Music and Paintings

You insult me, I myself am an artist. To say there is no sense of creation in art is ludicrous, what are you doing when you draw something? You are Creating something new

gOT mILK?

you misunderstood me.

I meant that once the painting is complete there is no other creative action . But in music , the work is created every time its performed.

WHY is this SOOOO hard to understand?

I was just pointing out some differences between the arts.

Chill out, I used to attend art school , and I can draw and paint very well, so I have nothing against visual art.

But I do consider music as a greater art then paintings.

Liar, you contradict yourself in your own sentence, if you really have nothing against it then why do you say this?

There is no sense of creation in a painting.

and this

Music is on a much higher level. Its spiritual.

You seem to be flip flopping, alot

WHY is this SOOOO hard to understand?

It isn't, we're smart enough to know that you simply cannot compare two completely different arts

gOT mILK?

Don't be stupid, listen to someone other than your arrogant self for once

Listen, we all know you think you're smart. And truth is, You either love the attention you garner from making these ridiculous comments, or you really think you know all

Answer me this, which is better of these two?

http://www.fine-art.com/members/31162/images/File1792290926.gif

and there is a right answer to it

Answer me this, which is better of these two?

http://www.fine-art.com/members/31162/images/File1792290926.gif

and there is a right answer to it

Personally, I don't care for that particular painting... it has a bit of a "paint by numbers" quality to it. I'd be biased and prefer the Ligeti piece.

Now, if you had compared a piece by Mendelssohn and, for instance, a painting by Lawren Harris, then there would have been absolutely no discussion - the Lawren Harris would take it, hands down.

Personally, I don't care for that particular painting... it has a bit of a "paint by numbers" quality to it. I'd be biased and prefer the Ligeti piece.

Now, if you had compared a piece by Mendelssohn and, for instance, a painting by Lawren Harris, then there would have been absolutely no discussion - the Lawren Harris would take it, hands down.

That's the reason I chose Ligeti, I really want him to think about what he's saying, I personally hate Ligeti, now if he says that he hates the piece, them I prove my point. I merely want him to think outside of his opinion. Make sense?

Opinions vary, but truth doesn't

But I would agree with you Cowboy

The phrase "don't feed the troll" comes to mind...

Seriously, this is a ridiculous idea for a thread. Saulsmusic obviously has no interest in hearing anyone else's thoughts on the subject.

If you truly think that one art is "greater" than another, then you aren't an artist at all.

On the other hand, if you want to compare hockey to baseball....

The phrase "don't feed the troll" comes to mind...

If you truly think that one art is "greater" than another, then you aren't an artist at all.

I can show you many kinds of "Art" even those that collect old dirty shoes...

Music has to be greater then that now.. doesnt it??

!!!! !!!!

!!!

I can show you many kinds of "Art" even those that collect old dirty shoes...

Music has to be greater then that now.. doesnt it??

!!!! !!!!

!!!

:huh:

:huh:

Are you looking at a painting now?

Opinions vary, but truth doesn't

This has nothing to do with the truth here...you can't (nor can anyone) say truthfully that one work of art is better than another. You may truthfully have the opinion one is superior...but it can never be true that one is better...

Saul, what's your opinion of recordings of music? Are they not exactly like paintings: spiritless products capturing the act of creation? Have you never derived emotion or spirit from listening to a performance?

What nobody read what I wrote before....?

Here it is again:

Music has many great qualities.

When the Temple of Jerusalem stood in its glory there were a group of people called the 'Levim'. Among their many tasks, they were the Temple's musicians.

There was a whole orchestra and choir with different instruments such as violins, harps, drums, trumpets and they played and sang songs of praise to G-d. Thus , music was used as a connecting language between people and their creator. Music strikes a deep spiritual message that is understood by the soul. The human being is divided into physical and spiritual. The physical part enjoys all things that are physical. The spiritual part enjoys the spiritual. The essence of music is spiritual, there is nothing in it physical, therefore when the soul comes in contact with music, it derives great pleasure from it because both of them are spiritual.

The painting on the other hand is physical, only its message or meaning is spiritual. With music , the soul doesn

This has nothing to do with the truth here...you can't (nor can anyone) say truthfully that one work of art is better than another. You may truthfully have the opinion one is superior...but it can never be true that one is better...

That's basically what I'm saying :huh:

actually, what seems to still elude Saul (and this, regardless of his religious beliefs) is that there is no absolute in relation to art, whether it be visual art or performing art.

Music DOES create a physical response in the human body. It is not, as he implies, entirely spiritual. An appreciation of the visual arts is exactly the same sort of response. There is little or no difference between the two. A thing that is pleasing to hear, or a thing that is pleasing to see, they are both physical responses. So, sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no great mystical truth to be found here.

Sorry to inform you Dear cowboy, but Im afraid you didnt understand my comments above.

It could be that I didnt explain myself clearly..I'm not blaming you.

