It's no secret that I am fascinated by adapting work of one art form into another without restriction other than faithfulness to the original work. I suppose that's why I tend to hate movie adaptations of books-- they're too concerned with profit, length, audience, etc.
I'm not asking to use the book itself as a script. I just don't want all of the other factors interfering with the art.
The most common type of adaptation is book to movie. Another popular one (at least in my circles--ha, don't I sound sophisticated) is book/movie/TV to music.
Those are all well and good, but I don't find them nearly as interesting as the more abstract, difficult ones (like as I briefly mentioned a few posts ago, dancing about architecture).
A quick note about dancing architecture: I don't mean dancing to music based on architecture. That's still dancing to music. I mean you pick a building that you like, and then you dance it. Silently.
Unfortunately, I'm not a dancer, so I can't try that.
However, I have tried creating prose versions of songs I like.
My next idea in this vein is to write one of my grandma's quilts once I have time (which means it probably won't ever happen).
Having thought about this a lot recently, I'm amazed at just how many things I consider to be art forms: lighting, graphic design, scrapbooking, quilting, singing, dancing, architecture, painting, acting, writing, speaking (yes), music, drawing, sculpting, interior design, cooking, clothing design, artistic carpentry...
And those are just the things I could think of off the top of my head.
Here's my challenge to you: Pick one thing from the list that you're good at. Then pick one you're not good at. Find something within the latter category that you really, really love, and then interpret it in your medium of choice. Then write a comment about it, or a blog post, or send me pictures, or post a youtube video, or whatever. I want to see what you come up with.
However, somehow I doubt any of you will actually try. If I don't have the time to pursue random projects, why should I assume that any of you do? But it might be fun, and you might agree with me, so I'll let it stand.
Does philosophy about pop music videos count? Anyway, I don't see why one would necessarily dance architecture silently? (That isn't a question, but it is intended as one.) To me, dancing is the fusion of movement and music, so it seems that interpreting the building through both music and movement would truly be dancing about architecture. Granted, if one views dance as a physical interpretation of music, I guess then dancing about architecture would be a physical interpretation of architecture and would make sense silently. Anyway, an overall interesting thought!
ReplyDeleteI do view dance as a kinetic interpretation of music. However, I agree that dance is most effective when coupled with music, so music + dance + architecture would be even better.
ReplyDelete