# How would YOU rank the arts?



## Ciel_Rouge

Apart from music, what kind of art do you like and in what order? For me it would go like this:

1. classical music (all eras, including opera and all sorts of vocal)
2. folk/world music
3. fashion
4. ballet
5. ballroom and other kinds of dancing
6. jazz
7. paintings
8. sculptures
9. photography
10. films
11. cooking
12. fairytales
13. poetry
14. fiction


----------



## Aramis

1. Drowning hamsters and exposing human/animal corpses.

2. All others


----------



## Conservationist

Ciel_Rouge said:


> Apart from music, what kind of art do you like and in what order? For me it would go like this:
> 
> 1. classical music (all eras, including opera and all sorts of vocal)
> 7. paintings
> 8. sculptures
> 11. cooking
> 12. fairytales
> 13. poetry
> 14. fiction


I've removed modern failings and left you with a decent list. Jazz sucks; the only good jazz occurs right after the "music" is over. Film? Film? Faux art.


----------



## Bach

1) rock and rap music
2) ur mum


----------



## Dedrater

'Art,' though not inherently utilitarian, has a societal purpose. This purpose is interwoven into religion as well, and until the Protestant Reformation, the two were perceived as the same facet of culture. Abstracting art from way of life is extraneous compartmentalization. Why do people do it? Because they're interested in gratifying themselves as individuals, and since "What's your favorite belief?" neither makes any sense nor would it make a good sound bite, "What's your favorite art form?" suffices. Finally, as art is multi-functional, it doesn't make much sense to rank one medium above another in a linear fashion. You think music is better than sculpture or achitecture? Better at _what?_


----------



## Gangsta Tweety Bird

1. metal & classical (they are the same)
2. politics
2b. philosophy
3. metal cover art
4. dragonlance books

...

999999. everything else


----------



## Tapkaara

I don't know, but I would place poetry as one of the lowest forms of art. Anyone can be a "poet." It takes a VERY RARE talent, I think, to really be a good poet.

For example, I watched Michael Jackson's funeral yesterday on TV. Queen Latifah read a specially composed poem by the "great one" herself, Maya Angelou. It was a lousy string of words that sounded to me like it could have come out of an high school poetry anthology. Yet this woman is revered as a supreme talent. 

Bottom line, anyone can string words together and claim it's some type of poem or work of art. Thus, I am very skeptical of poetry and poets in general.


----------



## Dedrater

Tapkaara said:


> I don't know, but I would place poetry as one of the lowest forms of art. Anyone can be a "poet." It takes a VERY RARE talent, I think, to really be a good poet.
> 
> For example, I watched Michael Jackson's funeral yesterday on TV. Queen Latifah read a specially composed poem by the "great one" herself, Maya Angelou. It was a lousy string of words that sounded to me like it could have come out of an high school poetry anthology. Yet this woman is revered as a supreme talent.
> 
> Bottom line, anyone can string words together and claim it's some type of poem or work of art. Thus, I am very skeptical of poetry and poets in general.


Anyone can use their innate sense of rhythm to construct corresponding rhythmic patterns of alternating beats, too. In ancient times, a rousing speech or a ritualistic war dance served slightly different purposes -- both experientially and functionally -- but were valid depending on whether or not it was 'time' for one or the other; no one worried about whether one was superior. Placing poetry before music or vice versa is to assume that there is some commonality between them that warrants linear thinking. Categorically, all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples, and no apples are oranges. This is the sort of stuff that IQ tests aim to test for.

What's really important isn't whether an individual is hierarchically superior to another for being adept at producing art, but whether the producer is being supplied with an active, reality-affirming context for his art/culture/way of life. On which of the several functions of music, for instance, is the producer focusing, and will it yield results which benefit the whole? If not, it's garbage.


----------



## Aramis

Tapkaara said:


> I don't know, but I would place poetry as one of the lowest forms of art. Anyone can be a "poet." It takes a VERY RARE talent, I think, to really be a good poet.
> 
> For example, I watched Michael Jackson's funeral yesterday on TV. Queen Latifah read a specially composed poem by the "great one" herself, Maya Angelou. It was a lousy string of words that sounded to me like it could have come out of an high school poetry anthology. Yet this woman is revered as a supreme talent.
> 
> Bottom line, anyone can string words together and claim it's some type of poem or work of art. Thus, I am very skeptical of poetry and poets in general.


True, but can't we say the same thing about all other arts? It's easy to "compose" or record some noises based on random, unusuall rhytm and say that it's avant-garde music. Some people will take you as a genius. I know because I did it myself. It's also not difficult to paint chaotic anything and say: "that's my abstract painting, this red patch symbolizes my sufferings and passions of my soul which belongs to my sensual spirit, I think we all should find this wonderful slaughter inside ourselves, so we can finally deal with Jesus and live in peace forever". There always will be people to give you applause and maybe even money for such works. Anyone can pretent to be an artist, no matter if he writes silly poems or do anything else.


----------



## Tapkaara

Aramis said:


> True, but can't we say the same thing about all other arts? It's easy to "compose" or record some noises based on random, unusuall rhytm and say that it's avant-garde music. Some people will take you as a genius. I know because I did it myself. It's also not difficult to paint chaotic anything and say: "that's my abstract painting, this red patch symbolizes my sufferings and passions of my soul which belongs to my sensual spirit, I think we all should find this wonderful slaughter inside ourselves, so we can finally deal with Jesus and live in peace forever". There always will be people to give you applause and maybe even money for such works. Anyone can pretent to be an artist, no matter if he writes silly poems or do anything else.


