The medium limits the message.
Marshall McLuhan said / wrote… “the medium is the message” but no one really has a clue as to what precisely he meant by that.
Theories, theories, theories…
My words on the other hand: “The medium limits the message” are much clearer, actually state a case.
It must be obvious that the medium employed always limits (or perhaps ‘determines’ is better) the message / outcome. The medium defines pathways through the visual forest that are otherwise invisible.
That which is subsequent to, or that follows on, from a carefully drawn pencil drawing will always be, and markedly so, different from that which follows on from marks made at the outset with a paint-laden brush.
A tram or train has to follow the tracks laid down for it to follow. If it leaves the tracks it is useless.
Same with art. Paint like Jack the Dripper and you’ll never create a Velazquez. Paint like Bacon but you’ll never create a Vincent.
Written words are not at all like painted pictures.
Are the thoughts they stimulate different in form too?