This is all setup and no resolution.Īnd I'm not sure how well it would work without having read the book, because I feel you do miss a lot when you don't have the worldbuilding, which is accomplished almost entirely by internal monologues in the book. Unfortunately, that also results in a really long movie so you only get the first half of the story, but all the action is in the second half. The problem with this newer version is it cuts the internal monologues, so much of the context, history, and character building is gone. The problem with the David Lynch version was it was so edited and short that key scenes were missing, making it confusing as heck to understand what was happening and why if you hadn't read the book. Martin could have used quill and ox blood and the books would be done if he was writing constantly. Since creative writing is a toil for most people anyway, it is unlikely faster typing or better wordprocessing will increase the speed of the final result that much. You want to use a typeface that most people can read - and write in a language others understand. But the paint does not need to be efficient or fast (who needs painting! We have cameras and printers!)Īnalogously, a writer likely wants a medium that has high enough contrast to be legible, and is robust. In visual art, you likely want a medium that is lightfast, does not physically detoriate and offers a standard set of pigments. "Efficiency" has no value in artistic process, unless it's part of the artwork. It does not matter what it is, as long as it facilitates the inspiration and getting the piece done.
I think the relationship of a writing utensil in work of art is similar to the functioning of artistic medium. There is place for industrial efficiency, and place for medium for art. And photography actually did (sadly) create a huge gap in academic art education. One could use the "we've advanced so far" as an argument against oil paints in visual medium.
0 kommentar(er)
