Language is inherently flawed; Language will never be able to reciprocate exactly what is in one's minds eye. A great example which sheds light on the fallibility of language are Zen Koans. "Whats the sound of hand clapping?" An even more explicit example Jiufeng said, "That's right."2 The monastic said, "Sakyamuni emerged in this world, pointed to heaven and earth, and said, 'Above earth and under heaven, I alone am venerable.' How can you call him one who transmits words?"3 Jiufeng said, "I call him one who transmits words because he pointed to heaven and earth." Zen master Jiufeng Daoqian Dajue was once asked by a monastic, "I heard that you said that one who transmits words is outstanding among the sages. Is it true?"1
That's easy: either a crack, or a pop, depending on a handful of factors; you'll hear the difference when you encounter it. Language isn't flawed as much as it is incomplete. There are words missing for things perfectly commonplace not because there can't be any (because language is somehow flawed and incapable of transmitting those) but because there's little use to them. Here's a good example: what do you call the two lines on your face that come down from your nose to the extremes of your lips? It's not that there can't be a word - those lines happened to be meaningless to us, useless in daily life that we didn't bother to name them; when we have to, we call them long-hand "you know, those two lines that come down from nose to lips - yeah, those ones". Apparently, thinking of a name is more difficult or resource-inefficient in this situation. It's a fascinating condition that we've invented."Whats the sound of hand clapping?"
This would be true if only we were talking about knowing words themselves. The issue here is the definition and the inexplicable, not the word nor prevalency. We can point out those lines on your face because they are there, but this logic breaks down when talking about abstractions. Knowing what the two lines on your face are called and meeting head on with sudden short-term aphasia when trying to describe what "Art" or "God" is are two different scenarios and can't be compared.Here's a good example: what do you call the two lines on your face that come down from your nose to the extremes of your lips?
Well, I was talking about knowing words in the quote. Often enough, we merely don't have the lexicon to describe those, and had we it, we'd describe it just fine. However, I understand what you mean when you talk about what "Art" or "God" is, and I agree with you. Here, it's not what we lack the lexicon - it's that we lack the understanding of the idea, which is why it's impossible to describe. Yet... we understand it, at the same time, do we not? We can grasp that this is art and this isn't in a manner that's inaccessible to us yet working all the time. We understand art, but don't know it. Which means, to me, that there's some sort of idea of art in the background - subconsciousness, if you will - and with right words and ideas, we can probably access it - or, at least, move ourselves closer to understanding it. This is what fascinates me about it.