Directed to art, interpretation means plucking a set of elements (the X, the Y, the Z, and so forth) from the whole work. The task of interpretation is virtually one of translation. The interpreter says, Look, don’t you see that X is really – or, really means – A? That Y is really B? That Z is really C? (Sontag.S, 1966. pg.3).

Sontag argues that ‘plucking’ parts from an artwork prevents the viewer from considering the piece as a whole. In the sense of a pictogram, would reading certain marks and shapes separately obstruct understanding? Meteorologists communicate things like weather patterns through symbols (fig.11). Like Xu Bing, they combine symbols to develop or change the meaning; an asterisk means snow and an upside down triangle means storm, so together a snowstorm (Nigel Holmes, 2017). If interpreted in parts it means two different things. Does this hinder a universal visual language, or create a flexibility to understand the same symbol in alternative ways?

During the 60s and 70s Charles K. Bliss developed a communication system called Blissymbolics. It is a language formed through pictograms and ideograms, a mixture of both literal and abstract characters (Blissymbolics, 2017). Many of the symbols are interchangeable and can mean many different things. An arrow pointing away from a door means exit, but when pointed inwards means entrance (fig.12). Pictorial symbols can be used in associative ways according to the writer, but how transferable is a pictogram or ideogram to the reader? A wavy line (fig.13) could mean smoke when positioned vertically above an image of a house, or water if placed horizontally. (Holmes.N, 2016). As with Isotype in Nigeria, society, culture and infrastructure looked different, so a representational pictogram would need to be changed, but when all cultures have water, would a wavy line allow people to associate or interpret this to be water? In Ancient cultures, pictorial symbols representing simple, everyday things but varied greatly between nations (Citation) (fig.14). Even today we associate things differently to other societies. If we found commonality between how we understand shapes and signs, it would be integral to designing a universal language.