sculpture is the supreme artform. literature and film might as well be tied for second or third.
Film, obviously is a collaborative effort, which makes it harder to assign 100% credit to one person, for that reason, perhaps literature is better. But film does combine aspects from several art forms, into one, in a way that other art forms don’t, which makes it different.
Define “better”.
Literature is older, so it has senority.
Sorry Matt, I don’t speak Spanish. :)
Most lit snobs i know aren’t into films too seriously. A good friend of mine recently completed his PhD in Russian and European literature and he only watches film for entertainment. He doesn’t like ‘art’ films because he thinks film is not the appropriate medium to get across those sort of ideas.
Each art form has its strengths and weaknesses. Just find the ones you enjoy and try to be as informed as possible. That’s my take. Forget about what’s superior.
So lit snobs don’t take film seriousley?
double post.
^^a lot of lit snobs don’t, no, at least not from my experience with them. They also tend to harp on about poor translations of books too. i.e all of them.;-)
Snobs are learned idiots. Film has been in the making since men had an imagination. Every attempt at art in every art form is an attempt at making Films.
Peter, I agree with you. I think that literature is better at both dealing with the senses, and at getting into peoples’ heads. That being said, there’s obviously much that film can do which literature can only attempt. It’s one of the reasons, I presume, that the “action novel” never really caught on, whereas the “action film” did all too well.
Savvy
I dont agree with this. ^^^^^^^
Peter, oh… Sorry.
Savvy
No I was pointing to the guy above you but then you posted right before I posted so it loks like I was pointing to you.
dbl post
Peter, ah, okay! It happens, eh? No worries!
Savvy
Not at all, there’s simply a higher quantity of better people who have happened to work in literature.
Film. No question.
It tries to do what Opera did, which is to combine all the major art forms. Film does an even better job of it, it is literature mixed with drama mixed with painting mixed with music. The possibilities are immense. I mean think of all you can do with words, then times that by like 3 other art forms. Now even if you can find more literary masterpieces than film doesn’t mean it’s better. Writing has been around for thousands of years, film is still developing. Anyways, literature is superior? That is such a passe notion. Literature may be better at certain things like narrative or presenting ideas, but film can do that too and so much more. Honestly, a more interesting debate would be literature vs. music. If you ask me, film triumphs over both.
-
Well, literature exists since human became human, but films aren’t that old.
It’s a very silly question, but I think Bruce got it right. When you think “Greatest artists of all time”, there aren’t too many directors that spring to mind.
“Literature may be better at certain things like narrative or presenting ideas, but film can do that too and so much more.”
What is this “much more”, exactly? Show us giant blue Na’vi cleavage?
“If you ask me, film triumphs over both.”
NO, all Arts are EQUAL!!!!!
“When you think “Greatest artists of all time”, there aren’t too many directors that spring to mind.”
that’s because distribution SUCKS!!!!!
BERJUAN
ABOUT 2 HOURS AGO
Report Abuse
Snobs are learned idiots. Film has been in the making since men had an imagination. Every attempt at art in every art form is an attempt at making Films.
^^the greatest quote about film ever.
You’re right Dimitris, one of the things that puts film at such a disadvantage is that it’s the most dependent on the economy.
Mozart, Shakespeare, Beethoven and Van Gogh all made art while being poor and lonely. We need more desperate filmmakers!
I like film more than other art forms, so in that way it is better for me, but I would not say it is catagorically better or anything. To be honest such a comparison between different artforms is a bit silly – they can all do amazing things some of which work well for some people, some of which work well for others. At the end of the day the only way you’re going to be able to even remotely appreciate an artform’s power and potential is if you love the fuck out of that artform – we’re all so incredibly ignorant of so much stuff, not least of which of so much art and the power that so many different pieces of art can have. Sure you might be able to choose which artform is better but doing so not only relies on a terribly misinformed view of things but is also reductive and wasteful. So films are better for me but they are not better. Literature is better for others but it is not better.
it’s easier to lose yourself in a film because you can’t read in the dark
Dimitris once again hits the nail on the head. How can one ‘art’ form be better than another?
C’mon, seriously.
i don’t understand why an art form should be better than another… iWhatever form it takes art is art. It’s only a very subjetctive matter not to decide which form is the best, but which form you prefer.
I don’t think saying one is better than the other is even worthwhile. I love literature, and I love film. Why should I place one above the other?
Peter H.
Some people think this. But I think niether is better then the other. They are good at doing different things.