Quote:
Originally posted by Neb:
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.
|
The discussion was on which is the most effective medium. Dramnek stated that books are the only way to convey serious material, or words to the like.
Another quantifiable example is:
EDUCATION.
Teachers can actually measure the sucess of different mediums in transferrance of information. Through tests. Where possible, films are used. When I taught music, I would be playing music for the students (live or recorded), then analysing it wherever possible. It was pointless talking about things they had not heard.
As I posted, talking about music is like dancing about architecture.
Again, film is used for education in History, English, Geography, Sociology, Science and others.
Of course books are used. They are in greater supply, cheaper to make and use, and have existed longer. They are also great for referencing (though a DVD is catching up)
Writing as a medium has existed since the Egyptians. (What were the heiroglyphics BTW? Pictures.) It's had longer to develop as a medium. Film has been around for less than a hundred years. As it develops it gets better and better. Filmed documentaries for example show wildlife in a way a book (even using a picture - visual art) can only grasp at.
[ 05-09-2002, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]