I agree with you COMPLETELY. The randomness of poetry can also be applied to music and to visual art. Although some very random sounding avant-garde work of music sounds grating, silly, purposeles and pretentious to my ears, there will also be those who claim to see real depth and artistic value in it and call it a masterwork. Of course, the composer will also defend it, claiming it sounds just the way he wanted it.

So yes, this can be applied to any art form, but it seems especially widespread in poety.

_I sit at my desk. Alone. But in the light.
Where have the hours gone? Where will they go?
Where have I been? To where am I headed?
The wind is still; it cares not that I sit alone in the light._

I just wrote that. I am now a poet. It's a masterwork!


----------



## Dedrater

Tapkaara said:


> So yes, this can be applied to any art form, but it seems especially widespread in poety.


Ever heard of the Grammy Awards?


----------



## Ciel_Rouge

Let's make one thing clear. It is not about something being superior to something else IN GENERAL. It is about OUR prefernces - I tend to mostly listen to music and I very rarely care for fiction but sometimes I do. All of the things listed are kinds of art that I care about, I just ranked them according to what matters to me. I just wanted to compare my list with other people, for some of us poetry may come second or last etc.


----------



## Elgarian

Wasn't Ciel just asking about our preferences? I don't think he was asking us to rank the arts in any objective sense, or in any profound way. He was asking about us and our attitudes, not about the arts themselves. [Afterword: I wrote this before I saw that while I was writing, he'd explained it himself.]

So, for example, the visual arts are of overwhelming importance for me - not because visual art is more significant in itself, but because I happen to be a very visually-orientated person, and I find paintings, drawings, and prints more enriching than any other art form. I'm unable to enjoy ballet; but that's to say nothing about ballet - only about me.

In the same way Tapkaara's low opinion of poetry tells us something about Tapkaara, but not much about poetry. A low opinion of poetry as an art form probably means that the holder of the opinion has never really been struck (so far) by a deep encounter with a great poem. But a great poem can be just as influential as a great symphony or a great painting. It can become so powerful a companion in your life that it comes to mind immediately at certain key moments; new meanings can be attached to it; new truths discovered; new music found in its rhythms and word-sounds.

So for instance, in _The Tempest_, we come to see Caliban as a subhuman creature, a monster devoid of sensitivity or feeling, until suddenly we're shocked when he makes his famous 'the isle is full of noises' speech; and we realise not only that we had the wrong idea about Caliban, but that Caliban represents _us_; we humans. And so this amazing piece of poetry is a description (among other things) of the human condition, full of pain on the one hand, and imaginative longing on the other. If you really get hit by the music and the meaning of this, poetry is going to zoom up your personal 'art chart' pretty fast. But if they seem like just words, then poetry will stay bumping around at the bottom.

Be not afeard; the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again: and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open and show riches
Ready to drop upon me; that, when I waked,
I cried to dream again.


----------



## Ciel_Rouge

Yes Elgarian, the thread is indeed intended as a place to share and compare personal preferences and not as battleground for proving that one colour is better than another  I shared a complete list with you all so don't be so shy ;-)


----------



## Conservationist

Tapkaara said:


> Queen Latifah read a specially composed poem by the "great one" herself, Maya Angelou. It was a lousy string of words that sounded to me like it could have come out of an high school poetry anthology. Yet this woman is revered as a supreme talent.


She's revered for political reasons, same reason people like Toni Morrison. It's a fashion and will soon fade.

There are good poets, but I share your appraisal of the current ones. Actually, I feel that way about all current literature except Houellebecq.


----------



## Dedrater

Elgarian said:


> Wasn't Ciel just asking about our preferences? I don't think he was asking us to rank the arts in any objective sense, or in any profound way.


To save time without getting too specific, since this is a somewhat trivial point to clarify in a thread of this kind: If we approach the world not through ourselves as individuals exclusively but rather transcendentally (see: Kant), then any objective property affixed to that which we prefer must necessarily be accounted for in our preference, if it is to make any sense. In politics, do we 'prefer' ideologies, or do we _believe_ in them? I believe in quality art.

That having been said, since each medium has a distinct function, it's impossible to rank them -- even in terms of personal preference. To me, it's like ranking sleeping, eating, and breathing: they're all essential for the system to function as a whole, so I'm completely unable to conceive of how one might be preferable to any other. This assumes, of course, that there is a coherent societal ethos in place which governs these mediums, but there isn't. The result is that movies, tattoos, and coloring books get included in the list, despite the obvious error in doing so.

Again, it's not an especially pressing issue, but perhaps worth looking at in this way anyway.


----------



## Tapkaara

Conservationist said:


> She's revered for political reasons, same reason people like Toni Morrison. It's a fashion and will soon fade.
> 
> There are good poets, but I share your appraisal of the current ones. Actually, I feel that way about all current literature except Houellebecq.


I agree. The fabulous Miss Angelou is more of a political figurehead than a true talent with words.

