http://strawpoll.me/6613070

>>7614018
A great film and a great piece of music are better than a great book, but books generally tend to be of better quality than the average movie or song.

>>7614030
>found the virgin

>>7614030
we got a live one

>>7614030

said a guy on /lit/

90% of everything is shit

>>7614033
>>7614039
Because film is a blend of different art forms, if everything is on point then the greatness is compounded. But if everything is shit -- the screenplay is shit, the acting is shit, the cinematography is shit, etc. -- then it's super duper shitty, worse than even the shittiest romance novels.

So to all the people voting yes, can you give a reason?

>>7614042
Hah, joke's on you! I mostly read genre fiction, so everything i read is shit.

File: books master race.jpg (89KB, 1185x622px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1185x622px

>>7614047

File: neckbeard-trilby.jpg (38KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 479x720px

>>7614058

>I'm actually humble

>>7614047
It lets you understand and appreciate everything else more.

>>7614064
The question wasn't "why are books good", it was "why are books better than other media". You can say the same thing about movies or music. They can all contain the same ideas present in books.

>>7614069

Because it's my passion and I want to look down on people who have other passions and life views

>>7614071
This is the right answer.

>>7614030
>a great film and a great piece of music are better than a great book
back to leddit. film is a shit-tier medium that is just gimmick after gimmick. music is so subjective it's impossible to make an objective distinction.

>>7614030
literally the opposite

literature is the only form that achieves true transcendental highs

but a shitty movie like die hard 5 is far more enjoyable than a shitty book like The Corrections

anybody who votes No is a cuck. own your shit, m8s, you know you're thinking Yes.

>>7614018
Honestly, it's like >>7614058 said.
Books do require a lot more concentration, and higher literature also requires a good vocabulary, and knowledge of other books to really enjoy, which makes it self perpetuating. Plus it's scientifically proven that reading enhances brain connectivity and function
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201401/reading-fiction-improves-brain-connectivity-and-function

And improves your ability to empathize with others
http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2013/oct/08/literary-fiction-improves-empathy-study

All of which I think we can agree are good things.
Simply put its the most mentally stimulating and active form of media. You can argue that it doesn't matter if you're smart or able to understand other people, but I'd argue that that is just about all that matters.

>>7614101
Nope. I'm cultured in all forms of media.

I think you can learn a lot from films and books alike. Music is cool too.

>>7614109
ew

>>7614107

You can't enjoy a book at the same time with your family or loved ones like music or movies. Also at the of the day, it's still just entertainment and arguing what is the best entertainment is retarded.

If you want to learn shit you're better of reading scientific books, you still need to go to the gym to be healthy, you still need to travel to experience other cultures.

>>7614107
I agree that reading requires a much more active effort in general than listening to music, or watching film. I don't think that makes it inherently better though. Listening to certain types of music has benefits of its own as well.

Power Ranking

Reading>Music>Film

but that doesn't mean a film can't be better than a book, so you can't say one is inherently better than the other.

>>7614136
Art is never enjoyed "together"
Art can only ever be percieved alone.

>>7614152
Then how can you explain enjoying a book? The author would have had to write it for you to enjoy it, something you didn't do yourself.

>>7614140
If you're talking about just active effort than surely things like video games would be at the top of the list over reading.

>>7614155
You're implying the author enjoyed his work.

>>7614158
No, I said nothing of the author's enjoyment.

>>7614157

Not that guy. But I probably agree. The only thing is that at the moment videogames are young and barely have had time to produce something worthy of praise.

But I'd imagine that with the advent of virtual reality, a good game which sets the player in the middle of the hollocaust would be easily able to top Anne Frank diary or Schindlers list

>>7614161
Well then maybe you misunderstand what I said, so I'll rephrase. Essentially, every work of art is experienced alone. The information is filtered in through your subjective lenses, and enjoyed by you in a different way than its enjoyed by someone else. That doesn't mean the things you enjoyed didn't correlate, just that they weren't the same. Which is what I meant by an inability to experience it "together" I think art itself is inherently lonely, so I can't recognize an argument that being able to enjoy it with people makes it any better or worse.

>>7614185
Following that logic, what is an example of something you can do together?

>>7614190
Acid.

>>7614190
I suppose any activity that doesn't have to happen in the brain. Frisbee.

>>7614157
Video games don't take much effort though. There is not as much of a mental strain as when reading... Most non-competitive games feel like they are on train tracks and when the story is as dull as they tend to be it gets boring fast

Dorf Fort and Aurora are my games

>>7614018
Better? How do you mean?

>>7614251
You have shit taste in vidya

Mediums are irrelevant, it's what comes from the medium that matters. Medium is just a tool, for conveying things ranging from short children's books to Finnegans Wake, Twinkle Little Star to Philip Glass, etc. This argument is stupid. Mediums are quite basic at a fundamental level.

>>7614018

> what MEDIUM is le best ART

this is how you can tell someone who's in still an undergrad btw

>>7614285
I'm still in undergrad (community college actually) and I'm the poster above you. Plenty of grad students think this way too.

>>7614305
>community college
Get outta town. My friends Bobby-Jo and Sally-May go to community college. Nurse and Mechanic. Well I'll be gul-dern.

>>7614285
>>7614285
actually one of hegel's long winded ass lectures on aesthetics is precisely about the hierarchy of media and which is the highest form of art, are you saying hegel is an undergrad? stay pleb shitlord

>>7614316
I meant it to signify that your level of education doesn't necessarily mean you're going to have limited views on issues like OP's. You can calm down now.

