I know that's an odd thing to say on a site devoted to graphic arts, but I have a reason for saying it. Often times I see visual images telling us what we should see with our mind's eye and we get trapped by the limits of someone else's vision. How many people are doomed to duplicate the movie version of "Lord of the Rings" because the powerful visuals imposed on us by the filmmaker. How few will return to the book and try to create images that stir from the words and are unique to us and us alone? Too often on the galleries I see calls for clones of celebrities or other imges that already exist. What's the point of that, I wonder? Are our imaginations so limited by what we see that we can't imagine something other than what has already been presented us? How many graphics are duplicates of what someone else has done. "In the style of..." is considered a great compliment. Is it? Should we proud that we are imitators instead of originators? What I like about words is that they allow me to create an image inside my mind that is unique to me and not necessarily an image someone else is viewing. I love the liberation of that. If I were an artist, and I'm not, this is the image that I would want to put forth to the world. Not a copy of someone else's vision, but that which is mine and mine alone. In words, I can somewhat get near to that goal. Not that words can't be plagarized. They can and often are copied. But what cannot be copied or stolen from me is the drama inside my head. The most exciting graphics to me are not the ones that ask me to copy them, but are the ones that stimulate me to think beyond the graphic I see into the vision not yet realized. Graphics rarely do that for me. Words almost always do. That's just me. I'm open to consider arguments to the contrary.

Hmmm...not something I should have looked at while in the midst of a meeting at work...heh heh heh...but... Lets start with your Lord of the Rings example. Yes, incredibly powerful images, but, in some cases images that did not mesh with where my mind had gone when reading the books....for me more that 30 times....so in those cases my mind went to, "Oh well, he got it wrong on that one." While words DO allow for individual creation "inside my mind" they are also the tool we use for creating s ahred vision...so the difference becomes blurred. I think you are perhaps combining a conversation about "style" and one about "content". I have seen images that create as much wonder in my mind as the words I have read, but in a different way. The really good images tempt me to continue the story from the "snapshot" point of the picture. Just as really good words cause me to "paint" a picture in my mind. Make sense or am I rambling due to having to keep up with this meeting while I write? :)

My Lord of the Rings example is the difference between someone who strives to think independently (as you do) and someone who fancies themselves an artist because they have the skills and the tools but,in fact, does not trust his or her own imagination to create a vision beyond the one established by the film (or the book). To copy an image from a movie is not being an artist. I'm sorry, I just don't think it is, no matter how technically perfect it is. The artist was the person with the first vision who brought it to life. To me, and this is just me, skills and tools don't make an artist or a writer. I would be a writer if I was on a desert island without a piece of paper, computer, or stone carving implement in sight. It's not the tools or the ability to spell (sometimes) that make me a writer. It is not a paintbrush or a box of paints or a camera that makes an artist. My point is the same as yours. A good picture or a good story gives you the impulse to go beyond the original, if you have yourself the ability to allow yourself to flow beyond the original. My feeling, though, is that the play inside the mind is greater with words for me (and I never speak for someone else). What saddens me is people I see with obvious technical skills that seem to be staying within the perimeters of someone's else's imagination. You will argue: "But they are happy there, so why complain?" I am not complaining. I am simply thinking they could be more than someone else's imitator if they reached beyond the copying stage. Everyone, including Leonardo and Shakespeare, copied a master, had a mentor to follow, but artists go beyond their mentors and become mentors themselves. I don't see that happening often in the galleries here. I see it sometimes. Just not often. But then true creative forces like Leonardo and Shakespeare are once in a generation. I can't be too critical. I'm certainly not Shakespeare. I don't pretend to be. But I do strive, once in awhile, to be improve on what small gifts nature gave me. What I see, often, is someone with incredible potential who stops so long for applause that they begin creating for someone else and not in order to create something amazing...and then they begin repeating themselves endlessly -- perhaps because the applause becomes addictive and becomes the end instead of the work of art being the goal. Or I am simply overanalysing the whole thing. Am I arguing style versus content? I'm not sure. This was a ramble through my morning thoughts. I get that way without coffee sometimes. Hope your meeting went well. Thank you for commmenting so thoughtfully. :)

