Art is structured like a language. It is simultaneously a conscious and intentional mental activity and a a greater amount of irrational, unconscious form of expression. Art can involve a sense of sudden exhilaration and liberation and also contain a mass of intellectual and emotional reactions. Art has the power to evoke emotions and the power to shock, confuse, repel and enlighten. Language has really similar characteristics. Language is a tool we use to communicate with one a new and to express our emotions and thoughts. Through the terminology of art we can also communicate and evoke response within the viewer.

Does artistic instigating lie beyond the sayable and therefore cannot be captured in language or does form in art function as a determinant if its expressive or emotional content is beyond the reach of language?

The nature and identity of the work of art is examined. If an object is created in the imagination; performs it rest on a theory of linguistic expression? When we use language, it functions to communicate cognitive meaning and art operates to communicate emotive meaning.

In the case of deaf Residual artists, is their art structured like a language? Language is not only verbal it can also be sign slang and symbols. For a deaf person symbols and signal language give meaning and mental form from which he relies on to create his art.

Ideas only can be works of art; they are in a mental chain of development that might find some form. Ideas are based on language, so during language and symbols we can create art. Conceptual art is based on ideas; it is made to engage the mind of the viewer alternatively than his eye or emotions.
The more you study this topic the a greater number of you notice that you can not separate art for language. Art is language and language is art.