# Your favorite non-music art form



## violadude

Besides music, what is the art that you most appreciate.

Note: I am not sure if literature or poetry is considered an "art" but I included it in the thread anyway.

Note 2: I don't know if I can edit the poll now, but I wasn't thinking. So for Ballet, take that to include all forms of dance.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Forgive my ignorance, but is architecture considered visual art?


----------



## violadude

Dodecaplex said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but is architecture considered visual art?


Oh ya...I forgot about architecture....I'm not sure if it is considered visual arts but for the sake of this thread yes, consider it visual arts.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Tie between literature and visual arts, I voted visual arts because sculpture can be really cool. Although, I love to read the classics.


----------



## Ukko

I chose 'visual arts' because of nature photography. Some of it is extremely awesome. The subject doesn't have to be awesome, though that helps.


----------



## kv466

Cooking and sharp shooting.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Have to say literature, couldn't survive without my Dickens.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> Note: I am not sure if literature or poetry is considered an "art" but I included it in the thread anyway.


WTF?! You think literature might not be an art, but food definitely is?! Literature is the grandest art of them all.


----------



## AlainB

I cast my vote for Visual Arts. Nothing beats architecture masterworks in my book. 

Absolutely sublime.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> WTF?! You think literature might not be an art, but food definitely is?! Literature is the grandest art of them all.


No of course not! I definitely considered it an art...but I don't know if it was officially considered an ART. Because it doesn't have the word art on it. I know theater and dance don't on the poll too, but you can combine those into performance arts.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

A difficult one. For me it is a choice between visual arts and poetry/literature.

I don't really think cooking can be thought of as an art form, any more than furniture making. Art must surely be concerned with conveying a message about the human condition. The fact that cooks and furniture makers can aspire to the state of artistry is legitimate and realistic (though uncommon) but they are touching it from the outside.

The others, and music, require an act of imagination and recreation before they can be experienced. And all of them, excluding poetry/literature, require the mediation of third parties, who necessarily impose their own, different processes of imagination and recreation on our process of experiencing the work of art. So that, in fact, it is possible to speak of K466, in itself, as being a work of art (because, with enough skill, one can appreciate it by merely reading the score, in the way that one might read a book), but also that a particular performance of it as also being a work of art (in a differnet category) at the same time.

I am reminded that, just as the ancient Greeks had four words for "love", where we seem to make do with one and thereby endless confusions arise, so maybe we should have different words for art: 

art-1 would be where you just stand in front of it and "get it" (painting, sculpture and so on)
art-2 where you must undertake a process (read a book, score, poem)
art-3 where you have to experience somone else's process and, in so doing, undertake your own process (theatre, ballet, music performances)


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Whichever category film fits into. I think its language has the most emotional possibilities of anything outside of music.


----------



## Polednice

violadude said:


> No of course not! I definitely considered it an art...but I don't know if it was officially considered an ART. Because it doesn't have the word art on it. I know theater and dance don't on the poll too, but you can combine those into performance arts.


Well silly you.


----------



## violadude

Polednice said:


> Well silly you.


Yes, silly me. Believe it or not, I'm quite ignorant of many things outside of music. My knowledge is very specialized. 

On the other hand, I'm not one of those dumbasses that gets randomly interviewed on the street and doesn't know who Osama Bin Laden or Margret Thatcher (for example) is either >.<.

I also know the difference between your and you're.....you'd be surprised how many people don't...especially in countries with English as a first language....


----------



## kv466

Jeremy Marchant said:


> A difficult one. For me it is a choice between visual arts and poetry/literature.
> 
> I don't really think cooking can be thought of as an art form, any more than furniture making.


Oh, Jeremy, you have such a great ear but oh would I hate going over _your_ house for dinner.


----------



## Ukko

kv466 said:


> Oh, Jeremy, you have such a great ear but oh would I hate going over _your_ house for dinner.


Cooking is a craft, as is carpentry - and furniture making. Those dinner plates with little things stacked in the middle of them do not represent art, and the craft is subverted into 'crafty' (on the part of the peddler).


----------



## Dodecaplex

AlainB said:


> I cast my vote for Visual Arts. Nothing beats architecture masterworks in my book.
> 
> Absolutely sublime.


Absolutely agree!


----------



## kv466

Hilltroll72 said:


> Cooking is a craft, as is carpentry - and furniture making. Those dinner plates with little things stacked in the middle of them do not represent art, and the craft is subverted into 'crafty' (on the part of the peddler).


I didn't mean in any way at all about how it looks on the plate.._.anyone_ can do that...not anyone can make food taste like it's from the heavens, and that is art.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

kv466 said:


> Oh, Jeremy, you have such a great ear but oh would I hate going over _your_ house for dinner.


Don't worry - I _can _cook!


----------



## Rasa

Culinary. I've had the pleasure of dining in some of Europe's finest diners, and I can't imagine it not being enjoyable.


----------



## Polednice

If it don't got no language in it, it ain't got no ability to affect us socially, politically, historically, and culturally to the same extent what loads of literature did.


----------



## kv466

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Don't worry - I _can _cook!


I'll be over tomorrow at 8


----------



## Yoshi

For me it's film. Althought I'm a music student now, I was many times in the past uncertain about which art form I wanted to pursue. They both have an important part in my life. My career will be something to do with music but film will probably remain a hobbie for me.


----------



## Ukko

kv466 said:


> I didn't mean in any way at all about how it looks on the plate.._.anyone_ can do that...not anyone can make food taste like it's from the heavens, and that is art.


