The Image-- Graven or Craven?

[Rabbit]

I just came across a rather thought-provoking BBC commentary article that is, as much as anything, about the role of images in human society.

Has the world become too visual?

I’ve long considered image-based media such as movies and graphic novels to be the traditional book’s greatest artistic rivals, and the more we electronicize things the more potent rivals they become. So naturally I’ve thought a lot about their relative merits and weaknesses. But now, after reading this, I see images more as the means by which we humans put our stamp on the world around us on order to make it better fit our own minds. A primitive and more basic form of how we use words, to put it differently. Now that I think about it, this is probably exactly how and why written symbols-- even symbolic thought itself-- were first created. Out of a desperate and deep need to understand and attempt to control our chaotic, senseless and uncaring universe via labeling.

As authors and intellectuals words are our stock and trade, while images are in many cases pre-words laden with subtle and perhaps even magical ideological powers that words long ago gave up in exchange for clarity. So… Might a sorcerer’s spell book be made up of images instead of words so as to preserve the magic of it all? Is a rune maybe something that lies somewhere in-between? Would the magic be something objective, or whatever we chose to see in the images?

Can a work based wholly on words ever be magic? Would an illustrated version be more so, or less? How about a film version?

Are films, as an art-form based more on image, inherently more meaningful and wide-band communicative than books?

What about You-Tube videos?

Fascinating stuff! I love poking around all way down in the basement of an art-form-- or the human mind-- and this article started me very nicely down the path. In my case at least, story ideas very often result from this sort of musing, though often only months later.

I hope one or two of you folks are so gifted.

[Kanren]

Heh, actually in a lot of classical RPGs the spell caster’s book is portrayed as full of images along with calculations with words maybe a distant third. In some cases like a computer code that the caster has to program into their mind to bend reality.

I don’t know if an image has more meaning in itself. It is more ‘clear’ or outright in what is being conveyed. When an sculptor or painter makes a tree it looks precisely what it looks like. It is certainly impressive when you see something unique or incredibly detailed, I know I think of the effort and skill it must have taken to make certain pictures when I appreciate them.

If you are talking full on magic like pointy hats and wands, yes, I’d say just words can be magic. It would be harder, or at least have to go about it a different way. A weird shape or object you don’t understand would help the leap in believing something impossible. You don’t need to know the exact measurements of a fire sigil any more than you need to know the alloys in a phaser. I think the idea that words can be magic stem from the idea that when you read words certain images or ideas will reflexively appear in your head. An image is almost safer in that regard, since on one level it remains external.

While a big downside to a book over images is that it may be a gamble if the consumer is seeing the same thing as the creator, I’d argue its also a strength. Since they are not as precise as pictures, no matter how much detail an author uses, the reader is making the images and providing the special effects. The reader is contributing in some way to their own story experience. A good reader kind of has to be a storyteller as well. People who are interested in fantasy with a passion have to have a decent imagination by necessity. Tabletop rpgs with very little to no images are still here despite video games (even ones based directly off them!), and this is one of the big reasons why.

[Dwale]

insomnia post, go!

I have so much to say on this that I can’t say anything. Well, I can say that Terence McKenna said, “The world is made of language.” I can say that William S. Burroughs said, “Language is a virus from outer space.” I can say that Neil Gaiman said, “All writers are liars” as well as “Fairy tales are more than true[…]”

Yes, word and image are closely bound. But the implications here are, frankly, beyond my ability to articulate. The scope of this power is…and no, I don’t mean shooting lightning out of a fancy stick, we’re talking about a power that reshapes the very earth in the here and now. Yes, you can kill someone with the right song (or youtube video). There exist configurations in art that can raze nations. But all I can do is scratch at the surface.