I have read poems that I have enjoyed, by the way. Some of the stuff by Poe is pretty good. Also the Finnish poet Runeberg. The French poet Rimbaud has done some good stuff. I, in particular, like his Le Dormeur du Val.


----------



## Weston

I'll play along - there could be interesting discoveries with this thread if we don't get in any shouting matches.

1. Tied. Classical Music and Progressive rock, which is scarcely rock and sometimes scarcely music, and certainly isn't metal.

2. Painting. I am/was a free lance illustrator, and I love all genres of painting.

3. Writing. I hesitate to say "literature" because that would be a bit pretentious if I really enjoy escapist fiction.

4. Film -- a combination of most other art forms.

5. Poetry. I do like it occasionally. Best shared with a romantic partner.

I would have thought painting should be in my number one slot after spending a lifetime involved in it. But painting does not quite give the opportunity to provide a climax to the piece the way music does. A painting does not (generally) move through time. Music can have multiple mini crescendos and climaxes throughout and set the stage for one very big value moment, if the composer chooses, because of it's timing. Painting presents itself all at once. It can have a sort of climax, a center of interest, but that's usually the first thing you see. So the timing is all backward from our cultural norms of exposition, rising action, climax and dénouement. Or Exposition, Development, Recapitulation, and Coda. These forms mirror somewhat our most cherished biological process, but painting cannot quite achieve that form. I have worked on ways to force them to reveal themselves little by little without much success. Maybe someday. . .


----------



## bdelykleon

1. Literature (but good poetry died about 50 years ago)
2. Music
3. Visual Arts
4. Ballet
5. Architecture


----------



## Elgarian

Dedrater said:


> That having been said, since each medium has a distinct function, it's impossible to rank them -- even in terms of personal preference.


The rankings here are not attributes of the arts in the lists; they're attributes attached to _us_; and so they can be ranked in terms of preference. Indeed, there's a very practical way of assessing the reality of the preference. My preference for the visual arts is expressed through the very large number of pictures on my walls (and the time I choose to spend looking at them), the very large number of art books on my shelves (and the time I choose to spend enjoying them), and the amount of time I choose to spend (relatively speaking) actively engaged with the visual arts in comparison with other art forms. (Eg. I spend no time at all watching ballet, or listening to jazz. These two art forms have no place in my life at all, and don't even make it onto the list.)



> To me, it's like ranking sleeping, eating, and breathing: they're all essential for the system to function as a whole, so I'm completely unable to conceive of how one might be preferable to any other.


My point is that that is a statement about you.


----------



## Sid James

I don't value one area of art over the other. I equally love good music, visual arts, literature, architecture. I think they're all great examples of what humanity can do at their peak...


----------



## Ciel_Rouge

Agreed, an amazing painting is no less amazing than an amazing piece of music  OK, I guess I should specify that "ranking" means what you DO most - if you listen to music 90 % of the day that would be number 1 I guess.


----------



## Bach

Tapkaara said:


> I don't know, but I would place poetry as one of the lowest forms of art. Anyone can be a "poet." It takes a VERY RARE talent, I think, to really be a good poet.
> 
> For example, I watched Michael Jackson's funeral yesterday on TV. Queen Latifah read a specially composed poem by the "great one" herself, Maya Angelou. It was a lousy string of words that sounded to me like it could have come out of an high school poetry anthology. Yet this woman is revered as a supreme talent.
> 
> Bottom line, anyone can string words together and claim it's some type of poem or work of art. Thus, I am very skeptical of poetry and poets in general.


Then you've clearly never read any Milton.


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> Then you've clearly never read any Milton.


Clearly I have not!


----------



## Bach

Paradise Lost is a work of incredible linguistic riches - an explosion of multifaceted, extended metaphors makes it quite incomprehensible at times.. requires a lot of time and effort. Rewarding though..


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> Paradise Lost is a work of incredible linguistic riches - an explosion of multifaceted, extended metaphors makes it quite incomprehensible at times.. requires a lot of time and effort. Rewarding though..


Well, I will look into it. Have you read any Edgar Allen Poe, Bach?


----------



## Bach

I love Edgar Allen Poe - I read all three Dupin stories in one night, I seem to remember..


----------



## danae

Since the "ranking" issue has been solved, I can now post my own list with the art forms I enjoy the most, that is, the ones that I spend more time engaged in. 

1. Classical and contemporary music, rock, blues, jazz, world and traditional/folk music
2. Contemporary dance
3. Cinema
4. Photography
5. Painting and visual arts in general
6. Combined arts (multi-art performances, free improvisation, video-art, live electronics, street performances, street theater, interactive improvisational, experiencial, experimental theater etc etc)
7. Literature


----------



## Scott Good

There is lots of great poetry! Even poets living today believe it or not.

2 from Canada:

I like Lorna Crozier. The "Sex lives of Vegetables" is a great series - very funny.

*ONIONS*
The onion loves the onion.
It hugs its many layers,
saying, O, O, O,
each vowel smaller
than the last.

Some say it has no heart.
It surrounds itself,
feels whole. Primordial.
First among vegetables.

If Eve had bitten it
instead of the apple,
how different
Paradise.

Also, Margaret Atwood has penned a few killer poems.
*
Notes Towards a Poem That Can Never Be Written*

This is the place
you would rather not know about
This is the place that will inhabit you
This is the place you cannot imagine
This is the place that will finally defeat you

where the word why shrivels and empties
itself. This is famine.

