An example of a translation for a painter is, if you see the face of a person who is exceedingly angry, one deduces their mental state from the expression on their face, distortion of the features, especially the eyes and mouth. These outward signs of anger need no translation; it is what lies behind the facial expression, that which produces the facial expression, the actual mental state that has to be translated into visual terms. Scientific graphs are of interest, being a record of a mental state, then being translated into graphical patterns, but void of the in-depth imagery being pursued by a painter.
It has to be born in mind that that which is translation from the non-visual to the visual, has to be subjected to strict scrutiny and assessment. Heidegger’s use of the word authentic should be kept in mind to get to the core of the subject free of misconceptions and preconceptions.
I quite understand if it is pointed out that the facial expression alone of a person is the true pre-occupation of the visual artist.
When it comes to the use of colour and form as a means of representation, or expression; to find and establish obscure areas of experience; limitations of both colour and form become obvious. No lexicon is at the disposal of the painter, there to establish a universally recognized meaning in visual presentation, (traffic lights not being in an ‘obscure’ category).
Even the writer/poet who has a craft which is locked into academic restraint for clarity and definition of work, a true lexicon, has readers finding in a poem, or prose, significances, often moving, that were not thought of by the poet when writing the poem. A situation T.S. Elliot was happy to go along with. The poem was indeed working for the reader.
So we painters should also happily accept misinterpretation of our work however it is working.
Ludwig Wittgenstein in his linguistic philosophy used words as a painter uses colours and forms to explore areas of interest. Even areas where eventually works, colours and forms reach their limits imposed by a lexicon or accepted reaction to use of them, beyond which expression, verbal or visual can become rudderless but not necessarily void.
This limitation in words is stated profoundly on the well known last page of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. It is also applicable to color and especially to forms which never the less can evolve into new and exciting hard to define conclusions.
To be honest with oneself as to how authentic ones images are, free of wishful thinking, make-believe and self deception is to ask. Are they representative, or analogical or analytical? Are they authentic in Heidegger’s use of the word as an objective fact that stands on its own? Heidegger frowned on pre-conceptions being imposed on his propositions, which gives pause to we artists whose main driving force is his or her unique imagination, which we apply with zeal for clarity of vision and always will (maybe after a pause).