Tfw every good philosopher says that music is the superior art form, I like music more than literature...

Hey /mu/tant here

Aren't movies superior to both because they combine literature, music and animation?

No.

I've seen poems that do more in a single page than so many novels and movies. It's ultimately about the skill of the artist.

don't worry OP, you are not a literary genius either

Hahahahaha

this

btfo

According to Vladimir Lenin, movies were the most important art form because they formulated ideology for the illiterate proletariat.

lesser works by the nature of dissected arts, each existing as their own platform (except animation) are superior for their lack of limitations. by these couplings of the primary arts, the power of communication and influence is mitigated, as they are met with the boundaries of each other. no matter how smooth the synthesis, there can be no superior works derived. the arts, they clash in their limitlessness, you fucking pleb. besides. music is merely a language being spoken with extensions of the flesh, so they fall under literature. paintings are also the placement of colored elements, which is another example of a written language.

He was ignorant of the power of memes

image macros combine literature and art
aren't they superior ?

>it would be foolish.
and god forbid someone had an "original" thought

my vote? architecture for best form of art

You can have a poem within a movie.
It's pretty obvious movies(and moving pictures/animation in general) are a superior artform to literature and music

You are absolutely wrong user. the combination of animation, literature and music enhances the experience of the audience, making movies a superior artform

>According to Vladimir Lenin, movies were the most important art form because they formulated ideology for the illiterate proletariat.
uhh, that's been the function of stories since Day 0 of humanity.

Why do you think Jesus taught in parables?

oh, i see. you're one of those jen-you-wine nitwits.
the measure of an art is not in the excited response of a group of dunces shoveling popcorn into their orifices.

Stories have to be written and recorded to be remembered. All you have to do to watch a movie is stare at people walking around on a screen.

Let me give you an example of how visual stimulants and audio stimulants can enhance one another:

youtube.com/watch?v=F7bKe_Zgk4o

Experience it for yourself.

>stories have to be written and recorded to be remembered
>what are oral traditions

>Stories have to be written and recorded to be remembered.
The best stories are incredibly memorable, especially if they convey their themes properly.

And oral traditions have existed for thousands of years so your assertion is just plain false.

>i literally cannot comprehend the words presented to me, let alone analyze and respond to them, here, listen to my song, it fails to illustrate any response to what you just said
no wonder you need film, you're illiterate.

No. You assume that art forms simply add up their qualities, but that isn't true. In fact, each of those art forms that form movies are hindered and can't use their full potential. A movie could never capture the grandiosity of an epic poem or the beautiful modernist or romanticist prose. Film music will shine only on special occasions, maybe 10 minutes in total (if the composer is particularly talented, such as Ennio Morricone or Eduard Artemyev, and the director recognizes and uses their talent properly). It can never be as complex and self-sufficient as a real composition. The acting is less demanding as well, it is hidden under all the other elements of the work, while in a real play the actor stands alone on the stage and can truly and completely shine (or crash and burn).

a pen and paper vs compared to the millions required to shoot and produce a film that is typically a pile of trash
that's what i was trying to convey to the guy, but he's a fucking burn out, probably smoking his bowl between posts.

I understood what you wrote, but i felt like you had a very ignorant view of what the combination of audio and video can achieve.

So i gave you an example which shows how combining different artforms can enhance the experience of the audience, not take away from it.

i rest my case.

> A movie could never capture the grandiosity of an epic poem or the beautiful modernist or romanticist prose

objectively false because movies can contain poems within them (and they do)

>Nietzsche, Adorno
>Good philosophers
Toplel they might be mediocre or decent, but they're not that great. They're basiccally both for edgy anti-liberal contrarians.

then it is still the poem itself that is of merit. the filming is merely a vehicle for the literature that would be better consumed in print. fuck sake.

Name one (1) movie that ultiizes poetry with as much skill and impact as Frost's "The Hill Wife"

Movies can do literally everything literature can do and then much more.

