So from what I gather, your entire argument for books as the "ultimate" art form is that you can make them as long or as short as you want.

Wow.

If you're going to argue that flexibility is the most important aspect, what about the flexibility inherent in the endless array of aesthetic choices you can make in any sort of visual medium.

What about the flexibility of interactive digital art?

And as for albums of thirty second songs, this has been done. Sure, it may not always be commercially viable to produce experimental albums like this, but that doesn't mean there aren't independent outlets for this kind of thing and that there aren't audiences that are willing to pay and listen.

And the length requirement of films? Maybe if you stepped outside of your local multiplex you'd realize how stupid your argument is. Whatever happened to short films? And are you arguing that there are no epics made over two hours long? I seem to remember in the past few years alone a handful of mainstream films breaking the three hour mark: the third Lord of the Rings film, P.T. Anderson's Magnolia, Gods and Generals...

I won't argue that there is a certain flexibility in the written word, and I do love to read. I think books are a wonderful thing, but calling them "the ultimate art form," especially based upon such a flimsy argument, is just arrogant and misguided. And let's not forget, just because you can make a book longer than a movie doesn't mean people are going to read it. How many people do you honestly think go out and read books like, say, Ulysses, on a day to day basis?

I might be willing to accept one's opinion of books as the "ultimate art form" (although I could never agree with it) if there was a slightly more reasonable argument to back it up than this. As far as I'm concerned, all art is on more or less an equal level and to declare one medium better than another is just silly, narrowminded, and ignorant.

Also, I would like to mention in response to your last statement that "no other art form can replace writing," I am not arguing that any of these other forms are a better alternative. I don't think writing could ever be replaced. What I do think, however, is that it can be and is matched and equalled by other artistic mediums. Let's not forget that people were making cave paintings before any written language existed.

I realize, as well, that your piece does take into account some of the merits of other art forms and that you do acknowledge your love and admiration for them, I just felt that you were rather unfair in your conclusions. I also notice that you left out any sort of painting, sculpture, etc. as well as theatre. Any thoughts on this?

Maybe commercially successful art form would bea better way to put it. Still though music was at first limited by the 78 and 33 vinyl releases more than radio (I'd argue, but not too much) I know I look askance at the money I pay for a 30 minute CD - becaus eit's he same as for a 78-minute CD.

Different sized books can and often do go for different prices, depending on a lot of factors. joel you forgot the novella, rather than bumping up the type size as an option - three novellas or a novella and a serie sof shorts.

Still, Joel's right like he's never been right before, even if the post was too long. (Joking).


This plans-to-be author thanks you.

Why Writing Is The Ultimate Art form

Oh.

My.

Gawd.


NEXT WEEK:

Why Writing an Essay Like This Should Only Be Done In High School




PS: re. movie length: Alfred Hitchcock said the perfect movie should be no longer than the capacity of the human bladder.

"Writing allows much greater freedom because the commercial restraints are smaller"? Are you on crack? They most certainly are not. Where did you get such an idea? A book costs a huge pile of money to produce and a nice tidy sum to buy. A new hardback costs $25, a new paperback between $12 and $20, usually -- more, generally, than a movie or a CD. (Well, the paperback and CD are about comparable.) Publishers DISCOURAGE writers from writing books of great length because they don't think they'll sell -- which is why most books clock in at about 300 or so pages, just as movies come in at two hours and songs at about three minutes. The key in everything is to see how much you can do in a small space. There are artists in every format who go for the longer format, but they aren't the norm at all, and people like Wallace and Mitchell usually have to pay their dues to get to that level. Go in any bookstore. You're not going to find too many 800-page books by first-timers, trust me.

The money with a movie these days, including promo is measured in the multimillions for all but a handful.

For books, the money involved in all but 300 or so authors is well below 100,000.

Grr, I didn't actually mean for this to get posted. I got it all ready and saved as a draft and then I decided--after getting some feedback on it at my own blog--that I needed to rework it and see if I could make my point clearer, or just not put it up here on Blogcritics at all.

But I'm guessing someone (Temple?) saw it all ready to go and assumed I just forgot to publish, so they went ahead and did it.

Anyway, it's out here now, so oh well.

