Tuesday, April 27, 2004
If there is one thing I’ve learnt in my five years of trying to understand media, it is that when a person says “it cannot be explained in words,” it only means that that person does not understand it well enough to explain it in words.
fus — Apr 27, 2004 6:42:09 AM — # ↩
sumit_mittal — Apr 27, 2004 6:43:27 AM — # ↩
fus — Apr 27, 2004 6:47:41 AM — # ↩
on a totally unrelated parallel, a friend once asked if we did not know the word angst, would we feel angst ? that is turning the question on its head i guess
sumit_mittal — Apr 27, 2004 7:05:01 AM — # ↩
I was referring to those visions we have, those vivid images - indescribable & unimaginable without stimulus - the kind that painters have in their dreams. Van Gogh would've been a writer, had any language been good enuff to capture his 'visions'.
A website says "His work, all of it produced during a period of only 10 years, hauntingly conveys through its striking colour, coarse brushwork, and contoured forms the anguish of a mental illness that eventually resulted in suicide".
Can someone describe his paintings in mere words?
mannu — Apr 27, 2004 11:00:08 AM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2004 7:03:41 AM — # ↩
OTOH, if you don't know what an idli is yourself (maybe you ate one sometime long back but you don't remember what it was like or what it is made of), the best you can say is "it can't be described in words; you have to eat one to understand."
See my point?
fus — Apr 27, 2004 7:14:51 AM — # ↩
"it cant be described in words" is a superlative on an emotion, i mean that is the way i use it
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2004 8:31:41 AM — # ↩
1. Admit you don't know, and break the guy's heart. He'll stop worshipping you, maybe start to suspect you are not all-knowing like he thought you was. Then he'll start wondering why he ever worshipped you at all. Maybe in the long term he'll realise in the long term that you are human after all and he should just respect you for your willingness to share knowledge and your modesty.
2. Tell him it can't be described, he has to experience it for himself. In effect, reassert the relationship between you, that of you as the all-knowing and he of the knowledge seeker. Maybe in the long term he'll realise that you are pretentious, but maybe he won't. But how can you hurt your own pride by admitting you don't know?
Given the choice, I'll bet most people will drift towards option 2.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2004 8:38:34 AM — # ↩
s/you was/you were/
s/in the long term//
fus — Apr 27, 2004 12:26:08 PM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2004 3:59:35 PM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 28, 2004 5:52:27 PM — # ↩
Back in high school, we had two teachers A and G. A handled arts and G social sciences (although not for our class). Both involved themselves with the school Interact club.
On one occasion, A and G visited a slum/orphanage (can't recall) and came away rather moved. The next morning A interrupted an unruly class with a lecture on what she had seen. She spoke calmly, clearly, in considerable detail. By the time she was finished, each one of us had a lump in the throat. No one spoke for several minutes after.
A few hours later, G came in as a substitute teacher. She was late and the class was noisy, and it bothered her enough to launch into the same lecture as A. Except, she had trouble finding her words. Every time she tried to describe what she had seen, she would falter and exclaim in frustration. Finally she declared that we were spoilt, privileged kids and could never understand what those kids had it like. She did not know that A had already spoken to the class.
Did either A's or G's words substitute for the real experience? Certainly not. But what A gave us was a push in the right direction, the necessary empathy that would get us to go experience the real thing. G only managed to annoy us.
See my point now?
sumit_mittal — Apr 27, 2004 7:22:52 AM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2004 8:24:32 AM — # ↩
sumit_mittal — Apr 27, 2004 8:35:07 AM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2004 8:42:21 AM — # ↩
Peter Jackson successfully used film to convey an understanding of Tolkien's vision. He did not make a film that you the viewer didn't understand, and then turn his nose up and say you have to understand Tolkien/something-else to understand his film. Agree/Disagree?
sumit_mittal — Apr 27, 2004 9:06:59 AM — # ↩
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2004 10:05:10 AM — # ↩
When Tolkien describes stale air creeping along the ground as Frodo and Sam walk through the marsh ahead of Mordor, it has the same effect as Jackson's camerawork when Gandalf and Pippin ride Shadowfax into Minas Tirith. Somethings are better described in words, some better visually.
Tolkien did not say "the experience was so great, it cannot be described." Bisson did not write "this scene can't be described in words; go watch the film." Jackson did not complain "these words can't be converted into film; go read the book."
I say the whiners who claim it can't be described don't fully understand what they are trying to describe.
mannu — Apr 27, 2004 11:04:44 AM — # ↩
That's the point of your post. Everything can be described in words. Nicely explained in this comment.
basrya — Apr 27, 2004 9:52:57 AM — # ↩
In fact I just got out of a meeting where a vendor came with an offereing which he was unable to explain clearly, but his subordinate took barely 5 mins and belted out the details.
Some folks just don't get it.
yellosonja — Apr 27, 2004 1:03:31 PM — # ↩
Sometimes it is a lack of understanding/ inability to verbally articulate your experience/ point of view that makes you say that you cannot describe that something in words, but that isn’t the case always. There are times when something just really can’t be described in words, and there are no two ways about that.
For example; explaining an Idli to an American is fairy simple ‘cause there are similar forms of food that you can compare it with in relation to the food in America.
But there could also be a possibility that you aren’t exposed to the same to make the connection or you don’t know words, like sponge cake or rice dumpling hence making your inability to express what an idli is a problem of a lack of skill in language and exposure to communicate it and not pretentiousness in not knowing what an idli really is.
In relation, how would you describe something more complex like a Mysore pak or something much more basic like sweet?
On another note; sometimes one does know fully well what something means but doesn’t see no justice in explaining it.
Explaining a Telugu joke in English for instance, (you need to understand the language to get it like it is) or even a Quawali in urdu, which just isn’t worth displacing it into a different linguistic context by translation.
Messages cannot be fully translated from one medium to another.
In relation to ’s comment, if Vincent Van Gogh could have describe his painting in words he’d have rather written, so would have been the case with Beethoven or Mozart – could they have verbally explained their music instead? (Painting cannot be music or writing cannot be dance)
There cannot be displacement from one medium to another by words always. It is true however that often at the core the ideas are the same across various means of communication. But diffrent forms are needed and lend themselves to emphasizing on different aspects of one idea. You can’t interchange a form for an aspect; eg: words for visuals, or radio for t.v. To quote Marshal McLuhan in this context, “ It’s the medium that’s the message.”
As for an inability to understand a medium, you could attempt to study it; but it’s not always by study (which mind you isn’t always verbal) that communication is overcome.
There are things that can be articulated with words like simple acts such as kisses – an attempt to share/communicate the same verbally often results in making the experience repulsive, and however advanced your verbal skill; that’ll never work.
To sum it up there are some things a pity, which you either get it or you don’t, and that's unfortunately just the way it is.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 27, 2004 3:52:01 PM — # ↩
1. The conveyor's vocabulary is lacking.
2. There is no connection between item to be explained and recipient's understanding of the world, hence no way to bridge it.
3. The conveyor could explain, but it would take so long, or lose some of the nuances introduced by language, that it unworthy of the effort.
All of which justifies the conveyor saying "I cannot explain it in words." But how does one justify the attitude "It cannot be explained in words?"