There is no poem you can write
about it, the sandpits
where so many were buried
& unearthed, the unendurable
pain still traced on their skins.

We make wreaths of adjectives for them,
we count them like beads,
we turn them into statistics and litanies
and into poems like this one.

Nothing works,
They remain what they are.

The woman lies on the wet cement floor
under the unending light,
needle marks on her arms put there
to kill the brain
and wonders why she is dying

She is dying because she said.
She is dying for the sake of the word.
It is her body, silent
and fingerless, writing this poem.

It resembles an operation
but it is not one

nor despite the spread legs, grunts
& blood, is it a birth.

Partly, it's a job
partly it's a display of skill
like a concerto.

It can be done badly
or well, they tell themselves.

Partly, it's an art.

The facts of this world seen clearly
are seen through tears;
why tell me then
there is something wrong with my eyes?

To see clearly and without flinching,
without turning away,
this is agony, the eyes taped open
two inches from the sun.

What is it you see then?
Is it a bad dream, a hallucination?
Is it a vision?
What is it you hear?

The razor across the eyeball
is a detail from an old film.
It is also a truth.
Witness is what you must bear.

In this country you can say what you like
because no one will listen to you anyway,
it's safe enough, in this country you can try to write
the poem that can never be written,
the poem that invents
nothing and excuses nothing,
because you invent and excuse yourself each day.

Elsewhere, this poem is not invention.
Elsewhere, this poem takes courage.
Elsewhere, this poem must be written
because the poets are already dead.

Elsewhere, this poem must be written
as if you are already dead,
as if nothing more can be done
or said to save you.

Elsewhere you must write this poem
because the is nothing more to do.


----------



## Edward Elgar

This is an excelent thread, I've been thinking how the arts rank with each other for some time and have come up with this concise list;

1 - Music (all artistic audiable experiences)
2 - Visual Art (paintings, sculpture, moving image)
3 - Literature
4 - Dance
5 - Theology

Please note these are all _creative_ arts.


----------



## Bach

Dance? Really?


----------



## Air

1. Music - not cheap music, though and Artistic Gymnastics (i know this doesn't count but I had to add it in anyways, please don't stare, we're talking about what we enjoy the most)
2. Literature-non poetry (could be #1 if with the right book)
3. Architecture - Fascinates me.
4. Theology (it hurts my brain though)
5. Photography - one of my favorite hobbies, yet I don't think the art itself ranks among the ones above
6. Visual Arts (please no museums full of busts)
7. Cinema - I enjoy this a lot too, though in a slightly addictive way

Somewhere at the bottom, not to say I don't enjoy them in the slightest...

8. Dance and Poetry (tied)

Overall, I'd say nothing overpowers the rest.


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> I love Edgar Allen Poe - I read all three Dupin stories in one night, I seem to remember..


I've not read them yest, but I have them in my library...maybe that's what I'll do tonight...


----------



## Bach

"The Murders in the Rue Morgue", "The Mystery of Marie Rogêt" and "The Purloined Letter". They're excellent!


----------



## Weston

airad2 said:


> 1. Music - not cheap music, though . . .


Can you expand on this? Do you mean music that is too facile to create? I enjoy even that, but on a completely different level. Or did you mean monetary value?


----------



## danae

Edward Elgar said:


> 5 - Theology
> 
> Please note these are all _creative_ arts.


How is "theology" an art form? Please explain.


----------



## kg4fxg

*If it interested the composers...*

Well,

Besides music...
Art (Paintings, Sculpture, Architecture)
Literature and Poetry (Includes Philosophy)
Starbucks Coffee

Actually I am interested in what the composers were. Some just love Goethe for example or other works musical pieces modeled after a piece of literature. For example I am listening to David Lang's "the little match girl passion".

I want to read what the composers read, see what they saw (in some cases) and experience it. Like Beethoven's Pastoral, some things you just can't read about.

I think the "Arts" are represented by a rich and diverse group of people; my participation in this group will enhance the quality of my life in an enormous way.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

In spite of the fact that I am an artist (painter) and art educator, I probably hold literature (including poetry and drama) and music in an equal esteem. As an incurable bibliophile (nay! "bibliomaniac"!) with some 3000 books and a music collection that is not too far behind I certainly spend a good deal of time upon each art... and I can attest that there are certainly marvelous works of poetry written within the last 50 years if one only knows where to look (Czeslaw Milosz, Octavio Paz, Rafael Alberti, Yves Bonnefoy, Charles Simic, Geoffrey Hill, Anne Carson, etc... 

I think I would find it far easier to select certain favored genre within each artistic form than to rank the forms themselves. For example, as a painter I am naturally drawn within the visual arts to painting. Drawing, print, the books arts, sculpture, film, and architecture all follow somewhere behind. Installation art? I can do without it. Mime? Give me a break. Neither do I have little interest in dance... and photography is far too over-hyped and often less than artistic. 

Within literature I am an obsessive reader of poetry and shorter fiction... as well as non-fiction: essay (Emerson, Pater, Goethe, Borges, Montaigne...) biographical writings (Gray, Rousseau, Johnson, Boswell...) philosophy (Plato, Nietzsche, Rousseau, Thoreau...). The novel and theater follow somewhat behind... although there are clear exceptions: Shakespeare, Beckett, Cervantes, Proust, Calvino, Tolstoy, etc...

