Quote:
Originally posted by norompanlasolas:
i agree with dramnek in his previous posts. i will not add more to his comments because he worded it beautifully and concise enough. brilliant remarks.
regarding books, they are by FAR the most effective means of communication.
there is one sinle little example to prove this. ask yourselves how many lives, how many things, how history has been changed by the effect of books. both in positive and negative ways. from plato, to machiavelli, to marx, to smith. they have influenced man, its ideas, concepts of life, inspired philosophies, created religions, have changed countries, made wars, peace, and put in motion changes that have driven civilization as we know it now.
now repeat the same question for movies and tv.
|
This is beside the point. No-one is contesting the value of books, nor that they don't communicate ideas. Besides you have given examples of times when there was no film. How can there be a comparision, if one of the subjects doesn't exist?
The contention was made by Dramnek that:
print media "is still the only serious medium to impart the complex and profound ideas that are so important to understand in becoming a better educated person."
I contended that film is actually a more effective medium in communicating ideas.
When bringing to bear all the benefits of books you are ignore the reality that, as has been stated, books have been around for hundreds of years. Reading/writing for thousands.
When writing first began, and indeed still within in the chinese language, it was/is a form of visual art. Held in place on walls and then on stone tablets, or flimsy papyrus it was hardly of the calibre books are now.
Compare this to the development of film, a hybrid of writing, visual art, drama, music, photography and dance/movement. It is at the moment the most complete medium.
How it is being used is irrelevent to the diuscussion. We are discussing the MEDIUM itself, not whether humans have harnessed it's POTENTIAL to it's fullest.
Think about it. A film could simply be written words scrolling up the screen. A moving book. It could be a film of a book, with each page filmed for a few seconds, to be paused on DVD.
A film can be everything a book is, yet can be so much more.
It could be those words simultaneously heard - a voice reading them aloud. Thus you're receiving two senses input. The more senses impacted the greater the memory retention.
As I have stated, Educators value the video. In one gesture an educator on video can SHOW a necessary action, whereas the book is open to confusion and misinterpretation.
As stated, propaganda and advertising are most effective using the film medium.
As stated, a good fiction writing includes LEAVING THINGS TO THE IMAGINATION. An acknowledgement of removing communication to enhance the receivers experience. Too much description in writing is a distraction, heavy, tedious. A film in one gesture, a flash, can show pages of descriptions in an instant.
There is no reason for people to get defensive here. I'm not writing off writing. I read a bible, I read history, I write, I've read politics, fiction, biographies, newspapers, atlases. Much knowledge have I gained from such an invaluable source. Were I to put my ideas down, I would clarify them in writing first, regardless of whether a film was built around the said writing or not.
What I am saying, is that film, in it's raw potential, minute for minute is a far better, far more effective means of communicating than the written word alone.
It includes, and expands upon that written word.
[ 05-10-2002, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]