My mother could make some food, for example apple pie, taste 'heavenly'. She would have been insulted if that was termed an art. A pinch of this and a dash of that was part of the craft of pie making. her husband was a carpenter - a craftsman, not an artist. No artists lived in the hills a century ago, because 'art' was something with no other purpose besides to be admired. Craft was something to be admired - and used - its craftsmanship to be appreciated before, during, and after its utilization.

Appreciation of Art requires leisure. I am thankful that I have the leisure to appreciate music; van Gogh is a bonus.


----------



## Sid James

Visual arts.

Although all of these artforms can kind of be seen as one and integrated. Peter Greenaway's films are like that (eg. _The Cook, the thief, his wife and her lover_) but I think it's kind of sensory overload, like a Wagner opera.



violadude said:


> Yes, silly me. Believe it or not, I'm quite ignorant of many things outside of music. My knowledge is very specialized.
> ...


You're not alone there. Being more limited to your field. A lot of people are today & also going back to the great composers. I think Beethoven admitted that he was basically only good at one thing: music. He wasn't really into literature like some other composers, his interest in politics wasn't by any means above the average, and he wasn't that great with people or women, etc. I can think of other composers, but don't want to tax my memory, I think you are in good company with Beethoven in a way! (But yes, knowing stuff like who the current President of the USA is does help, methinks, etc.)...


----------



## violadude

Sid James said:


> Visual arts.
> 
> Although all of these artforms can kind of be seen as one and integrated. Peter Greenaway's films are like that (eg. _The Cook, the thief, his wife and her lover_) but I think it's kind of sensory overload, like a Wagner opera.
> 
> You're not alone there. Being more limited to your field. A lot of people are today & also going back to the great composers. I think Beethoven admitted that he was basically only good at one thing: music. He wasn't really into literature like some other composers, his interest in politics wasn't by any means above the average, and he wasn't that great with people or women, etc. I can think of other composers, but don't want to tax my memory, I think you are in good company with Beethoven in a way! (But yes, knowing stuff like who the current President of the USA is does help, methinks, etc.)...


Well ya, I like to be knowledgable about things, like basic facts about what is going on in the world and basic facts about history and science and what not. But a lot of things really confuse me for no reason haha. It is very hard for me to grasp economic concepts for some reason. A lot of scientific concepts elude me as well. For example, no matter how many times someone explains to me what I mitochondria does, I still have no idea how a mitochondria knows that it needs to do that!


----------



## Sid James

^^Yeah, well information overload is the word for modern living. But though you are specialised, you'd be surprised how many general or generic skills you have. "No man is an island" someone said, I think it may have been John Donne, but I forget...


----------



## skalpel

I absolutely love architecture so much that I regularly have to make sure I look where I'm walking because I spend most of my time staring at buildings. However, I voted Literature because books have done more to influence how I think and who I am than any building or structure, no matter how incredible it may be.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I chose literature with visual arts as a close second. I love how good authors can implant hidden meanings in their work. I also love how literature can be interpreted so many ways (as can visual arts). I thoroughly enjoy reading metaphorical stories about historical events. Literature can also show the attitude of people of a certain time but can be timeless in theme. It is truly fascinating.


----------



## Couchie

Mathematics.


----------



## Couchie

Polednice said:


> If it don't got no language in it, it ain't got no ability to affect us socially, politically, historically, and culturally to the same extent what loads of literature did.


Literature also gave us Ayn Rand. For this, literature will never be forgiven!


----------



## Philip

Couchie said:


> Mathematics.


so what's your favourite math work?


----------



## Dodecaplex

Never mind.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I am an avowed bibliophile... nay! "bibliomaniac". I live in a small library of my own making. To reach this computer I must weave my way through numerous teetering towers of books not properly shelved or awaiting my attention. I spite of this, I must vote "visual arts" for the simple reason that I am a visual artist. My formal education was in the visual arts and visual art education.


----------



## Couchie

Philip said:


> so what's your favourite math work?


Method of Fluxions, Newton


----------



## Philip

Couchie said:


> Method of Fluxions, Newton


oh you mean the work that Leibniz wrote decades before


----------



## Dodecaplex

Philip said:


> oh you mean the work that Leibniz wrote decades before


Hey, I'm pretty sure you know about this little Newtonian fact, don't you?



> "I cannot proceed with the explanation of the fluxions [the calculus] now, I have preferred to conceal it thus: 6accdae13eff7i3l9n4o4qrr4s8t12vx."


----------



## Couchie

Philip said:


> oh you mean the work that Leibniz wrote decades before


Actually Newton wrote his first but didnt publish it because he wasn't a fameseeking ****.


----------



## Philip

Couchie said:


> Actually Newton wrote his first but didnt publish it because he wasn't a fameseeking ****.


"I have never grasped at fame among foreign nations, but I am very desirous to preserve my character for honesty"

hmm... sounds exactly like something you would say when fameseeking


----------



## karenpat

A no-brainer in my case...visual arts of course


----------



## presto

violadude said:


> Besides music, what is the art that you most appreciate.


For me I'm going to say Architecture, I love old buildings, sadly many are taken for granted but I believe a fine building is a work of art.
My favorite style is the Art Deco period, here's parts the Hover Building, And it was just a front to a factory, utterly amazing!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I chose literature. It was a hard choice, but I couldn't vote for all of them.

I have had a passion for Shakespeare ever since I was ten (is that literature or theatre???). I would get all the plays and poems I could get my hands on and try to make sense of them until I would be able read and understand them without a problem. I still haven't achieved that goal yet unfortunately. My favourite play of his is "Twelfth Night" which I will soon adapt into my third opera changing the title to "Cesario in Illyria."


----------



## Art Rock

Visual arts, by far. Paintings, photography, architecture.


----------



## Ravellian

Besides music, I'm most interested in film.. and I also consider video games to be art. Both films and video games combine narratives and visual art, making them very compelling for the viewer/player.


