Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Neb:
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?
|
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.[/QUOTE]That might be where we are missing each other's points. I'm of the opinion that books are better for the reciever and gives him/her more mental stimulation than a movie does. Whereas you are suddenly talking about how much you enjoyed being the communicator, what has that got to do with the topic of whether movies or books are the better medium?
The discussion was never which one combined the most of the artforms in one. And yes, movies communicate other things than books, which, like I said, provides less mental stimulation from my point of view.