I have equal preferences within music. First of all, I am admittedly not a purist. I can appreciate the best in jazz, rock, even country (although it needs to be real "country" not that contemporary pop with a southern twang crap). Personally, I find the best jazz to be among the most innovative music of the 20th century... standing as a musical equivalent to many movements in Modern Art... especially Abstract Expressionism with its emphasis upon spontaneity and improvisation. As for the rest... well certainly even Beethoven, Mozart, and obviously Bartok appreciated folk music... and what are the Stanley Brothers if t the folk music of 1950s Appalachia? Within the universe that is classical music I will admit to a preference for Vocal music (Choral, Opera, Lieder, Cantatas, etc...), symphonic music, concertos, and solo instrumental music (sonatas, Bach's Well Tempered Clavier or Cello Suites, etc...). I will admit that while there are exceptions, I have not been able to get into a great deal of chamber music... especially string quartets, quintets, etc... Again there are glaring exceptions... but I'm probably weird in that I'd rather listen to Schubert's Winterreise than his Trout Quintet any day.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

How is "theology" an art form? Please explain.

I would assume it depends upon the artistic merit of the texts. It would certainly count as ART if one were reading the Bible, the Qur'an, The Gospel of Thomas, The Summa Theologica, St. Augustine's Confessions, etc...


----------



## Edward Elgar

Yes, you must have some level of artistry to come up with scripture. I suppose the main part of theology comes under the heading "literature", but also manipulating people's beliefs and spirituality is a bit of an art in itself. The best thing to have come out of theology is the music.


----------



## kg4fxg

*Theology?*

Hummmm,

Well lets see. You have different headings under Theology.

Christology
Ecclesiology
Neumontology
Apologetics 
Soteriology 
Escatology

And many others....

I was in seminary for three years. Can anyone say polyphony? I did enjoy hearing the monks chant. And all that incense too! The fog, old buildings, wearing sandels, the bell tower - too many flash backs

Oh, did I forget to mention the pipe organ? Amazing.


----------



## danae

Edward Elgar said:


> Yes, you must have some level of artistry to come up with scripture. I suppose the main part of theology comes under the heading "literature", but also manipulating people's beliefs and spirituality is a bit of an art in itself. The best thing to have come out of theology is the music.


Theology is a science, just like every other Biology, Musicology, Archaeology, Anthropology and many other -logies. Theology is the science that studies god(s), the perception of god by man, the question of faith, a lot of religious matters, philosophy, etc etc etc. How can science be an art form? 
And, given the fact that we are talking about science and not art, how can music ever come out of theology? 
I think you mean religion or religious practice but I'm not sure.


----------



## kg4fxg

*Theology - Science verses Art*



danae said:


> Theology is a science, just like every other Biology, Musicology, Archaeology, Anthropology and many other -logies. Theology is the science that studies god(s), the perception of god by man, the question of faith, a lot of religious matters, philosophy, etc etc etc. How can science be an art form?
> And, given the fact that we are talking about science and not art, how can music ever come out of theology?
> I think you mean religion or religious practice but I'm not sure.


I am not stating a fact but rather asking....

Theology (one's view of God) I am sure has and was the inspiration behind many early music compositions. Just ask Bach! Oh, he is dead - sorry. No, not the genius one on the forum

But if you want to call it science (agreed) OK. But what about computer generated music? Is not that more of a science? Or maybe the question would be is computer generated music an art?

I am sure there is something to think about here


----------



## Scott Good

One art form that hasn't been mentioned is comedy - stand up that is.

That has played a big part of my aesthetic indulgences!, (I will assume we all think it is artistic), and has greatly influenced the way I think.

And what about sculpture? A Rodin exhibit I saw a few years ago had a tremendous impact on me, and further study of his technique and philosophy made me realize how much musicians can learn from great sculptors, especially in regards to multiple perspectives and motion.


----------



## danae

kg4fxg said:


> I am not stating a fact but rather asking....
> 
> Theology (one's view of God) I am sure has and was the inspiration behind many early music compositions. Just ask Bach! Oh, he is dead - sorry. No, not the genius one on the forum
> 
> But if you want to call it science (agreed) OK. But what about computer generated music? Is not that more of a science? Or maybe the question would be is computer generated music an art?
> 
> I am sure there is something to think about here


Theology IS a science. This is not an opinion. It has what every science has: history, methodology and a theoretical foundation. It can't be compared with art forms, and "computer generated music" -if it means what I think it means- is an art form.


----------



## Elgarian

danae said:


> Theology IS a science. This is not an opinion. It has what every science has: history, methodology and a theoretical foundation.


But it doesn't have the 'scientific method' at the core of its methodology, that is: the special sequence of making observations, formulating hypotheses, making predictions, making more observations to test the predictions, etc.

It has an intellectual discipline so that it might be included under the general umbrella of philosophy, but there's no way of testing its hypotheses in the scientific sense; so I think I'd have difficulty accepting it as a science. At least, I think its inclusion would rob the word 'science' of useful meaning.