----------



## jalex

Poetry (not epics). In the same way as music it possesses both surface beauty and inner beauty in a way I do not perceive other art forms to (literature sometimes also manages). Also like music, I think poetry is very much about moments in context rather _as well as_ a bigger picture. At least that is the way I read it.


----------



## Polednice

jalex said:


> Poetry (not epics). In the same way as music it possesses both surface beauty and inner beauty in a way I do not perceive other art forms to (literature sometimes also manages). Also like music, I think poetry is very much about moments in context rather _as well as_ a bigger picture. At least that is the way I read it.


Of course, the other brilliant thing about poetry is that a good writer makes art out of the sound of the words as well as their meaning. There's nothing I like more than reading something that reminds me how musical language can be.


----------



## Ukko

Philip said:


> "I have never grasped at fame among foreign nations, but I am very desirous to preserve my character for honesty"
> 
> hmm... sounds exactly like something you would say when fameseeking


'Sounds exactly' like a defense of a quality he holds dear - honesty. My analysis of course colored by my own values, which may not resemble Newton's.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I voted literature but I have fairly limited tastes - mainly history, biographies, certain sports (mainly baseball), a few Russian and Greek/Roman classics and precious little else.


----------



## Philip

Hilltroll72 said:


> 'Sounds exactly' like a defense of a quality he holds dear - honesty. My analysis of course colored by my own values, which may not resemble Newton's.


so you're telling me he wrote that with the intention of not tarnishing his character... what else is new


----------



## jalex

Polednice said:


> Of course, the other brilliant thing about poetry is that a good writer makes art out of the sound of the words as well as their meaning. There's nothing I like more than reading something that reminds me how musical language can be.


That's what I meant by a sort of 'surface beauty'. There is a lot of enjoyment in just reading a poem without making any attempt to comprehend what it is saying. The sounds of the words and the shape of lines alone are extremely satisfying.


----------



## Ukko

Philip said:


> so you're telling me he wrote that with the intention of not tarnishing his character... what else is new


_defending_ his character. What is disgusting about that?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

violadude said:


> ...I don't know if I can edit the poll now, but I wasn't thinking. So for Ballet, take that to include all forms of dance.


All right... I'll edit-- :tiphat:


----------



## myaskovsky2002

violadude said:


> Oh ya...I forgot about architecture....I'm not sure if it is considered visual arts but for the sake of this thread yes, consider it visual arts.


I'm pretty sure it is a visual art....Visual art is the art you can appreciate just looking at...Not literature (you have to read) or music (you have to listen to it)...Nor Theatre (you have to see a play). Visual arts are IMHO the most immediate forms of art. It takes just a minute or a few minutes in order to appreciate the "grandeur" of a work. Not like Music, theatre, cinema, literature, poetry...You need more time for it. Of course this is just an opionion....I heve seen infinite paintings in my life...I don't like that much architecture or sculpture (another visual art indeed).

Martin


----------



## NightHawk

I wished I could choose Literature/Poetry and Visual Arts - I finally went with Visual as I love painting, sculpture, and haunting museums. However, I could not be who I am without the experiences with literature and poetry. Not that I am anybody.

Oh, and Movies too!!!



violadude said:


> Besides music, what is the art that you most appreciate.
> 
> Note: I am not sure if literature or poetry is considered an "art" but I included it in the thread anyway.
> 
> Note 2: I don't know if I can edit the poll now, but I wasn't thinking. So for Ballet, take that to include all forms of dance.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I'm pretty sure it is a visual art....

Yes... architecture is one of the major art forms studied when one studies the history of visual art. Painting and Sculptures and the Graphic Arts (prints and drawings) are the other major art forms, although a course on the visual arts will also include a limited exploration of tapestries, carpets and other "Fiber Arts", ceramics, metalry, furniture, glass, fashion, stage sets, photography, film, animation, etc... Historically the Visual Arts were divided into the Fine Arts and the Decorative Arts. This division was based on the assumption that the Fine Arts didn't have any pragmatic or utilitarian purpose while the primary purpose of the Decorative Art object was pragmatic or utilitarian with visual/decorative concerns being secondary. This division has become increasingly rejected as it has become clear how "blurred" the boundaries are. Architecture clearly had a pragmatic/utilitarian purpose in spite of its being counted among the Fine Arts. In many cases paintings had a pragmatic purpose: a portrait, a communication of religious/spiritual ideas, etc... On the other hand, many non-Western cultures do not divide the visual arts into the Fine and the Decorative Arts. Calligraphy, ornate woodworking and carpentry, tapestries, etc... are often no less revered than paintings and sculpture.

I should note that from my experience the break-down of the arts into categories generally follows along the lines of the sense through which a given art form is perceived and appreciated: Visual Arts (sight), Musical Arts (sound), Literary Arts (reading), and the Theater and Performance Arts. Theater and Performance Art includes film, dance, plays, improvisation, comedy, etc... It usually employs a visual experience, but it may also employ sound, spoken word, music, etc... and quite commonly is narrative (literary) in nature. Opera, for example, is both categorized as Music and part of the Performing Arts.

But this leads us to the question of the remaining senses: Smell, Taste, and Touch. Taste? The Culinary Arts, I suppose... but here we are pushing the boundaries or what is recognized among the traditional arts. And so then the Sense of taste would also demand that the master chef, the wine-maker, the master brewer, etc... also be recognized as artists.

Smell? Are we to see the design of perfume as an art? The creation of incense?

And this leaves us with the sense of touch. A masseuse as artist? The art of... sex?