:/

Dialyn .... hello .... excellent post .... I would agree with the great majority of your opinion(s) .... without getting into 'psychology 101' too deeply, I'll take a stab at this, from my most humble perspective .... From our birth we are raised to 'conform' .... schools teach the classic 'bell curve' .... or the 80/20 rule as I call it .... people on the 'fringes' are rare and often our most brilliant(at 'either' end of the spectrum,per se) .... I love 'words', also .... but, I also love 'pictures' .... that's why I take double exposure photographs with my 35mm camera .... to me, the 'ultimate' is to post a 'picture' of mine 'with' a 'poem' of mine .... I post what "I" feel/write or 'see/take pics of .... I guess it's nice to 'see' a painting/pic and see 'your' vision of what it means, by all means.... but, I also like to know 'what' the 'artist' was thinking when he/she did the piece .... If I could somehow 'enhance' my present two 'skills'(???) into the 3d bryce type worlds,etc., I see here at renderosity, I would 'hope' my images I now do would 'jump' off the page, as it were, and strike someone out there that I could not 'reach' with my 'normal' modes of operation .... I would also be able to do things with the digital pc that I could 'never' do with my 35mm camera.... I met a masterful body repair worker years ago .... he only worked on corvettes .... he was brilliant and they came from all over to have him work on their vehicles .... I once asked him, since he was so obviously great at his craft, just 'why' he did 'only' corvettes? .... He smiled, and told me he could do 'any' car probably as well, but that he 'loved ' corvettes .... lol.... make any sense? .... kinda' like why I can't understand 'why' someone 'only' likes 'country' music, etc. .... I was fortunate to be exposed to all types of music .... I feel sorry for someone, at times, for 'only' liking 'one' type of music .... but, then I see them 'happy as a pig in mud', and I just 'smile'....When people see my 'double exposure' pics I take, next to pictures of 'kids and dogs', etc., 80% of peoples choose 'dogs and kids' ....lol.... I loved reading 'bridges of madison county' .... I also loved the movie as much, if not more .... the 'bottom line' to me? .... just 'enjoy' what 'you' do! .... (long winded, too!) .... great post topic! ....brian.

:) Excellent points. My father once told me that he viewed truth as sitting in the center of a circle and all people sitting around it. We can all see some part of the truth but no one can see all of it without the help of the others. That's why I asked the question. To help be shown more of the truth than I could see by myself. Thank you both. I will say, however, that a person specializing in becoming excellent at something is not, to me, the same as someone who is copying an image. There is a difference...the art of the crafts is elegant and honorable and there is, in my mind, a huge difference between someone who has fine tuned a craft and someone who copies a picture; just as I would not place a fine photographer in the same league as a person tracing a mirrored image. A beautifully shaped bowl or a carved table with wonderful lines can be a piece of art; and a graphic can be not a piece of art. It's not what the item is that makes it art. There is something subtle a true artist brings to their work. I think creativity can be learned, but someone has to try and not take it for granted that tracing a picture from a movie still is the same as designing something fresh and bringing it to life in the mind's eye. The distinction may not exist. I'm still searching to be exact in what I mean. The search I do in words rather than illustrations, because in the white spaces between the words is the place for my mind to participate in the story or the poem. Too often, graphic designers leave no space for the audience. In drama, it is the silence between actors. That place where the audience fills the gap and makes the drama more than what it was without them. When something happens and the audience collectively gasps, you know that suddenly a roomful of minds have combined in a single creative participation. It is very powerful when minds find a way to touch each other. I just don't get that from most graphics. Perhaps it is from my own ignorance. I can accept that. I honor and respect your points, and I'm glad you shared them. Well done.

You are anything but 'ignorant' .... You've most probably 'forgotten' more things about true 'art' than I've even known .... lol .... I totally agree with you about a 'master' at their trade .... but, I've learned the hard way, that I cannot 'force' anyone to 'like' my type of work, or 'make' someone 'see' the difference between 'good' and 'great' work (which, by the way, is subjective as heck in 'most' cases...lol) .... obviously, there are a few 'masters' in any given 'trade' that are known by almost everyone .... that, indeed, is something to strive for .... I think, with your perspective, and your obvious reverence for 'art', you may be that 'someone' someday? .... here's hoping! .... A 'shrink' friend of mine once told me (free! ....hehe) that if I could be on a deserted island with only 'primates' and no other 'human life', would I be 'happy' knowing that I had done something 'great' that no one else could verify to me? .... I laughed, then he said if I could be 'ok' with that situation, that he'd go 'broke' .... lol.