>>7614107
>knowledge of other books to really enjoy
Same could be said for film

>>7614340
Quality post, friend.

>>7614336
Hyuck Hyuck, you funny man. All that fancy book learnin' musta done you some good.

File: whymusticry.jpg (7KB, 260x194px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 260x194px

I think that film has the power to be the greatest art form, it's just the current state of the film industry does not allow it.

Think about it, film is the culmination of writing, music and paintings/artworks. Whereas you would get so sucked in, so involved with a painting in a gallery or an orchestra in a concert hall, film can combine them all. To be seeing things aesthetically gorgeous, hearing a score that unnerves you and makes you shiver, for the writing to be of such high quality it is like a Shakespeare play itself... you get the picture.

Only that it's rare for the three different art forms to merge and create such a perfect formation. With money hungry producers having felt the oil beneath the earth, pulsing about and occasionally striking black rain within the waves of what is trending at the time, well, they realise that 'we' want entertainment. 'We' want people getting shot and bass heavy music we recognize from the radio and lots of red splattered on walls and sex and crying and 'drama' and for the picture to deal with modern 'issues'.

There are exceptions, sure; but still, I believe we are yet to even come close to the beauty cinema can achieve. Feature films are only a little over a hundred years old. Writing and music goes much further back. With the slump film has settled itself in comfortably, I believe it will take some time for it to be knocked back out onto a more experimental and lustrous pathway, but within our lifespans we may get small glimpses of a far-off future of film where it is the art form standing atop a podium, a perfect culmination of art forms that have long since proven their worth in the world.

>>7614047
Because they're longer, they're more in depth, and they tend to have a lot more themes in them.
Whenever I read a good book I feel like it has changed me in some small way. I've never felt that after listening to an album or watching a film. Some films have really moved me but that's about it.

>>7614058
>these are the faces of /lit/
Kill me

File: 1426814670702.jpg (42KB, 399x388px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 399x388px

All the people saying no need to GET THE FUCK OFF MY BOARD

>>7614393
But the fact that it's an amalgam of the three is the very reason it can never be as great as any other singular art form.
Jack of all trades, master of none.

>>7614397
That's not the face of /lit/, faggot.
/lit/ doesn't have that level of self worth.

>>7614336
OP didn't state his view though. It's a poll, and a poll that you also fit in to. You fit in to the "no" answer, which 50% of people voted for.

>>7614448
At least 25% are contrarians doing the inter net trolling.

File: 1435009266452.png (879KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

879KB, 800x800px

>>7614393
Simply smashing various genres of art together doesn't create one super artform, it creates a bastardised hodgepodge of various media all of which would be better off on their own. Will the best music ever exist in film? Will the best writing ever exist in film? Will the best "paintings/artworks" (your term) ever exist in film? Any fair-minded view must answer no to all of the above. The fact that the experiment of shoving as many other artforms into the large hadron collider and seeing what comes out hasn't yielded anything even remotely comparable with the heights of literature is not attributable to "money hungry producers" or "the state of the film industry". It's attributable to the fact that film is simply an inferior artform. Deal w/ it.

>>7614047
I started to give a proper reply to this and my reply started to turn into an essay. Why work when I can shitpost?

>>7614454
How can you be contrarian on a poll that's split 50/50? Even if it's 75/25 as you claim, that's hardly contrarian.

>>7614091
yeah, this one

Objective Answer here lads

literature = art music > film

>>7614468
Uh. I mean that's pretty contrarian.
You're that community college guy, huh?

>>7614493
50/50 is contrarian?

>>7614018
It IS better, but not inherently.

>>7614456
But the fact that literature as an art form has been around for centuries and has developed to the current stage (although the current stage is not a good one, only a handful or two of truly transcendent pieces of lit have come out within the last century) means nothing to you? With film having only been around for a little over a century is it so impossible to imagine that one day it will reach such a height that it overcomes all previous faults? What about when VR technology advances to such a level that film truly becomes something transcendental; to have your sights and sounds picked out by some great master and merge them together to push the viewer into such a world, force them into a story and experience it as if they were there themselves?

Of course it is but a dream, nothing more than a potential idea of years to come, but just because the first hundred plus years of film's life have not been on par with the greatest of literature's life, does not mean it won't come about.

We are in a slump of art. Golden ages have passed but will come around again at some stage.

But you might all be dead when it does.

>>7614533
He says that he will never die.

>>7614018
I swear to god someone is fucking around with proxies to make it even

>>7614266
>implying I've played any vidya since turning 14

>>7614556
Then don't talk about it if you don't understand it

>>7614533
No you idiot, with the extreme surge in literacy, communication, and art technology, content is being produced faster than ever.

>>7614018
'Reading' isn't a medium.

>>7614033
Back to 9gag

>>7614533
>We are in a slump of art. Golden ages have passed but will come around again at some stage.
You know it's interesting you say that considering most of the books you probably consider good literature were not treated that way in their time.

>>7614714
Text is.

There are plenty of other mediums more suited to sharing artistic vision than literature. Most other forms of art don't suffer the same barriers. A painting is not going to be as diminished in message over cultural barriers, as compared to say a book who's beauty can likely only be appreciated by one who knows the language and culture naively. Furthermore words are an abstraction further removed from pure senses like vision and hearing, and is constrained by that as well.