I'm a /mu/tant yet i acknowledge movies is a superior artform to music because visual stimulants can enhance audio stimulants

A movie can contain whole Iliad or In Search of Lost Time, recited or narrated by a character? I wasn't talking about sonnets and other lyric poetry, I wrote "epic poem" explicitly.

I never read Frost's "The Hill Wife" because i'm not that much into literature since it's an inferior artform. don't get me wrong, books and poems can still be amazing, but they cannot achieve the same impact a movie or music can get. at least for me

I just happened to come across this thread. I saw it's about music so i came to post here

this is why videogames are superior to movies. the most important thing in a work of art is immersion. a child knows this intuitively.

Videogames are like movies but with an element of audience interaction.

They potentially CAN be a superior artform and they should not be underestimated

can a movie convey a synthesis of non-verbal or sound associated and purely symbolic abstract concepts without the aid of any images other than the symbols themselves without simply being a book?

A movie can convey anything a book can convey because a movie can convey entire books.

But a book can never convey the abstract art this combination of audio and visuals is creating:
youtube.com/watch?v=3PE50PZG5aw

I have to second this and I don't particularly like movies or videogames. The only advantage movies have to videogames besides being less dependant on a high budget is the ability to zone out when you are tired and I don't consider that an advantage unless I am tired

>movies
>resource intensive (actors, sets, music, writers, dirctios, etc) and very expensive if you want quality
>limited by timeframes (tell the story within 2 hours or else)
>the weakest link among your circus troupe can send the whole thing falling apart
>also limited by technological advances

>Literature
>resource efficint, literally just need a pen and paper
>is not limited by technology or timeframes
>extreme flexibility with how you convey your story, backed by centuries of refined technique
>in the end it's just you and your skill, how well you can give the reader the experience of the scenes and ideas you're trying to convey

one can literally describe everything in that video, and does through code, a written language. they could even use individual symbols for each note, every sound, describe the images with a list of every pixel.
the real problem is you. not the purity of the primary art.
also, you once again misunderstood my post. can a film convey ANYTHING non-sound or image related? a book can.

t. I do not understand Nietzsche

>inb4 hur dur you can just use a video of a book
not only does that show the superiority of the book itself, it also is an image. do you know what an image is?

Describing every pixel and every sound in that video wouldn't be the same piece of art.

It won't have the same impact, it would be an entirely different artistic experience.

>i'm not that much into literature
>but I still can lecture you on its expressive possibilities
Yeah... fuck off you insufferable cunt. You are an exhibitionist at this point. Every time I see you posting you turn out to be terribly pretentious and uneducated, everyone goes into great detail explaining why you are wrong but you just stubbornly keep shitposting.

the interpretation would be the same if the language were precise enough.
i'll explain to you again the fact that there is a language controlling every aspect of that video. it has simulated through language, a movie.

literature literally has the ability to produce a video, and by so doing, demonstrates its vast superiority to film itself.

Rule #5 of Veeky Forums

Tripfags are shitposters unless proven otherwise.

You don't need to read every book in the universe to know literature can't make bleep bloop sounds.

The fact literature is inherently an inferior artform doesn't mean you can't still enjoy it. maybe you actually like the inferior ability to express things because it gives you more room for imagination

>cannot achieve the same impact
They can they are just more dependent on the intelligence of the audience.
Out of interest how many books over fifty years old have you read?

1. It's still a VASTLY different artistic experience. describing a color is not the same as seeing it directly. it does not even stimulate the same parts of your brain

2. You ignore that films can have words in them and contain the entire book you are talking about within the film

>my brain lacks the mechanisms required simulate sounds in a mental realm of my own creation through interpretations of symbols on a page, even though billions of children are able to do it.

Imagining a sound does not stimulate the same parts of your brain as hearing a sound directly, which makes it an objectively different experience

Maybe. Just because it appeals.to more senses doesn't make it the greatest. The content transcends the medium, as opposed to the old adage of the medium being a message.

