Film is a less important form of art than literature and painting. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Since the dawn of civilization, film has played an important role in the society.

However

, many think that it is not as significant as literature or painting. I completely agree and will explain why these forms of

art

are more essential, despite the many uses of film. Literature or painting is open to different interpretation which are usually based on personal views.

This

means that the audience gives meaning to the piece based on their imagination, unlike in films, where the message from a clip can only be interpreted from the producer's point of view.

For example

, the book "Seven Shades of Grey", had readers imagining what the protagonist (Mr Grey) looked like in all his splendour.

This

made the book very popular and interesting. Whereas, in the adaptation of the book into a movie, viewers were left disappointed.

This

gives room for everyone to enjoy a work of

art

such

as, a painted image, because it is based on their own perception of the message and not just the creator's. It goes to show that these types of

art

are more relevant. They are not easily pirated and even when a "

knockoff

Suggestion

knock off

" version is produced, the original object still retains its main value or in some cases, they may appreciate.

In contrast

, films get duplicated and mass produced on different platforms making them lose market price.

For instance

, the famous work of Leonardo Da Vinci called, "The Monalisa". A perfect masterpiece, even though, recreated over the years by imitators, has not depreciated.

As a result

, painted images or

first

edition books have recorded a noticeable increase in their worth over time, when compared to films.

Therefore

, they are more significant. In conclusion, it is true that films have, in fact, some usefulness nowadays. The many benefits of these other kinds of

art

,

nevertheless

, make them more important.