Where translation, art, and Sign collide

As we have already seen in class through examples of machine translations and translated jokes, it is very difficult to fully translate a word or sentence from one language to another: no matter what the interpreter does, he cannot convey in his translation all the implied meanings and cultural subtleties of a language. After all, what language could still maintain it uniqueness and richness--what language would still be interesting to study--if it was simple, straightforward, and indistinct enough to be perfectly translatable? Herein lies the paradox of art (in the sense of plays and films) and literature. Great art and literature are pieces that creatively approach and cleverly address universal issues, pieces that open the perspectives of and are relevant to every single human being on the planet. These pieces would enrich and should be made available to as many people as possible, and the best way to do so is through translation. Chances are, however, these great pieces became great also because of their wit, their subtleties, their multi-layered language--characteristics that obviously cannot be fully translated. My IHUM professor often tells us stories of his French colleagues ridiculing his claim to have read Albert Camus' The Stranger: "You haven't read it until you have read it in French," the French would argue.

As the article "Telling stories in silence" points out, Sign interpreters face the same problems when trying to translate a classic puppet show into Sign for a deaf audience. It's important to recognize that Sign here is a language--employing somewhat arbitrary symbols to communicate thoughts, rather than body language. Translating between languages encounters different problems from that between "spoken" and body language. Sign is, however, still a special language with its own special problems, especially during the translation of a puppet show or a play. Not only does a Sign interpreter has to determine how to communicate the idea of "blue bird of happiness" efficiently yet artistically, he needs to decide where best to position himself and how best to communicate himself so that he doesn't distract the audience from the play as a whole. Indeed, "with a play, the most difficult thing would be trying to avoid directing the focus of the audience to the interpreter, and letting the audience immerse themselves into the play itself." Chew, a professional Sign interpreter, believes that in these cases, straightforwardness is the answer. Best to be straightforward and risk losing some artistic or cultural subtleties, than to "go overboard and attempt to bring every detail of the play to life." This would only distract and ruin the show for the audience as a whole. Along with translation in the context of the new language's culture (the translator giving new meanings and artistic values to the work by translating from the first into the second language using the second's idioms and cultural context), this seems to be the most practical solution to the problems to translation that we have and will have to face for as long as our global culture shall live. What do you guys think?