GWF Hegel would like a word with you..

you fucking nitwit, a written language is responsible for the video you posted. it would not exist, this video, without a literary feat.
the very mathematics and science required to craft these machines are expressed in a language, yet another feat of literature.

You're not as smart as you think you are
>maybe you actually like the inferior ability to express things because it gives you more room for imagination
See? You talk about banalities that would make anyone with actual knowledge of art want to shoot themselves out of frustration.

I agree that the content matters more than the medium.

I think literature is an inferior medium to films, but i read some incredible books in my life that i really enjoyed (some favs: The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, The Neverending Story
)

(inb4 people here call me pleb)

i agree, objectively different in that the imagined sound is superior, as it is versatile in the abstract without relying on limited resources to produce itself.

I'm exactly as smart as i think i am, actually.
My IQ has been professionally tested 3 times, and i have an exceptionally high IQ which puts me within the top 1% of the population in terms of intelligence

I only say it because you incorrectly claimed "you are not as smart as you think you are"

>some favs: The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, The Neverending Story
it's like fucking pottery

A movie can tell you to imagine sounds AND give you actual sounds.

And btw i think actual sounds have a greater emotional impact than imagined sounds. just my opinion here

I'm not that much into books user.
Why do you think The Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy and The Neverending Story are bad?

because your imagination is limited. just like the scope of your ability to rationalise and debate. immensely limited.

>My IQ has been professionally tested 3 times, and i have an exceptionally high IQ which puts me within the top 1% of the population in terms of intelligence
Average tripfag

Stop giving attention to the tripfag.

The imagination of everyone is limited

Try to imagine a 4 dimensional object. your brain is objectively incapable of that, see?

I will give you another example. this time something which is physically possible: imagine a polygon which is made from exactly 1,000 lines. oh this cannot be done either since it's too complicated for our imagination to create.

There you go user, now you know imagination has limits.

>Genre fiction

I don't think they are bad, but they are children's books and now you are explaining literature to people who have fairly extensive knowledge of philosophy and literary history. A meme here is that you should "start with the Greeks" but you're probably the type of person that thinks Homer described the Trojan horse.

>four dimensional object
a sphere moving in spacetime, a rubber ball. done.
also a tesseract for good measure.
i can imagine the polygon in mathematical terms. score yet another along an infinite course for literature.

I was talking about the four dimension as having four axis in space, not 3 axis of space + time

You cannot possibly imagine how a tessarect looks like, you can only imagine 3d representation of a tessarect.

Also you did not imagine the 1000 lines polygon, user. just acknowledging it has 1,000 lines is not the same as actually drawing all of them in your imagination.

Just admit imagination has limits, its not hard user. your brain is not a machine with infinite capabilities

with training, a mind could concievably imagine a 1k polygon, and in terms of the tesseract, watching a thing fold in on itself within the mind's eye to the extent that the physical manifestation of your imagination begins to fold in onto itself, creating a wormhole through which the universe can pass, yes. easily possible. i do it as a meditative exercise. sorry you're so mentally gimped, "crazygay"

i listed the ones who put music on top of their tier-list, retard. not the good ones.

apart from plato even their music aesthetics sucked. js bach isnt allowed to exist in schopenhauer's system. nietzsche was a wagner-cuck until almost the very end. and adorno just wanted to destroy music.

Ugh

1. Your brain has a physical limit as to how much details it can imagine. i doubt you will be able to imagine a 1k polygon even with practice

2. The rest of your post is nonsensical garbage. you cannot imagine a tessarect since you cannot imagine space which is made from 4 axis

Imagine an n-dimensional object, then. If you can do that, imagine an n+1 dimensional object. Repeat until mental failure.

>t. pleb who can't even comprehend a simple tesseract
i'm done with you, simpleton. face it, your understanding of the very world around you is flawed. you have shit taste in music, film, and literature, you are a pleb. face the fact.

