we had to watch isla de las flores a year or two ago for my film theory class (along with wavelength!), and i agree that it's a really effective and mind-blowing piece.

there was another one we watched that i forgot the name of, it took place at a tire-burning yard and is supposed to be semi-famous. but wavelength and isle de las flores i definitely remember.

i would also extend this argument as to why i like michael bay, who gets a lot of crap from serious scholars as well as snootballs. i don't think he alone is responsible for the 2-3 seconds between edits, but he's one of the few directors who doesn't look like a total spaz doing it. he has fully embraced the post-MTV aesthetic and actually ridden it to some form of auteur riches. that and bad boys II kicks some major ass.

language vs image

i guess pictures say a thousand words. they also mezmerize people a lot more effectively which is why advertising works. but which medium is more precise?

if you saw a picture of a boy eating an apple does that relay the same idea as the boy saying "apples are my favorite food" ?

there is so much to talk about in pictures that they sometimes require those 1000 words

presumably the phrase "apples are my favorite food" exists outside of the words: "out of all of the foods, I like apples" might manifest itself as a boy taking an apple from a fruit bin and hugging it (as ridiculous as this sounds).

although I do agree that the efficiency of visual language decreases with higher levels of abstract thought

That video was awesome. There is no way that TV is bad, whoever thinks that is probably retarded.

I want to say many things about this. I think the most important thing to realize is that communcation and language are not limited to words and text. We communicate visually, whether we are mute or deaf, or we have visually thinking minds. Sratch that, it isn't important but if I say I am happy I am happy if I say this :) it has a sense of mystery and a world of interpretation. So then you have to ask, do image representations shove us into stereotypical thought (that man is smiling becuase he is happy) or force us to test the possibilities (that man may have a sniper trained on him that will shoot the second his smile falters I should call the police or maybe batman). Text allows us for paranthetics but images could so a guy with a wrinkled brow and skyward eyes and he could think of a billion other things. A thought bubble might communicate that but the image has us thinking, without the bubble, that he is contemplative. What is the conclusion of this musing? You are the scholar of wandyteeth jeff and an island of erudite thought in this web of fictional menaahhhgggeries.

Along Jeff's lines, I don't think this is argument that the visual totally erases written language or renders it obsolete, only that people who deny the power of the visual (or try to classify it as some kind of illegitimate art for the illiterate, unwashed masses) are idiots. I think a careful mix of both is my personal preference, the films I love the most blend astonishing art direction, cinematography and editing tricks with memorable dialogue.

If I stick to the pictures, I don't have to admit that there is no remnant of academic vocabulary anywhere in my life. The problem with the 3-2-1 Contact intro is the distractingly awful music and dumb lyrics. what were they thinking? I don't remember using large words when I was at Carolina.

So, the question is, have you read E.D Hirsch?

There is so many ways to approach this issue. From the culturalist stand point, your graph is accurate but why? Why do we associate those things with bad and good. And why do d-bags like E.D Hirsch need to come up with a list of bullshit that everyone needs to know and know only on the shallowest of surfaces, so that as Americans we can both communicate efficiently and stop humiliating those we deem as culturally illiterate. The fact of the matter is, though, there will never be one certain mode of communication that will be the end all of efficiency. Because there will always be specialization, there can never be a common cultural literacy. Some mofos think we should teach the same exact curriculum in schools so that kids know the same stuff and can communicate better, i.e: will understand references to stuff old white guys say. The thing is, as generations evolve, span out and specialize, those that feel they are "neutral", having a broad sense of all facets of cultural literacy, are soon to be seen as archaic and primitive. Despite the fact that currently, Internet and MTV is seen as "bad" popular culture, there is a reason why it is popular. There is a methodology that attracts people to certain things and that will never change. Scholars can't keep bullshitting me by romanticizing "their generation." This is a super lame example, but Shakespeare was seen as "popular culture" ie: bad, mass marketed commercial trash. The thing is the efficiency of communication cannot be increased through images, as I think you are suggesting or pondering because image, just as language refers to a specific object, action, emotion, etc...and with that comes a whole batch of cultural knowledge that is going to be different from person to person, and generalized, from generation to generation. It's ludicrous to have a want for greater communicative efficiency since in the end this means an equality of cultural literacy, thus disabling specialization, advancement and any sort of technology from ever evolving. Of course there is some degree of efficiency in image over language, barring we don't all speak Esperanto. Sorry I am talking film kid talk or whatever but take Robert Bresson. He's infamous for separating and utilizing the difference between sound and image and the importance in both. Image, just as sound or language, will always evoke something different in its audience, which slows down the efficiency of communication.

Also, in regards to Dave's most recent comment, who is denying the power of visual? I am sincerely asking, not trying to bust yo' chops. I just don't understand who you are speaking of in that instance. I mean, I feel the tone of your argument was directed to you know, the Cultured ones with a capital C, but they aren't currently denying the visual. I mean, that is to say they have always understood the power of an image, whether it be painting, theatre, film. I can understand people that are denying the power of certain visual aspects such as on MTV or something, but I don't think the Cultured peeps are only pro-linguists. I mean, film noir, anything Janus, art house, you know, that's seen as (high) Culture now, when maybe it wasn't in the beginning.

Oh yeah, I'm riding the post-modernist wave right now. (*Blushes shyly.)

The concept of communicating concepts is so complex it's comparable to the Ouroboros. Consider the case of Helen Keller and that of feral children. One one end, there's a woman whose aural and visual abilities were snatched away at 19 months, clearly giving her little choice in communication modes. And yet, her concepts have been published in books and written on mugs. Feral children, on the other hand, are fully-capable human beings who have an almost zero percent chance of understanding concepts beyond the primitive level. They will never Understand.

It is the opinion of this author that "good" and "bad" media types are the result of one's attempt to dislocate from more primitive human beings. I enjoy pondering on the complexities of lim(x->0)[x/x] as much as the next guy, but I would be damned if I didn't love pulsating along to that double bass riff.

comment rape.

( . Y . )

is that visual enough for ya

i think TV is bad because it shows you parts of life that you were never ment to experience. it floods your mind with things that don't even apply to you, so why are you sitting at home watching it, when you should be out there, doing your own thing.

i think thats why art exists, it transcends language. like cave art, they didnt know a word for deer, but they sure knew what it looked like.

have you seen that clip in waking life? how when you say love, you think of your OWN experiences with that word and not how the word LOVE relates to the person who said it.

language is the quickest/easiest way to taint a thought process. it causes discrepancies. and the meaning is lost. thats why art exists man.

p.s. that link is sweet, i love the panels 10-17. clouds and mountains with faces. beautiful.

just because i figure you check this more often than facebook..... i'm probs going to be in NYC this weekend and i want to see the nyu folk. message me on facebook if you get this because i'll probably forget to check here.

Also, concerning your entry. very nice. i forgot how much i liked to read your posts. i really haven't been on these things since the death of combatrhino GASP. but bravo, i think this is an interesting discussion--especially for an aspiring artistE such as moi. my professors are always saying art is about effectively delivering a personal message/narrative/idea with an essentially stationary image. interesting interesting... i'll probably be thinking about this topic for the rest of the night (last night's contemplation was how to define creativity).

get back to me on the NYC thing when you can.

Yo... what's your digits? (preferably on facebook)

me = 8593613971