J.K. Huysman's classic _fin de siecle/art pour l'art_ text, _Au Rebours/Against Nature_ proposed a Wildean decadent, effete character... a hedonistic voluptuary who constructs his whole environment and his life with such a concern for each and every sense.


----------



## Polednice

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I'm pretty sure it is a visual art....Visual art is the art you can appreciate just looking at...Not literature (you have to read) or music (you have to listen to it)...Nor Theatre (you have to see a play). Visual arts are IMHO the most immediate forms of art. It takes just a minute or a few minutes in order to appreciate the "grandeur" of a work. Not like Music, theatre, cinema, literature, poetry...You need more time for it. Of course this is just an opionion....I heve seen infinite paintings in my life...I don't like that much architecture or sculpture (another visual art indeed).
> 
> Martin


This is a reason why I largely _dislike_ visual art. The immediacy of it, for me, means that most of what I get from it (which doesn't tend to be that much) is concentrated in the first few moments. Of course, I can appreciate something forever, but music gives more and more over a greater length of time, and literature even more purely because they take longer to digest and so can pack more information into them!


----------



## jalex

I've always felt at a loss with visual art. I don't really know what to do with myself. I stand kind of awkwardly in front of whatever I'm looking at for a few minutes knowing that I'm doing something wrong, then embarrassedly shuffle off.

Help appreciated :lol:


----------



## Ravellian

Polednice said:


> This is a reason why I largely _dislike_ visual art. The immediacy of it, for me, means that most of what I get from it (which doesn't tend to be that much) is concentrated in the first few moments. Of course, I can appreciate something forever, but music gives more and more over a greater length of time, and literature even more purely because they take longer to digest and so can pack more information into them!


This is exactly how I feel. Visual art is something that's just _there_ all at once, kinda like a naked woman. Music is something you have to live with, over a substantial period of time, to appreciate.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Polednice- This is a reason why I largely dislike visual art. The immediacy of it, for me, means that most of what I get from it (which doesn't tend to be that much) is concentrated in the first few moments.

There is an aspect of visual art that allows for an immediacy of experience that is quite different from literature. I can start reading a novel and not know what it is about, where it is going, or whether it is likely to retain my attention even after having read some few chapters. This is not true of most visual art. Music falls somewhere in-between in that the experience is immediate... but it unfolds at the speed at which the music unfolds.

But such is not the whole experience. You cannot tell me that a rudimentary passing glance is enough to grasp this painting...










any more than a single hearing of one of Beethoven's late quartets or a Bach fugue would be enough to fully grasp those works. The fact of the matter is that even a far less obviously complex painting... this, for example...










The work of visual art is structured or composed consciously with just as much thought and artifice as the composition of a work of music or literature.

Ravellian- Visual art is something that's just there all at once, kinda like a naked woman. Music is something you have to live with, over a substantial period of time, to appreciate.

And this "kinda" makes me wonder about your experience with women... naked or otherwise... if you can actually assume that you can experience the whole woman all at once. There is plenty more to discover, I can assure you, if you are willing to put forth the time and effort.:devil: The same is true of painting.


----------



## Vaneyes

Benetton shock art.


----------



## Sid James

I haven't seen those, but it reminds me of THIS famous or infamous photo of Communist leaders Brezhnev and Honecker kissing. It even made it as a mural on the now demolished Berlin Wall. Kinda appropriate?...


----------



## starthrower

How about comedy? I think it's the next greatest art to music. Bringing home the cold, hard truth while making people laugh is a great art.


----------



## Dodecaplex

StlukesguildOhio said:


>


Mozart's scatological humor becomes much less impressive once you compare it to the sheer number of a** jokes inside that painting.


----------



## Sid James

starthrower said:


> How about comedy? I think it's the next greatest art to music. Bringing home the cold, hard truth while making people laugh is a great art.


A teacher of mine said that making the audience laugh & let their hair down is harder for an actor or playright, etc. than to do drama/tragedy. I don't know about that, I'm just saying what he said. Another thing is that as you suggest, there can be a lot of real "cold, hard truth" behind comedy, it can be funny on the surface but very dark and deep underneath...


----------



## Polednice

Another problem I have with visual art (prompted by Stluke's example post) is that, even if it _does_ pack a lot of info, for me it is not arranged in a manner that allows a feeling of _suspense_. When looking at a painting, though it may take me minutes or hours to digest it, I am only constrained by my own ability to look at and analyse however many inches of space I can manage in however many seconds. In a piece of music or a work of literature, the aspects of the work I am exposed to are constrained by the artist's own desires - gradually taking me in various directions at their own choice, creating tension and release whenever they choose.


----------



## Ravellian

_And this "kinda" makes me wonder about your experience with women... naked or otherwise... if you can actually assume that you can experience the whole woman all at once. There is plenty more to discover, I can assure you, if you are willing to put forth the time and effort. The same is true of painting._

I doubt I'm going to win an argument like this against a professional artist, but this is my opinion...

My point was more along the lines of.. a naked woman is something you can immediately appreciate, like a painting. It is easy to understand. Sex is not complicated. A relationship is something that is experienced over time, like music. A relationship is something much more complicated as it must be developed and nurtured over time, and requires much more effort by the parties involved, but can produce greater rewards (such as a happy marriage). In the same way I feel that we must be able to develop a relationship with music over time to understand and appreciate it, but I also feel it produces greater rewards... in essence, an entire journey, rather than an isolated moment. Even though I admit those isolated moments can be very beautiful.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Polednice- Another problem I have with visual art (prompted by Stluke's example post) is that, even if it does pack a lot of info, for me it is not arranged in a manner that allows a feeling of suspense. When looking at a painting, though it may take me minutes or hours to digest it, I am only constrained by my own ability to look at and analyse however many inches of space I can manage in however many seconds. In a piece of music or a work of literature, the aspects of the work I am exposed to are constrained by the artist's own desires - gradually taking me in various directions at their own choice, creating tension and release whenever they choose.