Every thread this trip touches turns to shit.

>good
>philosopher

Literature forces you to imagine what you read in order for you to comprehend it. You can instantaneously interpret music. If the common objective is to force an experience upon the perceiver, both are successful. The efficiency of the two is highly subjective to the effect intended.

Kant and Hegel did not hate music, they just liked it in the same way people liked ot in baroque: they wanted something serious and light-hearted, rooted in tradition and never pretentious.
Kant did not like the musicians of his time (who were building the stil galant, which culminates with Mozart and Haydn, on the basis of the worka of CPE Bach) since he considered them shallow and superficial (this includes the aforementioned Haydn and Mozart), Hegel did not like the music of Weber and Beethoven because it was too impulsive and too emotionally extreme for his extremely conservative tastes. Still, they both listened to music for pleasure quite often, so it would be wrong to say that they hated it.

That user is a retard, but you have not proven him wrong. At the very best you could imagine a 3d representation of a rotating tesseract (and even that would be extremely complex, since you would have to study the math needed to imagine the tesseract's exact movements over time), and even then, that would not include any representation of the space that surrounds said polygon. Don't argue with it, he is right: you can't imagine anything in 4D, nor you can imagine extremely complex figures: your mind has infinite potential, but it's still limited when it comes to its actual capacities

I'm sure there is no evidence of anyone having been able to do such a thing in human history.
>tfw I read the rest of the post
Fuck you, I've taken you seriously for almost 3 paragraphs. You make me sick.

Music can be read too, in fact you should do so. Listening Western art music without knowing how to recognize pitches (this includes lots of ear training) is like reading summaries instead of actual books. Sure, maybe you can understand what the plot is about, but everything else will be lost on you.

FFS DONT FEED IT

>Literature forces you to imagine what you read in order for you to comprehend it. You can instantaneously interpret music.
actually it's the other way around, language is immediately understood, music has to make its structure clear to the listener through repetition.

repeating patterns are automatically detected by your mind, imagination requires activity

If you like literature better then do that - music is made to be enjoyed, not force-fed.

>automatically detected
not, if the repetition appears inverted, transposed, stretched or otherwise transformed.
the first impression is only a vague feeling that everything is interconnected.

>Cherrypicking things i have done years ago when i was still a young teen

>Most of them are not even embarrassing

>Randomly sticking a picture of spongebob in there even though its completely unrelated

wew

You are the one who is deluding youreslf when you tell yourself you can imagine a 4d tesseract and not just a 3d representation o a tesseract.

It is literally impossible

>inverted, transposed, stretched or otherwise transformed
memes

they are immediatly detected if you are listening to 4chord songs with 4 to 6 musical cells organized through known form (usually the song form).
Without ear traning, for example, there's nothing you can understand about Schubert's harmony (at best you can say that the music aounds like that and that maybe it modulates here and there), yet said harmonies follow a carefully planned trajectory that can't be figured out by ear (of course once one is aware this knowledge become part of the appreciation of his music). The same can be said on thematic development: usually people can tell if a theme is a variation of another theme only if the permutation is evident and simple. In Beethoven only a few times the listener gets aware of the fsct that everything is made up of one theme (usually it's the 5th, since people always use it as an example), yet if I gave you one of his late sonatas it would take you years of training to understand how Beethoven got to every theme in particular (and it was very rigorous in this department).

Basically: you're full of shit.
t. pianist, I know how the audiences think and react

You are the one who is deluding youreslf when you tell yourself you can imagine a 3d object and not just a 2d projection of a 3d object.

It is literally impossible.

He's actually kind of cute. He's dumb as shit but that's fitting for a good little cock gobbler.

Prove your statement so that your thread does not attract pure shitposting.

You can imagine the perception of depth so i disagree with you there.

Imagining 3d is 100% possible. imagining 4d is impossible