The creative involvement of the audience
I’m re-reading L’Engle’s Walking on Water and once again discovering that pretty much every sentence is artistically stated and profound. Today I found this especially intriguing:
“The writer does want to be published; the painter urgently hopes that someone will see the finished canvas (van Gogh was denied the satisfaction of having his work bought and appreciated during his lifetime; no wonder the pain was more than he could bear); the composer needs his music to be heard. Art is communication, and if there is no communication it is as though the work had been stillborn.
“The reader, viewer, listener, usually grossly underestimates his importance. If a reader cannot create a book along with the writer, the book will never come to life. Creative involvement: that’s the basic difference between reading a book and watching TV. In watching TV we are passive; sponges; we do nothing. In reading we must become creators. Once the child has learned to read alone and can pick up a book without illustrations, he must become a creator, imagining the setting of the story, visualizing the characters, seeing facial expressions, hearing the inflection of voices. The author and the reader “know” each other; they meet on the bridge of words.”
I wholeheartedly agree with what she’s saying as far as reading is concerned. But is that creative involvement limited to the author/reader relationship? In theatre, I would definitely argue that the creative involvement of the audience is necessary, what with the willing suspension of disbelief, the degree to which actors feed off of the audience’s energy, etc . But what about TV, where L’Engle declares that the viewer is a passive sponge, or film? Does that rely on the creative involvement of the audience?
I know some of you who read this are filmmakers, videographers, and the like. What say ye? (this is meant to be an interactive website, so this is the point where you pipe up and publicly post profundity — preferably alliteratively — in the comments…).
often times we go to movies that were based on books and we leave saying, “the book was better.” i think that goes along with the passivity of what she’s saying. we’ve already created this world in our head and in our head, it’s exactly how it should be and just what we needed, in some cases. now we’ve been given one person’s interpretation of the story or play and most of the time it falls short of what we had imagined.
there are always those exceptions. those times when the director or filmmaker get it “just right” and it lends itself to enhance the reading experience. i can say that it did that for Lord of the Rings for me.
When we sit in front of the television, we have no choice but to watch what someone else envisioned. there’s very little creating that happens while sitting in front of the television.
Good point. I hadn’t even thought about the whole “book is better” thing. Very true. I actually used that line when I wrote a review of The Passion of the Christ. ;o)
Another random thought — L’Engle’s husband was an actor and I believe spent a considerable chunk of his life as a character in a daytime soap opera. I think that adds an interesting dimension to her thoughts regarding TV.