First of all, I want to be clear that this is no attempt to demean the art of music or film, as I love them both immensely and have seen incredible works of art come out of both. I was rather trying to say--and I don't think I was clear enough--that writing seems to offer much greater flexibility in how the story is presented and structured than music or movies do, and that seems to boil down, in large part, to the economic realities of the different industries.

Let's see if I can answer some particular points.

Bryan--yes, I left out painting, sculpture, and other art forms. Absolutely right, and that's one of the things I meant to rework, making it a more direct comparison between books and music and film. Bad, bad, bad writing and arguing on my part.

I also didn't mean to suggest that you don't see music and movies that break the mold, but rather that it seems much more rare than in the world of writing. (Love Magnolia, by the way. It's one of those incredible works of art I mentioned above.)

I also think there are plenty of films out there, particularly, that match up with some of the best books out there, so I'm in agreeance with you there. Again, it's my fault for not being clearer in what I was saying (not to mention thinking this all out more before I wrote it up.) I was not trying to argue that films are incapable of reaching the same artistic heights as books, for I don't believe that in a second.

I think the title was poorly worded as well. :)

Would I declare writing a better medium for art? No. I, personally, have the greatest fondness for it, but film comes close in my head. But, absolutely, different mediums are going to effect people in different ways, and I didn't intend to make such a broad judgement. But I realize it probably sounded like that's what I was doing.

Temple, someone on my blog pointed out the fact that vinyls were a large part of why the length of songs were limited initially, something that I freely admit I didn't know. Interesting stuff, and it probably puts at least a partial damper on my arguments (*sigh* sometimes I like to go off half-cocked without fully researching.) However, from what I've read, it seems that radio is also a big factor in that, as I mentioned.

Temple and Rodney--I originally planned to write about the differing costs of books and the economics behind printing--as that certainly is a big factor in the industry. But I still would argue that I see much more variation with books and writing than I do in the world of music and film. It seems to be much more common.

Rodney--yes, 300 is a common page length, and that is particularly true with short story collections, it seems. That was another point I didn't get around to making. But, again, I come back to the point that I think you see variation, flexibility and experimentation much more often in the world of writing than you do in music and film. Even if you have to put in your dues, at least that option still exists to a much greater degree than in the other industries.

So, in summary, I'm a bit sorry I ever published this post. Heh. Or, more specifically, I wish I had thought it out more before writing it and then better sharpened and clarified what I meant to say. But it's out, so everyone feel free to continue flaying me and I'll answer and clarify as best I can. :)

Temple -- I don't know where you're getting your figures, but any money spent by a publishing house on a new writer is a risk. They're not going to spend a dime on you if they don't think your books will move and the general groupthink is and always has been that experimental doesn't sell.

Joel -- I think you USED to see "variation, flexibility and experimentation" in books -- but that was another age. I can't imagine anyone publishing The Sound and the Fury or Ulysses today, not that anyone's out there trying to write it.

So, anyway, I reject the idea that there's any more freedom in literature than there is in anything. You can, of course, write a creative novel on your own where you can't very well make a creative film on your own. There's just no guarantee it will get anywhere.

Nope Joel, i wouldn't do that. draft is draft.

Where did I say money toward an author wasn't a risk. I merewly cited numbers though those numbers are not set in stone. i didn't look them up.

Damn but it seems people jmped on Joel for what was, even in draft form, one man's thoughtful opinion. And he's right LOL.

Ahh, not Temple, so the mystery remains. You're the book editor section, right? I guess one of the other editors must have done it. Doesn't really matter, anyway.

I'm actually starting to have fun with the people jumping all over me, both here and at my own blog. (Well, just one person there--a friend.) I think part of the problem is that the post can be read as denigrating the other forms of art or suggesting they are inferior to writing, which is certainly not what I was trying to say.

I just think writing has a little something extra special to it and I like the way that seems to carry through even while other art forms get more boxed in. Glad someone agrees with me.

But I'm enjoying the counterarguments, so I'd be glad to here more.

And yeah, obviously, it's considerably more costly to finance and distribute most any film than it is to finance and distribute a book. It's just a consequence of the way movies are made. And I think that plays into writing having less economic constraints on it than filmmaking does.

Music and Executive Editor. Now if I can just have one day without a typo

Joel,

I'm the Books Editor... and I didn't publish your post for you.

Either you did, someone else did, or Magic Forces did.

I haven't had time to read it closely yet but I like the first few graphs I took a glance at.

