The phrase "linguistic art" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to describe the creative and expressive aspects of language, often in the context of literature, poetry, or rhetoric.
Example: "The poet's ability to weave emotions into words is a true example of linguistic art."
Alternatives: "language artistry" or "verbal creativity."
The psychoanalyst and literary critic Adam Phillips has discussed the relationship between poetry and therapy as "linguistic arts".
It is important to see his main contribution to science as one who advocated "scientific education" in an Arts Faculty that was predominantly dedicated to linguistic arts.
Apart from the communication field itself, the theory is commonly used as a reference in various fields such as philosophy, linguistic, arts and literature, archeology, architecture, mathematics and so on.
Heavily weighted in favor of the trivium the linguistic arts of grammar, rhetoric, and logic teaching in the quadrivium the four mathematical and scientific disciplines was somewhat limited, partially due to the prohibition of Aristotle's works in natural philosophy at Paris in 1210.
For one thing, as we saw, the model of non-linguistic art as merely sensuous and non-cognitive in the end proves unsustainable.
This unsatisfactoriness and inconsistency mainly result from Herder's oversight of a single fact: that it is perfectly possible to reconcile narrow expressivism with the attribution of thoughts to non-linguistic art, namely by insisting that the thoughts expressed by non-linguistic art must be derivative from and bounded by the artist's capacity for linguistic expression.
Since for Herder thought and language play important roles not only in linguistic but also in "non-linguistic" art, both for him present similar interpretive challenges, requiring similar interpretive solutions.
Where does this leave Schleiermacher in relation to the several issues bearing on his theory of interpretation and philosophy of language which, I suggested, encouraged him to undertake this investigation of non-linguistic art in the first place?
So "non-linguistic" art is really doubly dependent on thought and language: not only for the thoughts which it expresses but also for those which it presupposes in perception.
Moreover, not only does non-linguistic art turn out to have a cognitive content after all, but in addition this becomes clear from a case (the earliest Greek sculpture) in which the content in question is not trivial but deeply religious in character.
In his last cycle of aesthetics lectures (1832-3) Schleinitially initially pursues a very simple strategy for dealing with these issues arising in relation to non-linguistic art; however, he eventually realizes that the strategy in question is untenable, and abandons it for a more promising but also more ambiguous position.
