I will argue that the picture is neither subtle nor universal enough to take the place of words in the strictest sense of the meaning. That does not mean that pictures do not have their role and as I will show, there are many pictures which do a superior job to words under certain conditions. The underlying problem is that to fulfil this condition, the pictures rely on the diversity of language and words to secure their meaning.      "By using a picture one can reveal in a matter of seconds what it would take minutes to describe." This is the core of the argument that Novitz uses when arguing that pictures have a valuable and necessary role in replacing the written word. The best examples, he provides are when he turns the question the other way round. Just imagine, the difficulty in replacing the photograph of someone in a passport with that of written words, ie. can words be used to take the place of a picture. It would be unfeasible. If their was no photographic technology in the world, then immigration control and security would be considerably more difficult. It seems that Novitz is offering in a reverse situation, an example whereby a picture is used to replace something written or spoken in words. Or is it? A passport relies on much else other than the photograph. It relies on written words to achieve its authority. A picture without the passport would lose its context, and, as a form of communication therefore, its use. This is the crux of my argument, that a picture relies on the written word and therefore cannot replace it. Novitz tries to show the diverse use to which pictures are put by saying "...a picture say of a man, can be used in an indefinite number of ways. It can be used to conjure up memories, to advertise the clothes that he wears, to inform an audience of a rare disease, or to give a visual description of the symptoms of infective hepatitis." Novitz glorifies in the adaptability and universality of pictures and argues along with Schier, that "A picture that doesn't say anything is not a picture." Even if a picture is not created to that end, it can only be used as a form of illustrating, identifying, explaining or informing. C.S.Peirce called this form of signs, Icons; and to all intents and purposes, Novitz and Schier argue that pictures are just Icons, in that they represent a likeness of an object and are used to communicate information with regard to that object. Novitz provides further examples of pictures being superior forms of communication than words in certain circumstances, with the examples of the Playboy centrefold and the children's storybook. He says that words instead of pictures in these circumstances would be less informative and charming. Again I see reason to disagree. Yes the charm of the storybook is in the wonderful pictures that complement the book, but without the written story which accompanies the pictures they do not serve their necessary purpose. It would also be vastly less interesting to have a written paragraph describing the Playboy centrefold than a picture of her, but that surely is not the purpose of the picture in this sense. The magazine is bought with the express intention of the aesthetically pleasing content. It is not bought because the pictures say something as Schier would have us believe, but because the pictures fulfil an artistic role. They are not saying anything, they are just fulfilling a role of providing aesthetic enjoyment to a particuar section of the market.      Gombrich, in his book Art and Illusion highlighted another problem with pictures, and that is their inaccuracy. He claimed and proved that the artist is psychologically susceptible to his own interpretation of the object he depicts. He sees where the lines are to be drawn and he makes the object conform to his ownimagined stereotype. An artist learns a schemata and set of patterns when he learns to draw and will always in the first instance draw to those patterns and classifications. As Gombrich says, "The `will-to-form' is rather a `will-to-conform', the assimilation of any new shape to the schemata and patterns an artist has learned to handle." The truth is twisted to fit the stereotype and is not always the accurate representation of the object. With this being the case, it is hard to argue that pictures can accurately replace words. Words are specifically designed to convey accurate descriptions and meanings, whereas pictures are subjective and their accuracy is at the mercy of the interpreter.      Pictures are also only useful as a reminder of a frozen moment in time. A photograph of someone, is very quickly out of date. It might be fuzzy, or just a bad photograph. Whereas language changes to suit time. A name can quite easily flash a better and more accurate image of the subject in the recipients mind, whereas a picture does no such thing. The importance of language is that it is communicable. A name to someone provokes a better image than an old photograph does and is just as instantaneous. The key to language lies in its wonderful subtlety and diversity. No matter how it tries, picture communication can never say as much. Language is designed specifically with the purpose of communicating, whereas pictures are not. It is only because of spoken and written words, that man has progressed to the point it is now. It can be wonderfully diverse, but at the same time, its effectiveness lies in its economical use. Through language we can form relationships and communicate in other forms. Pictures came after language because they needed vocabulary to find a purpose in communication.      Thoughts need a language, they need words. Thoughts without a language are not truly thoughts, because they need language to define themselves. Helen Keller in her autobiography, remarked upon this, when she first realised the significance of language. When one day the word `water' was spelt out in her hand, while at the same time a cool stream was gushing over her other hand, the world of language was opened up to her. "...Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten -a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me...That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free!...Everything had a name, and each name gave birth to a new thought." It is easy to forget the significance of language; real thinking, is only possible when we have the language there to convey it. `Water' for Helen Keller was no longer just an object of sense perception, it had a name that could be mentioned, conceived, remembered. Even the deaf and dumb use a language to communicate. Sign language is a language for those who are handicapped to such a degree that they cannot converse in spoken words and so use muscular movements to so express themselves. Without it, their world would be a considerably lonlier place.      