My point was more along the lines of.. a naked woman is something you can immediately appreciate, like a painting. It is easy to understand. Sex is not complicated. A relationship is something that is experienced over time, like music. A relationship is something much more complicated as it must be developed and nurtured over time, and requires much more effort by the parties involved, but can produce greater rewards (such as a happy marriage). In the same way I feel that we must be able to develop a relationship with music over time to understand and appreciate it, but I also feel it produces greater rewards... in essence, an entire journey, rather than an isolated moment. Even though I admit those isolated moments can be very beautiful

The problem, as I see it, is that art education in most public schools is even more wanting than music education. Literature at least gets touched upon... because the school administrators by into the notion that it is a necessity for the development of literacy... but in all reality, the arts are all poorly taught in most public schools for the simple reason that they are not seen as having any pragmatic or practical worth.

Polednice, in spite of the fact that he is cultured enough to have been admitted to a prestigious university where he studies literature is virtually oblivious to just how a painting is composed and "works". The manner in which an artist understands how various elements attract the eye and are employed by the artist to lead the eye through a painting is completely unknown to him. As such, he seemingly presumes that an artist simply slaps down things wherever (or worse yet... simply copies what he sees) without the least thought. As a result, he, as the viewer, assumes that he is in complete control as to how he experiences a given work of art.

Ravellian, on the other hand, assumes that a work of visual art is rather simple of uncomplicated experience... like (as to once again use his questionable analogy) the immediate appreciation of a naked woman or sex. "Sex," after all, "is not complicated."  Whereas music is more complicated and must be nurtured over time... like a relationship. I'll avoid the sex analogy for the obvious reasons. I will say simply that the relationship one develops with art, music, or literature is perhaps as shallow or as rich as you wish it to be. For some, music is nothing more than aural wallpaper... background noise... or something to dance to. For others it is far, far richer. The same is true of art. Whether we are speaking of literature, music, theater, or visual art, the experience you take from it is dependent upon what you put into it. If you expect something profound... a journey that produces ever greater rewards... then it is a relationship you must nurture. If not, not.


----------



## kv466

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But such is not the whole experience. You cannot tell me that a rudimentary passing glance is enough to grasp this painting...


Man, I could spend hours on this while enjoying some fresh, seasonal chocolate/natural pastilles; similar to the ones falling down that big rood, only not.


----------



## Ravellian

_Ravellian, on the other hand, assumes that a work of visual art is rather simple of uncomplicated experience... like (as to once again use his questionable analogy) the immediate appreciation of a naked woman or sex. "Sex," after all, "is not complicated." _

Why, exactly, do you find this a "questionable analogy"? Maybe I should revise what I just said. My point wasn't that art (and sex) was "simple" or "uncomplicated," but rather "easily comprehended." There may be many intricate motions and actions involved in its creation, but the effect (or goal) is pretty clear, at least compared to music, which is generally much more _abstract_ (except for opera), and again, unfolds over time.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Ravellian said:


> .. but rather "easily comprehended." ...


I can see your viewpoint. What about some pieces like these? Maybe analogous to composer John Cage's conceptual music? I might well think these pieces are crap, or I might well buy into the bla-bla-bla the artists were trying to sell. But at least with many examples of the visual arts, I think the crap versus the great, whatever my criteria are, make the distinction much more plausible than examples in music. Maybe that's not a good thing for many folks, but I think it is, even if it usually takes three seconds for most folks to say the painting pictured last below, is a greater piece of work the preceeding three above it (as an example).


----------



## norman bates

paintings, architecture, cinema, comics, sculpture... i think i'm for visual arts


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I love pretty much ALL art. Especially stuff like literature and famous playwrights and poets.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Hmmm…

Just looking at the poll results again. Interesting that no one picked dance! (Actually I don't think I would either!)


----------



## Polednice

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Polednice- Another problem I have with visual art (prompted by Stluke's example post) is that, even if it does pack a lot of info, for me it is not arranged in a manner that allows a feeling of suspense. When looking at a painting, though it may take me minutes or hours to digest it, I am only constrained by my own ability to look at and analyse however many inches of space I can manage in however many seconds. In a piece of music or a work of literature, the aspects of the work I am exposed to are constrained by the artist's own desires - gradually taking me in various directions at their own choice, creating tension and release whenever they choose.


This is true.  I am completely uneducated about it - art was crap at school and I hated it - and this no doubt leaves me poorly equipped to appreciate it.


----------



## Klavierspieler

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I can see your viewpoint. What about some pieces like these? Maybe analogous to composer John Cage's conceptual music? I might well think these pieces are crap, or I might well buy into the bla-bla-bla the artists were trying to sell. But at least with many examples of the visual arts, I think the crap versus the great, whatever my criteria are, make the distinction much more plausible than examples in music. Maybe that's not a good thing for many folks, but I think it is, even if it usually takes three seconds for most folks to say the painting pictured last below, is a greater piece of work the preceeding three above it (as an example).


All four of those scare me...


----------



## violadude

It's always nice when StLukes posts naked women on the forum.


----------



## Art Rock

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I can see your viewpoint. What about some pieces like these? Maybe analogous to composer John Cage's conceptual music? I might well think these pieces are crap, or I might well buy into the bla-bla-bla the artists were trying to sell. But at least with many examples of the visual arts, I think the crap versus the great, whatever my criteria are, make the distinction much more plausible than examples in music. Maybe that's not a good thing for many folks, but I think it is, even if it usually takes three seconds for most folks to say the painting pictured last below, is a greater piece of work the preceeding three above it (as an example).