----------



## Mirror Image

Elgarian said:


> But it doesn't have the 'scientific method' at the core of its methodology, that is: the special sequence of making observations, formulating hypotheses, making predictions, making more observations to test the predictions, etc.
> 
> It has an intellectual discipline so that it might be included under the general umbrella of philosophy, but there's no way of testing its hypotheses in the scientific sense; so I think I'd have difficulty accepting it as a science. At least, I think its inclusion would rob the word 'science' of useful meaning.


Yeah, what a silly statement to make that theology is a science. I mean it's not like you have scientists coming out in lab coats saying "Okay we just did a test to see if a person could part the ocean by the waving of his hands." Um...no, it's not a science and it's a silly assertion to claim it is.


----------



## kg4fxg

*Darwin*

Almost as silly as saying that we came from apes? Evolution is science? No, evolution is a theory not a fact. Yes, they call it science but it can't be proven.

I think I'll go back to ponder what that old rock of a million years evolved from.......


----------



## Mirror Image

kg4fxg said:


> Almost as silly as saying that we came from apes? Evolution is science? No, evolution is a theory not a fact. Yes, they call it science but it can't be proven.
> 
> I think I'll go back to ponder what that old rock of a million years evolved from.......


I know! That whole evolution theory is a bunch of crap. Scientists will NEVER prove evolution, because it never happened. If it did, then why haven't all the other apes evolved yet?

Nah...I don't believe it. Darwin should have been checked into a mental hospital.


----------



## danae

Mirror Image said:


> Yeah, what a silly statement to make that theology is a science. I mean it's not like you have scientists coming out in lab coats saying "Okay we just did a test to see if a person could part the ocean by the waving of his hands." Um...no, it's not a science and it's a silly assertion to claim it is.


Well then, if all scientists, in order to qualify as such, had to wear lab coats and deliver measurable and proven FACTS, then sciences like Anthropology, Economics, History, Linguistics, Ethnology, Philology, Semantics, and Musicology, among many others, wouldn't fit into the broad definition of science, would they?


----------



## Mirror Image

danae said:


> Well then, if all scientists, in order to qualify as such, had to wear lab coats and deliver measurable and proven FACTS, then sciences like Anthropology, Economics, History, Linguistics, Ethnology, Philology, Semantics, and Musicology, among many others, wouldn't fit into the broad definition of science, would they?


I was just making a joke. You shouldn't take what everybody says so literally. I guess nobody has a sense of humor in Greece do they?


----------



## danae

Mirror Image said:


> I was just making a joke. You shouldn't take what everybody says so literally. I guess nobody has a sense of humor in Greece do they?


Which part was a joke? The lab coats or that it's "silly" to consider theology a science?


----------



## Mirror Image

danae said:


> Which part was a joke? The lab coats or that it's "silly" to consider theology a science?


The lab coats. It's silly to consider theology a science, because it can't be proven.

By the way, if a joke has to be explained, then it's no longer a joke. It's clear that you didn't get it.


----------



## danae

Mirror Image said:


> The lab coats. It's silly to consider theology a science, because it can't be proven. Next.


Ok then, back to what I was saying before: sciences like Anthropology, Linguistics etc study subjects that can't "be proven", in the sense that there is no measurable parameter or "fact", rather than informed opinions or a suggestion of theories. There can be sciences that are not concerned with "facts" and theology is one of them. Over and out.


----------



## Mirror Image

danae said:


> Ok then, back to what I was saying before: sciences like Anthropology, Linguistics etc study subjects that can't "be proven", in the sense that there is no measurable parameter or "fact", rather than informed opinions or a suggestion of theories. There can be sciences that are not concerned with "facts" and theology is one of them. Over and out.


Nah...theology isn't a science. Peace out.


----------



## danae

Mirror Image said:


> By the way, if a joke has to be explained, then it's no longer a joke. It's clear that you didn't get it.


Well, obviously no I didn't get it. Apparently for some reason you feel the need to point this out to me.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

One art form that hasn't been mentioned is comedy - stand up that is.

Wouldn't that merely be a branch of theater... improvisational theater?


----------



## Elgarian

kg4fxg said:


> Almost as silly as saying that we came from apes? Evolution is science? No, evolution is a theory not a fact. Yes, they call it science but it can't be proven.


Evolution is a scientific theory, not a science in itself. It's a theory that was deduced from observations, and which makes certain kinds of predictions that _in principle_ can be tested, but because most evolutionary changes are slow, it's very difficult to actually carry out most of those tests. I'm not an expert in this area (I'm a physicist, not a biologist), so I can't be sure of my facts, but I believe there are certain evolutionary changes on a small scale that have been observed to take place (I vaguely remember, for example, an experiment to do with the colours of the wings of a certain kind of moth.)

It's important to note that _NO_ scientific theory can be proven; theories can only ever be disproved. That's the way the scientific method works - by testing the best theories until they fail, and then modifying or replacing them.


----------



## Elgarian

danae said:


> Well then, if all scientists, in order to qualify as such, had to wear lab coats and deliver measurable and proven FACTS, then sciences like Anthropology, Economics, History, Linguistics, Ethnology, Philology, Semantics, and Musicology, among many others, wouldn't fit into the broad definition of science, would they?


There's really serious muddle here. These are _disciplines_, but they are not sciences. I say again: science is a discipline that follows a very carefully laid out continuous practice of observation, hypothesis making, prediction, more observation to test the prediction, followed by modification or rejection of the hypothesis if the prediction fails. That is the scientific method. That is how a science operates.