You're giving me way too much credit. It's not about asking people to like what I like. I gave that up along time ago. It was just a thought I needed to get out of my system. This is a good place for that. :)

Ah, but writers also often get trapped by the limits of someone else's vision. I can't count how many bad Lord of the Rings knock offs I've read. Most were technically well crafted, in that the person writing them used proper grammar and punctuation, wrote very descriptively, had good characterization, yet proceeded to produce another LOTRs plotline complete with a multi race quest to save the world from the evil lord of darkness. Some have been quite successful yet hardly original. But I agree. The written word leaves the reader free to form their own imagery, and the imagery of the mind is almost certain to far exceed the imagery of a graphic (except perhaps in rare occasions). I, for one, can paint with my mind much better than I can with my hand (or drawing tablet). Still, pictures are very powerful. So, too, are words. As has oft been said, a picture paints a thousand words, and some situations call for just that. On the other hand, words paint many thousands of pictures each unique to each reader. And of course they are often complimentary of one another. Finally, it seems to me that words - be they a story, a poem, or a novel - are more akin to a movie than a still, in that they flow in a continuum. Like a movie, they have a beginning, a middle, and and end whereas a still is a snapshot in time. Not to say that a good still is of less value or impact, just that writing is more akin to motion imagery than still imagery. They all have their place. I love your father's description of truth. Can I borrow that sometime? jon

I borrowed it from my father. He would be ashambed of me if I didn't let you use it. Good points, jon. You're right...there are writers out there as imitative as the graphic artists. Sometimes it is meant to be flattering to the original. I think it is more flattering to be original when you can. I strive but don't always succeed. :)

jstro .... hello .... well said .... "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"??? .... I used to listen to the 'radio' growing up .... remember 'hearing' the disc jockeys .... than, when I finally 'saw' a 'pic' of them, they lookded 'nothing' like what I 'envisioned'! (usually old and grey haired! .... lol) .... I guess, from my humble opinion, there are 'times' when I would like everyone to find their own opinion of my works .... at other times, however, I would hope I had either written my piece or done my photo/pic well enough to 'get' what "I" wanted to convey .... make any sense? .... I guess, to me, it doesn't matter what 'type' of 'medium' anyone uses .... but, does it 'do the job' the author intended? .... great post and comments, all!

Dialyn .... hello .... my late ''pop'' once told me .... "There is your side of the story .... my side of the story .... and the 'truth' lies somewhere in between" .... brian.

I guess dads tell all us kids similar things. :)

Sounds like you have or had a good one, too!

Being analytical: words are more "abstract" than images. An image contains more "concrete" cues. "tiger" covers a range of beasts, and hints at many related ones, whereas a picture tends to show a particular tiger. Even when words are woven together to describe a specific scene, alternate possible scenes aren't far away. Consider looking at an image of a large tiger, crouched, ready to spring at a small child. Is the child Asian? European? Well, its probably African, since its a tiger. But the fear would be universal. A graphic can be a powerful way to convey a fearful image. But it could also subtly distract - in some corner of my mind: "at least it isn't 'me/someone who looks like me/someone who looks like people I am close to' who is threatened" Still, I think the tiger picture could scare me more easily than tiger words, as the words are easier to turn away from / gloss over. And that might lead me to relate more to the humanity of the threatened child. Like pictures of the wounded in a war - who cares what ethnicity they are? Puts a brake on the thinking of "Only so many [insert your nationality] were killed." - - - - - But back to disadvantages of an image being so concrete. I think of images of Jesus when I was growing up, here in the States. In hindsight, the ethnicity of those images was ludicrous. I can see why the churches used images like this - they would hate to have the Christian Saviour be one of "them" instead of one of "us" ;-D But that distortion almost certainly made it easier for discrimination to continue. Living in the Middle Eastern climate, in an agrarian society two thousand years ago, how dark would Jesus of Nazareth' skin have been?!

Steve .... hello .... good comments .... thanks .... I,too, used to be 'analytical' .... In fact, I analyzed things to death, as it were and never got much really done .... for me, I found that at some point in time, It made more sense, for me, to just do and see what happens .... just my own perspective on 52 years of living .... take care .... enjoy your posts....brian.

Brian, what's with all the "...."? I'm finding it more work to follow your thoughts, than a more traditional writing style. I believe in this basic principle: Work hard, so that the reader doesn't have to work as hard. (In my case, my shortcoming is being too analytic. Too stiff. Too many hedges and caveats. "Steve, just spit it out." ) Food for thought 8-P

I like them both. I get story ideas more often from movies than from books, I think because translating things from one media to another is a way for me to absorb and change it and make it my own. If I see something I really like in a book, it's harder for me to use it in a different book without copying, than it is when I see something I really like in a movie. But although i like them both, I do think they are different. I think pictures are a faster media, as they dial directly into the brain without going through the linguistic centers first, but that words are a more flexible media, and mostly because of that same translation process, words are more intimate. People are much more prone to talk about books that changed their lives, than they are to talk about paintings that changed their lives. :) For really good attention grabbing effect, you generally want words AND pictures. Ask the advertising industry. Ask newspaper editors. Ask people who do magazines. Both is better. :)