Count me in with the non-most folks crowd - I like the three (relatively) modern paintings better than the Rembrandt.


----------



## jalex

I'm shocked theatre is suffering so heavily. I expected it to take a respectable third place behind visual and written (incidentally I do think that film should be considered separately from the other visual arts). God knows why anyone has voted 'culinary'.


----------



## science

I think I might go with interior design. 

I'm very interested in the way we organize our space, the way our moods and expectations are shaped by things like door handles, tiles, the tone of the light, the texture of the material of the wall, the angularity of the furniture, and so on. 

I haven't studied anything about it, but just paid attention and thought about it. Lately I've had several conversations with business owners about the thought that went into their decoration and so on. I'm kind of tempted to start a business (as if I had the capital in a shoebox or something) just so I could do it my way!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Interior design sounds cool. My relative is an interior designer. I got him to come re-design my interior once. Gave the whole place a "facelift".


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Something the ladies might enjoy doing, as does my mother is flower arrangement in a vase etc. It adds a big fragance to a room and just lightens up the place/entrance etc. As a male, I can see the value it in!


----------



## Sid James

Polednice said:


> Another problem I have with visual art (prompted by Stluke's example post) is that, even if it _does_ pack a lot of info, for me it is not arranged in a manner that allows a feeling of _suspense_. When looking at a painting, though it may take me minutes or hours to digest it, I am only constrained by my own ability to look at and analyse however many inches of space I can manage in however many seconds. In a piece of music or a work of literature, the aspects of the work I am exposed to are constrained by the artist's own desires - gradually taking me in various directions at their own choice, creating tension and release whenever they choose.


I am an art buff of sorts, or used to be, less in touch with the latest trends now, but I do go to art shows occassionally.

What you are saying above, Polednice, is it similar to this - I personally like visual art because I can go to an art gallery and just look at things, pay attention to certain painting more, or less as I fancy. I can look at something for a few seconds or a few minutes, etc. But with literature esp., it takes more effort than that, of course you have to read (or hear - eg. audiobooks) what the story is. If you're implying that to take in visual art is easier or can be more a surface thing, I kind of agree. All effort it takes is to go to the art show and have a look around. But with literature, one has to really get off your backside and engage with it to get anything out of it. Is this making sense?



Polednice said:


> This is true.  I am completely uneducated about it - art was crap at school and I hated it - and this no doubt leaves me poorly equipped to appreciate it.


I can understand this. Art education seems to be or have been the last priority of the education system. Maybe like music, it's better one on one or with small groups rather than one teacher to 30 kids in a class, the classic sausage machine system. I can understand where you're coming from, there's a mystique surrounding visual art for many young people. It's being broken down a bit but it will take time and more modern ways of teaching, not just what is "traditional."

School excursions to the art gallery was the best part for me, looking at real art, not just in boring textbooks...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Why, exactly, do you find this a "questionable analogy"? Maybe I should revise what I just said. My point wasn't that art (and sex) was "simple" or "uncomplicated," but rather "easily comprehended."

I found the analogy "questionable" for the simple reason that I don't find sex and/or women all that "uncomplicated" or "easily comprehended". Neither do I feel that the visual arts are uncomplicated or easily comprehended. perhaps you can give me an in-depth explanation of the Bruegel painting I posted above... or of the Rothko that Harpsichord Concerto posted below:










There may be many intricate motions and actions involved in its creation, but the effect (or goal) is pretty clear, at least compared to music, which is generally much more abstract (except for opera), and again, unfolds over time.

No... I'm not speaking of the complications and difficulties involved in creation. For all we know the slow movement of Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" may have involved to greatest personal struggle. What matters is the end result. Steve Martin, the comedian and astute art collector and critic has written extensively on art. He has stated that no work of art worthy of serious contemplation can ever be fully exhausted. This is true of any worthy work of music or literature. No critic, however brilliant and insightful, has ever come the the point where he or she has fully exhausted _Hamlet_, or Dante's _Comedia_, or Beethoven's _3rd Symphony_, or Ingres' _Portrait of Princess Albert de Broglie_. Sometimes I wonder when I hear someone complain of being tired of Beethoven's 5th, Vivaldi's Four Seasons, Tchaikovsky's 6th, etc... and I wonder if the individual recognizes that such a statement reveals more about a short-coming on the part of the individual than it does about a failing on the part of the art. each time I have returned to a beloved work of art after an absence of some time I have discovered something new... not because the work of art has changed, but because I have changed... because I am bringing to the work new experiences and making connections with it that I did not recognize existed before.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I can see your viewpoint. What about some pieces like these? Maybe analogous to composer John Cage's conceptual music?

Actually, HC, I think it would be far more accurate to compare someone like Rothko or Pollock with a composer such as Schoenberg, Webern, Babbitt, or Morton Feldman:






The shift from traditional tonality to atonality and serialism represents a break in the tradition of music that is not unlike the shift from representational (figurative) art to abstraction. In both instances the break was dramatic... a challenging... but it did not represent a true break from the tradition as a whole. Looking at Rothko we can appreciate his handling of paint, his love of color... even the manner in which his paintings still allude to or reference the art of the past.

John Cage is closer to a figure such as Marcel Duchamp and his heirs including Robert Rauschenberg, Piero Manzoni and Vito Acconci. Just as a work such as Cage's 4:33 seems to be more of a debased form of music criticism or philosophy so it is with Duchamp's "Fountain" (the famous urinal as art), Manzoni's can of artist's poop, or Acconci's _Seedbed_, in which the artist laid under a platform in an art gallery engaged in pleasuring himself (sexually) for the whole of the exhibition while visitors strolled just above.