As I have said earlier, I believe that pictures only offer confusion unless they are qualified by language. Novitz on the other hand, seems to think that you can provide pictures without words, in order to communicate your message. He says that the `Skull and cross-bones' are widely accepted as a symbol of danger without the need to put the word danger or poison with it. But this is only because the symbol is qualified by a previous linguistic, cultural  acknowledgement. It is only because it is widely accepted that this is the meaning of the symbol that it can be placed in this context. Just take the example of a picture of a man waving a Red Flag. This automatically could display several meanings. Like the `Skull and cross-bones', it could mean danger; however, it could also be someone displaying their political or sporting affiliations just as easily. To be able to communicate effectively the meaning of the picture, you have to place it in context. Whether this be a phrase on the picture saying; `danger', `vote Labour', or `support Manchester United' or just putting the picture in the place or the time, or next to the article that makes it relevant. Novitz never denies this, but he does not seem to understand his mistake, when he says that pictures can be just as an effective means of communication as language. He says that we only use language more than pictures because it came first. Yet I do not think this is the correct assessment. We use language because it is more effective. There is much evidence of early pictures, but it was not until the advent of language communication, that we began to progress. Pictures as a form of communication came later because they were inadequate before language and are only adequate now because language is there to set the processes of thought and provide the framework in which pictures can be used as a form of communication. Going back to the earlier example of the picture of the man, we see that the picture can have several meanings, and it is only possible to distinguish the purpose of the meaning when we authorize it linguistically.     A picture of a cow in a field, could have innumerable interpretations. For instance; `a cow is in the field', `this is a cow in profile', `a cow is eating clover' or `a field with a cow in it'. Pictures do not have the facility to sentence build with subjects and predicates, there is no grammar, nor are there verbs, nouns or pronouns in pictures, and therefore there are no indicators which would clarify its meaning. It is impossible to translate pictures into words the way that we translate say, English into French. Schier provides another example of the limited use of words. Cezanne could depict that all the oranges on the table were spherical, he could not however depict all the oranges in the world are spheroids. He would also be unable to depict negatives directly. He can say that no orange on the table is non-spherical only by showing all the oranges to be spheroids. He can depict evidence but cannot say it directly. The effectiveness of language is that we can do just this. There is no quantity that we cannot convey in seconds. This is just another example of the restriction of picture communication. Just imagine trying to picture the word plenty. You could paint a picture of a ripe, succulent peach or masses of jewellery, but this would not accurately portray the word you want it to. A well painted picture of a peach would only distract from its meaning. But is this such a bad thing. The world would, I believe, be a much greyer place if there was no room for pictures to be painted for the aesthetic and artistic genius they possess.      Despite all this Novitz continues to hold that pictures are able to express propositions because like words they can be used to indicate the subject and attribute the qualities of the subject in much the same way as language does. `The man is fat and bald' can be used in many contexts. A statement, a warning, an explanation or as an example confirming a theory; in much the same way that a picture of a bald, fat man can. You need words to qualify the use of the phrase, or a situation for its use. Novitz says that this qualification can be achieved without language, but I disagree. Even if you do not use language directly you are still reliant upon it. You are reliant upon the thoughts and social conditions that are needed to provide its setting. Novitz's example of a picture of a vicious dog as a warning is only compatible with the setting. If a man wanted to warn people of his dog, then he would put up a sign saying `beware of the dog'. To emphasise the danger involved, he could put a picture of a vicious looking dog above the words. Novitz suggests that he would not need to put the words `beware of the dog', because the picture on the gate would suffice in replacing the written words. This is not so. The only reason that the man could get away with not putting the words, is because it is widely accepted through experience that a picture of a vicious dog is a warning, when in the context of being on a garden gate. The picture is helpful in that it might provide an emphasis that words cannot instantly do, but on its own, it is useless. The reason this is socially accepted is, that originally when this sign was first employed, it had both the picture and the words. Just like the `Skull and cross-bones' and the children's storybook, it is reliant on language. No matter how many examples we provide of pictures being better than words, it is not enough to say that they can replace words in the strictest sense. We have a society which encompasses both words and pictures in their most useful form. We have passport photos and not paragraphs because it is a better form of communication under the circumstances. Pictures add sparkle and colour to our life, but their use is entirely dependent on language. The joy and necessity of language was wonderfully captured by Helen Keller, and just as the world would be a more insipid place without pictures it would be even more so without language. Our ability to communicate our thoughts and ideas in language is what has led to the progress of humankind. Without language, our life would be a lonely existence, and even our thoughts would not be thoughts. The creativity of words in poetry, novels and public speaking is sometimes harder, and less exciting, to reflect in pictures, as Langer put it, "Public speaking would be very tedious if statesmen had to use the deaf-and-dumb language." Pictures have their place, they can convey messages quicker and make life easier and more exciting, but they are ultimately dependent on the social conditions created through language. So yes, pictures can be used to take the place of something spoken or written in words, but only under certain situations and conditions, which are themselves set by words and language. from ESSAYBANK BIBLIOGRAPHY: E.H.Gombrich - Art and Illusion. (Phaidon) 1977. H.Keller - The Story of my Life. (Garden City) 1936. S.K.Langer - Philosophy in a New Key. (Harvard) 1979. D.Novitz - Pictures and their use in Communication. (Nijhoff) 1977. F.Schier - Deeper into Pictures. (Cambridge) 1986.