As we know, when one wants to communicate something, one may chose different ways of doing so. For a very long time "The Word" itself was what brought insight. It's a recognized, strong tool, and according to The Bible (Genesis I) it was the tool of "God" himself: Yahweh spoke, and Woopsy, the Universe came into existence, actually out of nothing. So this transformation was brought about by a command in words. However, what ended up in the written words we know today must have started out in spoken words, e.g. by priests or so. And, of course, before these spoken words became written, they have changed and changed as well as been elaborated on through many centuries. Nothing wrong or strange in that, because that's how fables and fairy-tales worked in the early times of the human history.
Yahweh on a winged chariot
However, later on the strong tool of Yahweh, the word, was reused by not always all that godly humans, both for ordinary communications, but also for inventing their own "universes" in form of stories. Still, the word stayed strong and magical. As it is, it didn't get challenged until humans started to use more pictures for communicating reflections and ideologies. Religious pictures, like for instance the one of Yahweh on his winged chariot, developed into much more intricate formations, as did the word.
Such a picture, as e.g. this one from "The Middle Ages", tells an intricate story with several layers of understanding. Actually there are so many that we in our time period may not get to understand all of them, as neither words nor images may age well. To mediate everything in this picture would be difficult for the word to do on its own - strong or not. And what's more, the word works with making pictures, so why not elude any intricazies by aiming directly at the picture that one's words were to mediate? I would say, that that's only possible when the message is simple or a good representation of a very well-known phenomenon. In that case it's more like an illustration than anything else.
(Artist: Jens Galshiøt)
This crucified, pregnant woman gets its most potent symbol from the cross which alludes to the crucifiction of Jesus, but if we didn't know that story, it would be a strange piece of art indeed. There would be many different interpretations, and none of them would cover all of the implications of this specific artwork. The need for words would be felt very strongly by those who really, really wanted to know what this was about. Others, who saw it, might end up in 1) Disgust at the cruelty or 2) Disgust at the nakedness of this poor murdered woman, and both of that kind of disgusts would only be part of the message of this specific piece of art.
.jpeg)