~ Eric B.

Okay, couldn't remember if it was you or Temple. Perhaps I published the damn thing on accident, though I'm 99% certain I never saved it beyond draft form. Do you happen to know what time zone the 4:20 timestamp would be from? This is like a mystery now--I must solve it.

EST

LOL. That's great, because I could have sworn I did it between two and three pacific time, which would suggest that it was published before I even put it into the system.

I must be crazy. Must also have published it myself. Which seems bizarre to me, but maybe my mind is just going at the ripe old age of 24.

If you want to make an argument that writing is the ultimate art form, you have to separate it from the economics involved.

Why is writing a better or more satisfying FORM for expression than music or art or film? You could argue on the one hand that it delivers a more sustained artistic experience; on the other hand it doesn't have the same emotional effect as music or the same immediacy as film.

Funny, I get the impression that 30 seconds is the most commercially viable length for a piece of music.

As far as the oldest art form, I find it hard to believe that language predates the ability to make musical sounds.

Welch: "...You can... write a creative novel on your own where you can't very well make a creative film on your own."

Oy.

Man, throughout this entire essay+thread, you folks continue ignoring Digital technology. Lots of people are making cds and films IN THE GARAGE. And many are successful marketing and selling through the internet ONLY.

And don't forget: one of the most successful documentaries of 04 was "Tarnation", costing all of $218.oo and edited on an IMAC.

This whole premise is moot.

Well, actually, yes, you do have a point -- and it's one of the great encouraging facts of modern art that film is becoming more democratic. It's still not quite as cheap as writing a novel, which takes a few reams of paper and a lot of time, but far cheaper than it once was.

On the other hand, if you want to make a GOOD film, that is NOT a documentary, that involves actors and sets and lighting and all that shit, I think you're still back to square one, wondering what it will take to impress a studio or at any rate someone with money to burn.

Shark, you're indeed right that computers and the internet are changing the production of music and film considerably, which I alluded to in the post. But I agree with Rodney that filmmaking is still, most often, a very involved and many times a very expensive art that requires a great deal of collaboration. And even if you're doing it all independently, using computers and such, you still often must deal with a cast and will often need other people to help out with the technical aspects. And that makes for higher economic pressures.

Rodney, I never should have given the post that damn title because it doesn't reflect what I was trying to say. I apologize for that. Writing is a bit of a more satisfying form of art for me, but that's just a personal preference and I never meant to say it is a better form of art than music or film. In fact, film is much more adept at evoking emotional response, in my opinion, because of the visceral nature of the medium and the ease in which we can relate to actual flesh and blood people as opposed to imagined people related to us through language.

But I still like written stories best, if only because I personally find that the best of them are able to create richer, more complex and detailed worlds. I think books can do a better job, in general, of tackling the human mind. I also greatly appreciate the ways in which they can deal with most anything--can depict horrors and atrocities and fantastical actions in ways in which film simply can't because of technical constraints at times and social constraints in what they're allowed to show at other times.

For instance, I'd be shocked to ever see a faithful adaptation of Jose Saramago's Blindness--a film that truly showed all the horrific scenes he described in that novel. There are certain things you can get away with in books no problem that you simply can't in film. It's one of the reasons I prefer books. But again--personal opinion only. I don't mean to say writing is a better art form.

This whole thread is like a debate over which are better: Oreo cookies or Reese's cups. (The answer's obvious, but I'm not going there.)

I think you got into trouble with your title, Joel: "ultimate" art form. I can't imagine objective standards that could be applied to weigh the relative art-worthiness of music, theater, movies, painting, sculpture, and writing.

(Aside: However, there are without a doubt objective standards that can be applied within each of those fields. The standards may not be perfect, but there is good and bad art. And, the more one studies an art form, the more qualified one is to comment on it--although knowledge is only a necessary not sufficient condition for intelligent commentary.)

I love all art forms (with the exception of dance, which I have never understood...maybe it's because there are no words?) and have had intense emotional/intellectual/spiritual reactions to each. Can I say which is superior? I wouldn't know where to begin, despite your essay.

And...I say this as a professional writer, dabler in music, and a total klutz at any art form that requires physical dexterity.

Mark--I so regret the title. It completely gave the wrong impression of what I was trying to say. Really wasn't trying to say that writing was superior to other art forms.