Philosophy Now Forum

Both art forms do affect us in different ways. One uses our eyes to penetrate our brains while the other uses our ears to penetrate our brains.

In terms of history, I suppose the art of painting has been around longer (without researching). It seems that music, emotionally speaking, elicits a different response from us than a painting could. For example we have music concerts (group response) - when was the last time we had a painting concert?

On TV we have much more programming devoted to music as opposed to painting. It seems to me overall that music is more popular than paintings.

Do you have any further thoughts to add?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:03 am Both art forms do affect us in different ways. One uses our eyes to penetrate our brains while the other uses our ears to penetrate our brains.

In terms of history, I suppose the art of painting has been around longer (without researching). It seems that music, emotionally speaking, elicits a different response from us than a painting could. For example we have music concerts (group response) - when was the last time we had a painting concert?

On TV we have much more programming devoted to music as opposed to painting. It seems to me overall that music is more popular than paintings.

Do you have any further thoughts to add?

There are many connections between the forms. In each, rhythm and flow are critical. When comparing those art forms, each pales in popularity compared with multimedia, which combines each and can also add drama and comedy. Still, it's a big ask of the senses and I am personally often happy with just music, but then again I am a musician.

I am, or was, also a cartoonist and did a little graphic art so I've dabbled in each field. Many musicians do art and vice versa due to their many commonalities. Visual Art is certainly more popular with neighbours This raises a serious point that music is more able to intrude, to demand attention. We can turn away of close our eyes to jarring art but if a nearby death metal band is nearby and going full throttle, you are in that experience, like it or not. Music is more demanding, more intrusive, more of an experience, and often more visceral than visual art.

Visual still art, however, is great for nailing down the fascinating little particulars of life. For instance, the poignant message of a simple Rockwell scenario. Those little angles of the human condition. It's more a subtle and sophisticated medium for that kind of expression IMO. Music is a medium in time and will tend to tell a story that extends over time while a painting focuses on a moment in time, ideally capturing a timeless dynamic.

Quite often a synergy can be achieved by combining the two. I remember experiencing a very pleasant afternoon emulsioning my ceiling to the sound of Vivaldi. When I'd finished there wasn't a single streak or thin patch, the end result was flawless. I didn't even get a drop of paint on the carpet so I suppose you could say it was also floorless.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:38 am Quite often a synergy can be achieved by combining the two. I remember experiencing a very pleasant afternoon emulsioning my ceiling to the sound of Vivaldi. When I'd finished there wasn't a single streak or thin patch, the end result was flawless. I didn't even get a drop of paint on the carpet so I suppose you could say it was also floorless.

I could believe that, but what the heck is 'emulsioning'?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:18 pm what the heck is 'emulsioning'?

Emulsion is a type of paint, it's water based and normally used for walls and ceilings. It comes in any number of colours but blue goes best with Vivaldi.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:26 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:18 pm what the heck is 'emulsioning'?

Emulsion is a type of paint, it's water based and normally used for walls and ceilings. It comes in any number of colours but blue goes best with Vivaldi.

A blue ceiling? Mmm.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:27 pm A blue ceiling? Mmm.

Well if a colour is inappropriate for the location I'm not saying that matching it to the music should take priority.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:31 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:27 pm A blue ceiling? Mmm.

Well if a colour is inappropriate for the location I'm not saying that matching it to the music should take priority.

Green would go very well with Verdi

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 4:03 am Both art forms do affect us in different ways. One uses our eyes to penetrate our brains while the other uses our ears to penetrate our brains.

In terms of history, I suppose the art of painting has been around longer (without researching). It seems that music, emotionally speaking, elicits a different response from us than a painting could. For example we have music concerts (group response) - when was the last time we had a painting concert?

On TV we have much more programming devoted to music as opposed to painting. It seems to me overall that music is more popular than paintings.

Do you have any further thoughts to add?

PhilX

There are musical concerts and painting exhibitions, it is important not to confuse them. With a concert patrons usually have to pay to listen, art exhibitions are usually free to attend. Do you have any real numbers to present?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:27 pm A blue ceiling? Mmm.

I once painted a bedroom ceiling dark blue. In the dark it looked like there was no ceiling above the room. I didn't get around to putting small lights in to look like stars, I was renting the apartment.

The most obvious difference is that music is an art in motion which requires the time it takes, long or short, to listen to the whole thing. Painting is static requiring only a few glances if fairly large needing little time to enclose it or comprehend it based on the immediate experience of simply looking at the part of the wall which contains it.