----------



## Polednice

Sid James said:


> What you are saying above, Polednice, is it similar to this - I personally like visual art because I can go to an art gallery and just look at things, pay attention to certain painting more, or less as I fancy. I can look at something for a few seconds or a few minutes, etc. But with literature esp., it takes more effort than that, of course you have to read (or hear - eg. audiobooks) what the story is. If you're implying that to take in visual art is easier or can be more a surface thing, I kind of agree. All effort it takes is to go to the art show and have a look around. But with literature, one has to really get of your backside and engage with it to get anything out of it. Is this making sense?


That's certainly a great part of it, yes, and I imagine that some people would use that as much as a reason to dislike visual art as to like it. Personally, I find that sense of passive engagement quite numbing - I like an artist to push me in different directions; control my perception; hide things and reveal things in some interesting fashion over a set period of time. Even if a painting packed the same amount of information as a book, it would be like me reading the book in any order of pages I decide upon, rather than having the author direct me from the first to the last page in order.

Now, I know that visual art is meant to lead the eye and so certain techniques of composition arguably do those things, but I'm never aware of it. Music and literature are two very complex manifestations of two very basic faculties - we all enjoy some kind of music, and we all learn to speak (and most of us to read) - but visual art, while building on the basic ability of sight, seems to have a much more obtuse learning curve.

It's kind of what I was getting at in that ballet thread - about being unsure if this move means that, or this turn means something else. We don't intuitively have the tools necessary to understand the genius behind a painting, whereas in other art-forms we do. That's why I have never felt anything more than: "Hmm, very pleasant" with visual art. Certainly no spine-tingling as with music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Count me in with the non-most folks crowd - I like the three (relatively) modern paintings better than the Rembrandt.

I like Rothko. I had the chance to see the entire "Seagram's Suite" at the National Gallery in Washington. After having spent the day wandering through the galleries I sat down among these paintings for a good half hour:










The experience was something akin to sitting in a Japanese Zen garden... or listening to a slowly unfolding elegiac choral work of Arvo Part. I have come to appreciate certain things concerning color and brushwork from looking at Rothko, Guston, and other Abstract Expressionists... but no... I would not place them before Rembrandt who ranks within the visual arts somewhere along the lines of where Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach rank in music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

School excursions to the art gallery was the best part for me, looking at real art, not just in boring textbooks...

Yes... this something that many who speak of art do no grasp. The experience of a work of art "in real life" is far different from the experience of a reproduction. This is true, albeit to a lesser extent, of music. Paul Rothko looks like absolute crap in the reproductions shown here. The experience of seeing the actual 12 x 8 foot canvases where you can discern the artist's touch... read the record of how the paint was applied... see the true colors... feel the real scale in contrast to your own physical being is a visceral experience.


----------



## Sid James

*@ polednice -*

I can understand what you're saying. As I said, there is a mystique attached to the visual arts. But at the same time, I read a statistic that in Australia's major cities, more people go through the door of the big city art galleries on a weekend than to the stadiums for watching sports live. There is a groundswell beginning here at least, visual art (I mean the plastic arts) is becoming more kind of user friendly. Eg. our big galleries here have programs for kids, talks by artists (not only visual, also musicians, politicians, writers, etc.), film screenings, concerts in the big halls, etc. This is not new but has intensified more here now. Of course, there's always the guided tours, which can give a more human side to the paintings, eg. give the story of the painter & his inspiration, life, etc. Similar as with music, these guys where just ordinary people.

"The system" is trying to right the previous mistakes of making art a kind of elite sport when clearly, it's not. It can be for everyone, or at least everyone can like some of it. It is not about rankings or lists, as I believe in music, it is about sharing knowledge and opening doors, not closing them.



Polednice said:


> ... That's why I have never felt anything more than: "Hmm, very pleasant" with visual art. Certainly no spine-tingling as with music.


Well, I feel similar with some of the old old stuff that just bores me quite a bit. But not all of it, it depends. Some art I admire for different things. It can be emotion, it can be technique, or just quirky things or imagination, lateral thinking, etc.

But one of the "old" painters who really commented on current times was Francesco Goya. His series of etchings and paintings done at time of French (Napoleon) invasion of Spain are very chilling and sometimes too full on to see even now. I can imagine walking in the Prado in Madrid seeing these in the flesh, it would be full on and intense, something like Xenakis or Varese, imo.

There are others of that sort like Kokoschka, Soutine, Kathe Kollwitz (her paintings of Holocaust survivors, I think that kind of thing, very very intense and no ***** footing around in those, it's like Schoenberg's _Survivor from Warsaw_, doesn't hold back one bit), some of Van Gogh, in some ways De Kooning and other Americans like Bellows, the Ash Can School showing the seedy side of USA cities undergoing industrialisation, as well as Lowry in the UK, or Edward Hopper imaging c20th alienation.

These things are not boring and irrelevant but at the same time can be quite draining. But they do make you think. Art became more relevant as it got more heated up politically, industrially, economically, etc. As things changed, artists reflected their times and the world around them, not just imaging pleasant fantasies as you say...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

That's certainly a great part of it, yes, and I imagine that some people would use that as much as a reason to dislike visual art as to like it. Personally, I find that sense of passive engagement quite numbing...

Of course the degree of engagement depends upon the individual. I can put a CD on and then largely ignore it while I work on my grades or lesson plans. It becomes little more than aural wallpaper or background noise. I can claim to having heard but not listened. The same can be true of film, television, dance, and many other art forms. I agree that reading is different in that it demands a direct participation on the part of the reader... although "books on tape" may be rapidly changing that as well... and not for the better.

