Text-based art comes with an inherent flaw: it is almost counterintuitive to what the mind’s eye envisions. According to neuro-scientists, the cognitive functions of reading and observing fall into two separate yet interdependent hemispheres in our brain; the digital brain (left hemisphere) and the analog brain (the right hemisphere). Considering this divergence, if one is not fluent or familiar in the same lingo utilized by an artist, it can be tantamount to driving hopelessly in a foreign land without the assistance of Google Maps. If vernacular is the means to communicate, then surely a slight proficiency in that (the artist’s) tongue is needed as prerequisite for its apprehension. Or is it? Can text-based art still have meaning if the viewer is at a total loss in comprehending the words they’re seeing—or trying to read? Especially if those artworks are mere bulletin, advert, or catchy Bumper Sticker phrasing lacking any texture, unique styling fonts, and or funky coloring—as NYC-born graffiti so magnificently possessed. Furthermore, languages have nuances the way artist’s have styles, they are varied and complex. Many words have multiple definitions and some words change meaning by way of intonation, which is why understanding jokes in a language not one’s own is a difficult feat.