----------



## danae

Elgarian said:


> There's really serious muddle here. These are _disciplines_, but they are not sciences. I say again: science is a discipline that follows a very carefully laid out continuous practice of observation, hypothesis making, prediction, more observation to test the prediction, followed by modification or rejection of the hypothesis if the prediction fails. That is the scientific method. That is how a science operates.


I didn't know and those ******** at the Athens University spent many hours teaching us that the "disciplines" I mentioned are actually sciences, social sciences to be more specific. What did they know? They were just university professors...lol...


----------



## Elgarian

danae said:


> I didn't know and those ******** at the Athens University spent many hours teaching us that the "disciplines" I mentioned are actually sciences, social sciences to be more specific. What did they know? They were just university professors...lol...


Ah! Now I see that we're _both_ guilty of muddle; and I think I can now unravel at least my end of it.

We need to make the distinction clear between 'social science' on the one hand, and 'natural science' on the other. Modern use of the word 'science' tends to be associated with 'natural science', but the use of the word changed over time. (I think the Greek word from which it was derived probably meant merely 'knowledge'.)

There's some overlap between the social sciences and natural science, but they do have their own distinct disciplines; and at least here in the UK, I've never heard history, for example, referred to as merely 'science'; 'social science', yes; merely 'science', no.

At any rate, I think I now understand why you're expressing yourself in the way you are, so thank you for your persistence.
(Apologies for dragging this thread so far off topic.)


----------



## danae

Elgarian said:


> Ah! Now I see that we're _both_ guilty of muddle; and I think I can now unravel at least my end of it.
> 
> We need to make the distinction clear between 'social science' on the one hand, and 'natural science' on the other. Modern use of the word 'science' tends to be associated with 'natural science', but the use of the word changed over time. (I think the Greek word from which it was derived probably meant merely 'knowledge'.)
> 
> There's some overlap between the social sciences and natural science, but they do have their own distinct disciplines; and at least here in the UK, I've never heard history, for example, referred to as merely 'science'; 'social science', yes; merely 'science', no.
> 
> At any rate, I think I now understand why you're expressing yourself in the way you are, so thank you for your persistence.
> (Apologies for dragging this thread so far off topic.)


No, actually it's my mistake, because I tend to think that these things are self explanatory just because I happen to know them. I figured that the distinction of sciences was something everyone would know, but then I didn't think that the most common tendency is to think of "science"as "natural science". Finally I'm glad we understood each other.


----------



## kg4fxg

*New Thread*

Please don't take this personally but you all gave me an idea.

I started a new thread called "The Inspiration Behind Your Favorite Piece of Music"

Basically you name your favorite piece of music and then name the inspiration behind it.

Therefore, if a particular Art Form was the inspiration behind a piece we will be talking more specifics with examples.

I am sure there are pieces of music inspired by (Art Form) Poems, Architecture, Litereature.....you tell me.

Many Thanks All


----------



## danae

Mirror Image said:


> Nah...theology isn't a science. Peace out.


You know what would be really intresting? If you could justify what you're saying with real arguments. But I guess you don't know how to do that, do you?


----------



## Maestro

1. Literature
2. Music
3. Sculpture
4. Painting
5. Cuisine


----------



## Tapkaara

Maestro said:


> 1. Literature
> 2. Music
> 3. Sculpture
> 4. Painting
> 5. Cuisine


Cuisine...now that's an interesting thought!

Cuisine is definitely an art. Art is meant to stimulate the senses; taste is as legitimate a sense as hearing (music) or art (sight). A very good point!

(And it's got to be the most widely loved art form, too! Who doesn't like to eat good food?)


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> Cuisine...now that's an interesting thought!
> 
> Cuisine is definitely an art. Art is meant to stimulate the senses; taste is as legitimate a sense as hearing (music) or art (sight). A very good point!
> 
> (And it's got to be the most widely loved art form, too! Who doesn't like to eat good food?)


I love good food.


----------



## kg4fxg

*Cuisine*

Now there is an interesting thought. I wonder what are the composers or artists favorite dishes?

I hear tell that Horowitz liked filet of sole and asparagus. It was almost a ritual before a concert to eat the same dish.


----------



## Scott Good

StlukesguildOhio said:


> One art form that hasn't been mentioned is comedy - stand up that is.
> 
> Wouldn't that merely be a branch of theater... improvisational theater?


Perhaps, but I feel it has enough components to make it's own category.

It is both written and improvised.

It is a mixture of acting and being.

All of these differ greatly between artists, which adds another layer to the art form.

And, perhaps what makes it also similar to science fiction, is that it can make deep social commentary that would normally be inappropriate in other mediums. It has permission because of the humorous intent.

I don't know, it seems very different than pure improv theater, even though that can be very funny (and so can all of the arts). But it has such a strong written component. Comedians are constantly testing and revising their material, but always have to be ready for the unexpected. In this way it is like a sport.

So many elements are like other arts, but put together make a unique form.

But, just an opinion.


----------



## Scott Good

Mirror Image said:


> I know! That whole evolution theory is a bunch of crap. Scientists will NEVER prove evolution, because it never happened. If it did, then why haven't all the other apes evolved yet?
> 
> Nah...I don't believe it. Darwin should have been checked into a mental hospital.