All art forms have their strengths and weaknesses. Music and literature both unfold over time. As such they have the greater ability to convey narrative and development. Music is perhaps the least capable of conveying specific ideas... but perhaps the strongest in bypassing our logic and rational thought and speaking directly to our emotions. It has been repeatedly argued that in music the form and content are most fully intertwined... to the point that we cannot separate them at all. With literature the form and content are the least fully intertwined so that we can far more easily separate "meaning" from the form. Visual art is perhaps able to convey a message the most rapidly. Even if we cannot fathom the whole of the symbolism employed, if a painting is successful, it should clearly convey the main mood or atmosphere or feeling or dramatic action almost immediately. Visual art has the ability of being both quite intimate... and quite public. Music is perhaps the most public. We have all experiences an audience singing along or tapping along with the orchestra or the band... all fully enraptured in the same experience. Literature is the least public. It only speaks to one reader at a time. One could go on and on looking at such strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately they prove very little as to which is more important or greater. Egypt will always exist as a result of her achievements in the visual arts, England lives in the music of her poets more than in any other art form. Germany and probably America (jazz, blues, bluegrass, rock n roll) live most in our minds as a result of their music. I don't know that I have any less idea or grasp or appreciation for Egyptian culture than I do for the Greeks or the Romans in spite of the virtual absence of any literary or musical history.

Now, I know that visual art is meant to lead the eye and so certain techniques of composition arguably do those things, but I'm never aware of it.

But how aware of such similar "manipulation" by the composer or writer would you be if you had not studied literature and music? Just look at all the Romantic "fan boys" (and I say this as someone who loves Romanticism) who seem oblivious to the manner in which composers manipulate their emotional responses through the use of dynamics, the build up toward a climax, the use of minor keys, etc... when they opine as to the inferiority of Mozart or Bach because they fail to manipulate the emotions in the same manner. Being knowledgeable of the mechanics of art has its pluses and minuses. On the negative side, it takes away the "magic" as it were. The ability to draw with a great deal of realism impresses the non-artist. Me? Not so much so. If we are speaking of this skill taken to an absolute unrivaled level as in the paintings of Ingres... then yes, I am impressed... very much so. But the reality is that I understand much of the mechanics involved and can draw pretty damn realistically myself. On the other hand... as you learn more about other mechanics behind a work of art, you may be incredibly awed by something others ignore. The more I learned of poetry, the more impressed I became with Byron's ability to use rhyme so fluidly... as if it were his natural manner of speaking. The more I have delved into the layers upon layers involved in Dante's _Comedia_, the more that work has left me absolutely awed... in a manner not unlike Wagner's Ring.


----------



## Polednice

I'll come back to this properly tomorrow, but a thought before bed: literature (in the form of poetry and storytelling) would once have been a performance art. The focus on the creative genius of an author and of the solitary experience of a book is a relatively modern phenomenon that roughly coincides with the invention of printing. Before then, either when most scribal manuscripts were devoted to ecclesiastical Latin rather than a country's vernacular, or there was no manuscript culture at all, poems and stories would have been recited publicly as a social art. The folk-ness of it shouldn't fool you though - these were incredibly skillfully wrought compositions, just not often written down. Today, we still have poetry readings which try to capture this lost oral tradition, but it's sad that we are brought up to think that reading is solitary.


----------



## Sid James

^^The oral aspect, oral tradition, it survived a bit in modern age. Indonesian author Pramoedya Ananta-Toer was locked up on an island by that horrible Soeharto (but the previous Sukarno regime as well), for many decades, I think close to 30 years (like Mandela). He was forbidden to write on the island of Buru, it was hard labour. But he "composed" a number of novels in his head, the _Buru trilogy_. I read a number of them and they are very good, reflecting on the country's history. This is an aside, but I think in that situation, the old ways came back. Pramoedya talked to the inmates around a fire or in the huts after a hard day's work. The "real" meaning of literature came back there, in these horrible circumstances. I admire his humanity.

The novels were later written down on scrap paper he collected and smuggled out of Indonesia (by an Australian!), translated, etc. A film should be made about these, they are so good...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ... Looking at Rothko we can appreciate his handling of paint, his love of color... even the manner in which his paintings still allude to or reference the art of the past.


Very good point, which can be applied to many great visual artist from any period. When I first saw in real life many of the stunning portraits by Velázquez in the galleries, for example, I was blown away by the mastery stroke of his brush strokes. It was as if his brush and hand/arm were one at several metres long - he could see up close when he painted with a few swift strokes how a large life size portrait would suddenly "hang together" when observed by viewers in normal viewing distance, i.e. several metres away. A few strokes that appear as random mess up close are in fact, the very mastery of "foresight" when he knew the whole would work as one. I'm sure the Rothko example would probably have these effects, though I have not seen it in person (yet).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The Abstract Expressionists greatly esteemed the value of the artist's touch, believing (rightly or wrongly) that this touch could convey a record of the artist's gestures (like dance) and the emotions expressed through such gestures. Looking at Van Gogh or Soutine or even Titian, Rubens, and Velasquez, I find I cannot help but recognize just how this artist's touch conveys so much beyond the mere image represented. I personally feel that the Abstract Expressionists surrendered too much when they abandoned the figurative image... but I respect their intentions and efforts... and the very real intensity of emotion that I find in their paintings far more than I do the sterile, lifeless paintings of Andy Warhol... mass produced by his "factory" or art laborers.


----------



## Vaneyes




----------



## Sid James




----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Chuck Close! My favourite painter!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I want this Philip Glass t-shirt!


----------



## Klavierspieler

Vaneyes said:


>


It's a bat.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

the first one ...............


----------



## Capeditiea

:3 i enjoy reading... though it has been fleeting me since the duration of my life...


----------

