Films make bad books

It's almost a cliché that, when a film made based on a book comes out, people often afirm that the book is better. In fact, it is very, very rare to find the opposite opinion. Oh, the film is much better than the book!, doesn't this sound awkward?

And why does this happen? Well, books are fabulous on encouraging us to develop our own images or constructions of visual narrative. We are deeply visual.

Words were built to explain things that weren't available at the time we spoke, at first. Second, they were invented to compile large groups of words. Done. No further discussion.

Now that we have passed the introduction, here's my proposal: Let's put it upside down!

What?!, you may ask. It's the book-film thing above. Using words to create images. Or ideas (clusters of words or clusterwords) to this purpose.

While still in college, a teacher or two insisted that visual culture was the most important thing that we could do. In my opinion, this causes trouble. No doubt that this is important, but this can be highly restrictive and/or overwhelming. If you think about it, if someone says to you, to be a good artist, you must have to have visual culture!, or that you have to find your visual languange or visual poetry, this sentences are a huge press to creativity.

Why shouldn't I change language whenever I want to? Do I have to see all bags to design one? - Yes and No. You have to study most of the cars and the one you want to design it properly.

Hoping that imitating others will solve our case is silly. Instead, try to figure out why does it works to others - and see the differences.

Here's my point: theory is always more inspiring than visual culture. Or that visual culture works for abstract/deductive knowledge (study), not for formal reference.