>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
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.
>>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.
>>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
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.
>>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
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
Thread replies: 73 Thread images: 6
Thread DB ID: 455686
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.