MI, please tell me you are joking.


----------



## bdelykleon

kg4fxg said:


> Now there is an interesting thought. I wonder what are the composers or artists favorite dishes?
> 
> I hear tell that Horowitz liked filet of sole and asparagus. It was almost a ritual before a concert to eat the same dish.


Rossini was a very famous gourmet, he even laid claim to several dishes including the all famous Tournedos Rossini:


----------



## Tapkaara

Sibelius loved oysters.


----------



## Mirror Image

When Ravel visited Vaughan Williams and his wife at their home in England, Vaughan Williams said Ravel really liked English food:


----------



## Air

Mmmmm..... broccoli....yummy.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

O.K.: to dispense with the obvious, I post on some _Classical Music_ forums (but NOT on literature or visual arts forums) so Classical Music will clearly top *my* list.

After that, I have some dabbler's interest in literature, with a sort of "sub-emphasis" in poetry. [That interest is enough to impel me to have memorized a few poetic works. In that respect, I take after my mother, though not nearly to her standard of thoroughness, as she had an eidetic memory in that realm.]

Beyond those categories, I have no obvious "pecking order," except to place 'dance' in _last_ place.


----------



## Tapkaara

airad2 said:


> Mmmmm..... broccoli....yummy.


Oy vey....!


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Elgarian said:


> Ah! Now I see that we're _both_ guilty of muddle; and I think I can now unravel at least my end of it.
> 
> We need to make the distinction clear between 'social science' on the one hand, and 'natural science' on the other. Modern use of the word 'science' tends to be associated with 'natural science', but the use of the word changed over time. (I think the Greek word from which it was derived probably meant merely 'knowledge'.)
> 
> There's some overlap between the social sciences and natural science, but they do have their own distinct disciplines; and at least here in the UK, I've never heard history, for example, referred to as merely 'science'; 'social science', yes; merely 'science', no.
> 
> At any rate, I think I now understand why you're expressing yourself in the way you are, so thank you for your persistence.
> (Apologies for dragging this thread so far off topic.)


I'm not sure that it is correct to say that modern usage of the word "science" is associated mainly or solely with "natural science". That narrow construction went out of the window decades ago. At least over much of the post-WW2 period, "science" has been taken to include "social sciences". Witness the existence of many "Social Science" Departments in Universities

Nor is it correct to say that an area of study is defined as a "science" solely by reference to whether predictions based on hypotheses are falsifiable by reference to empirical data (Karl Popper). There is another very major area of science, namely "formal science" - which includes mathematics, statistics and logic - which uses a completely different method of verifying its knowledge based on a priori reasoning rather by reference to empirical methods.


----------



## Elgarian

"Science" (Compact Oxford Dictionary definition):

1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. (Elgarian's context)
2. A systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject. (Danae's context)

The confusion in this discussion arose because of the existence of these two alternative meanings - a matter we've now resolved.


----------



## Conservationist

Andy Loochazee said:


> I'm not sure that it is correct to say that modern usage of the word "science" is associated mainly or solely with "natural science". That narrow construction went out of the window decades ago. At least over much of the post-WW2 period, "science" has been taken to include "social sciences". Witness the existence of many "Social Science" Departments in Universities
> 
> Nor is it correct to say that an area of study is defined as a "science" solely by reference to whether predictions based on hypotheses are falsifiable by reference to empirical data (Karl Popper). There is another very major area of science, namely "formal science" - which includes mathematics, statistics and logic - which uses a completely different method of verifying its knowledge based on a priori reasoning rather by reference to empirical methods.


Many of the sciences are now dominated by statistical correlation-based logic.

Formal logic strikes me as a great way to project linear thought into a complex world. If language is logic, and language came from humans, than other aspects of human thought are equally worth exploring.

Formal logic is also wonderfully deconstructive, meaning that it's easy to disassociate and hard to draw syncretic conclusions. No wonder more people read Schopenhauer...


----------



## Lisztfreak

1. Music
2. Literature (primarily poetry)
3. Acting
4. Painting
5. Sculpture
6. Film-making


----------



## Noak

1. All music, I discriminate no music.
2. Film
3. Art as in Painting
4. Art as in Photography


----------



## Roberto

I agree with Ciel that music is top art, though I wonder if anyone could prove it to be so.

2nd is Verse Drama and Epic Poetry;

then architecture

Painting & sculpture

Other forms of literature

Dance

other

I like the defence of poetry Elgarian - and I like to think of _Hamlet_, as TS Eliot did, as a partly musical structure (with distinct movements, rhythms, changes in tempo and pitch)

Any lover of music should be fond of poetry too


----------



## Polednice

Although it pains me to say it, I think I would have to place literature (of all kinds) as the highest form of art, with music coming a close second.

These two forms of art are the ones that matter to me most, so I won't bother trying to create an arbitrary list of preferences for other types. Perhaps if I were to view music and literature without their cultural baggage, then I'd opt for music as the best form of art, but literature encompasses so much more of mankind's cultural heritage and has done so much more to shape societies around the world. Any large-scale impacts of music are a modern phenomenon that can't compete with the magnitude of importance of literature.


----------



## tgtr0660

1. Music
2. Literature
3. Painting
4. Poetry
5. Theater
6. Sculpture
7. Film-making (the directors's...)


----------

