You have seen a worm I take it? And sand?</font>[/QUOTE]Point is that "worm" is only the basic shape of the body and it is only described as such because it is a assumed that everyone on the earth knows what a worm is. Sand could also be described, but since most people know what it is that is not done.

But if we're going to do that, then in a movie. Have you ever been shot? If not then you can't really understand a movie where someone is shot. Have you ever been in space? If not then you can't truly understand a movie where someone is in space.

But this is the point! HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?! You have no way of knowing whether it's transmitted properly, because you are the receiver!</font>[/QUOTE]And there's no way for the communicator to transmit it properly either. He can transmit it properly for HIM, but not for everyone. Not all would experience it as he has.

Hey, Neb, how do we know we received Yorick's post in the intent it was transmitted?

Hell, how do you know YOU receive this one in its intent

WOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAHHHH!!!!

As you do with a film. It is the current choice to use the film medium in the fashion it is. If this is a limitation it is because of it's use.

Guys, try to think outside concrete examples and think of the two conceptually. Be hypothetical. If a film were made where the experience lasted as long as a books, think of all it would convey!

PLUS the emotional messages in the music. The wordless brethtaking beauty of a persons face or a skyline.

Again, how do you describe a beautiful man or woman. The way a persons face sits can often seem illogical if decribed in detail. Resorting to "it was beautiful" is lame, and resorts to the subjectivity of the receiver. SHOWING the face, a unique face, that is beautiful because of he inner emotions translating externally is again impossible to truly convey.

The description of a young woman holding in her excitement, eyes misting over in anticipation, lips apart with shallow breaths, and arms outstretched relies on a POINT OF REFERENCE.

A film at times needs none.

Yes there is. When the information feedback comes back to him/her they can then gauge the effectiveness of the communique.

If it resonate truly so that they recognise that which is tranmitted. One sees sucess.

[ 05-09-2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

As you do with a film. It is the current choice to use the film medium in the fashion it is. If this is a limitation it is because of it's use.

Guys, try to think outside concrete examples and think of the two conceptually. Be hypothetical. If a film were made where the experience lasted as long as a books, think of all it would convey!

PLUS the emotional messages in the music. The wordless brethtaking beauty of a persons face or a skyline.

Again, how do you describe a beautiful man or woman. The way a persons face sits can often seem illogical if decribed in detail. Resorting to "it was beautiful" is lame, and resorts to the subjectivity of the receiver. SHOWING the face, a unique face, that is beautiful because of he inner emotions translating externally is again impossible to truly convey.

The description of a young woman holding in her excitement, eyes misting over in anticipation, lips apart with shallow breaths, and arms outstretched relies on a POINT OF REFERENCE.

A film at times needs none.</font>[/QUOTE]No matter how long a film it cannot describe thoughts or emotions as a book can.

As for a movie's music, I can imagine that while reading a book too.

And listen, Yorick, perfect descriptions are not needed. Just a basic description and your mind supplies the rest. At least for me it does, perhaps you lack the imagination to visualize books so that they just don't affect you as much as movies do?

you're only giving a few examples yourself though. How do you portray what is going on in a aman's mind outsidede of a book? how do you realy the questions they are asking themselves? the doubts?

These are also abstract and often better portrayed in books

Yes there is. When the information feedback comes back to him/her they can then gauge the effectiveness of the communique.

If it resonate truly so that they recognise that which is tranmitted. One sees sucess.</font>[/QUOTE]Ummm..... The communicator can only transmit things as they would be for him. Not as they would be for others, just because others react in the same way is not enough, let us for example take the description of a sandwich:

You describe it in a way that makes you drool. By your definition you'd have described it correctly if it made me feel the same way. No, wrong. I might have the same reaction because you said there was BACON in the sandwich while you reacted that way because there was LETTUCE in the sandwich.

I don't think it's a matter of one of you being unable to do certain things, rather that your brain has a different perspective on.. perspective (hmm, strbge sentence) and you choose to see it the way you choose to see it, you won't be able to reddem all of their features to one another because in places they conflict.
I've always been interested in things like this involving the brain... if I was a psychiatrist I'd probably be unable to pry myself away from this conversation.

This has nothing to do with the level of effect on me as a receiver. How do you measure effect anyway?

I'm talking from a communicators perspective. I write words. I write and perform music. I act. I directed a visual multimedia show last month that incorperated dance, music, film, spoken word reading, live visual art (performance painting) and drama. Most of the artforms.

It was a wonderful experience, with exeptional people involved.

Anyhow the point is not to blow a trumpet, but to say that the different artforms communicate totally different things. The beauty of film is that it COMBINES many art forms into one, thus "multitasks" as it were.