At 12:18 AM +0200 8/9/07, dobroide wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>reading this thread, a comment made time ago by a painter friend came
>to my mind. According to him, a very deep shade of purple is often
>used in paintings to depict 'darkness', rather than black... I think
>this may apply somehow to sound and images.
>
>Don't take me wrong, I'm not condoning sloppy sound production in
>movies, just wanted to point out that many times what matters is the
>impression/effect on the audience. The way this effect is obtained is
>secondary to the guy creating the fiction. So despite being a sound
>guy myself I wouldn't care much about sound source fidelity, at least
>in fictional work like movies. For example, coconut shell halves may
>replace sucessfully horse hoofs, actually most people will say that
>they sound better ! :-) Art is a different thing from life, after
>all...
>
>Saludos
>
>D
>
Personally, I don't discover value in an "effect" unless it explores
a deep-seated and mysterious relation to the real. It does seem like
there is increasing confusion that art can be made with just
imagination-- that is-- without foundation experiences. I tend to
agree with Tom Clancy's distinction between fiction and reality,
"Fiction has to make sense." Rob D.
|