The painting on the other hand is physical, only its message or meaning is spiritual. With music , the soul doesn

Sauls:

As I said before, you started an interesting topic, until you said that music is higher! At that point everything crumbled...

We keep saying to you that you are compairing apples with orranges, and you do not seem to understand at all! What is it exactly that you do not understand? You are finding ways to avoid this question but still...

Cowboy, I disagree with you.

Is that ok with you?

It could be that I didnt explain myself clearly..I'm not blaming you.

Then why don't you make sure to explain what you have in mind with more details and more precisely?

And concerning "music being higher than art", the only person high enough in here is you.

Firstly, you start a "discussion", just to say your opinion. Other people are telling you your opinion, but you are not open to them, you just support your opinion. This is not a discussion anymore, it's a disputation. However, you started this post saying "I think...", while you actually meant "No matter what you say or think, I believe, support and basically, I know that...".

What's more, by telling us you've been taking art courses and you paint, you're bringing yourself to a worse situation. It's like having a 3rd grade kid tell you "We've finished addition in maths" and so you go like "ok, so what's 1+1?" and the kid goes like "It's 5.3" and you say "no, it's 2", and the kid goes like "no, it's 5.3".

Your arguments, on the other hand, are based on

a) religion? How the heck can you base something which you try to prove "universal" on something that is totally relative to the culture in which you were raised? And don't get me started on that, because I can pretty sure tell you that you wouldn't have the same beliefs if you were born in China or Turkey.

b) "spiritual energy". Can you explain me in detail what exactly you mean by that? I mean, with many details. Only if you were able to give an objective definition of "spiritual energy" it would be allowed to use this as an argument to prove that your "thought" about this matter is indeed the real case in all world.

c) speaking of objective and subjective, you are trying to make an objective rule (music is "greater" than visual arts) about a totally subjective matter (Arts) using subjective arguments (your point of view regarding painting and music). How wicked is that? Firstly, arts are totally subjective. This means that, for a specific painting I may not feel anything while someone sees it as the ultimate expression for the joy of life, and for a musical piece I may feel anxiety while someone else might feel joy and relaxation. You can't make rules over Art.

Lastly, you obviously didn't read my comparison of music and art. These two are different and you cannot compare them. It's like telling me to multiply 3 apples by 5 bananas. What would you have, 15 banapples?

I'll also quote my other example. Comparing music to visual arts would only be possible if the painter, instead painting the painting, would write a very detailed set of instructions as of how someone else would paint the paint. Only then the procedure of creating a painting would be the same as the procedure of creating a musical piece: the musician writes a set of instruction in a specific language (i.e. music notation) which is close to what he hears in his mind. Then, in this imaginary world where painting happens as I described it above, a "performer" (musicians) would re-produce the piece according to the written set of instruction (score), and depending on how good they are, the resulting sound would approximate the actual piece, which is in the composer's head; similarly, a "painter" would be re-producing the painting according to the original "painter" 's set of instructions, and depending on how good the performing-painter is, the "painting" would be good or bad, but still an approximate of the real painting. But even then, you would only be able to compare the processes of creation, not the creations themselves. You can't compare audible stimuli to visual stimuli. It's like saying "eating pancakes is better than watching the sunrise" or "listening to Bach is much better than driving an 18-wheeler". You just can't compare them.

Furthermore, in your initial post, you speak of a "composer's message" and a "painter's message". Do you really want to transfer a "message" when writing a piece or painting a painting? Do you actually think "hey, suzan, don't forget to pick up the kids at 8 from tennis" when composing music? Or did you actually mean "expression" or "motivation" or "feelings". Because then, you used the wrong word. Please make sure to work on your wording and think about what you want to say before saying it. As e.e. cummings said, "think twice before you think" (cunning =P ).

Lastly:

Cowboy, I disagree with you.

Is that ok with you?

And I disagree with you. What's the point of a "discussion" if we all disagree with everybody and we only support our opinions without accepting other people's thoughts or at least respecting them? I am not going to discuss this any more unless you show a more open-minded behaviour towards other members' opinions.

I am not going to discuss this any more unless you show a more open-minded behaviour towards other members' opinions.

considering Saul's reactions to any criticism of his musical contributions on this forum, I think you should probably not hold your breath awaiting a change in attitude on his part.

Mendelssohn-Bartholdy is the greatest composer who ever lived.

Music is the greatest artform known to man and the universe.

The composer can write whatever he wants, even if it is totally anti-musical, because it is the conductor's job to fix any problems during rehearsal.

Deforming composers' names into cutesy abbreviated versions is high humour.

There, now that the ground rules have been set we can get on with our discussion.

I'd still like to know his opinion of recorded music:

Saul, what's your opinion of recordings of music? Are they not exactly like paintings: spiritless products capturing the act of creation? Have you never derived emotion or spirit from listening to a performance?

...

considering Saul's reactions to any criticism of his musical contributions on this forum, I think you should probably not hold your breath awaiting a change in attitude on his part.

Mendelssohn-Bartholdy is the greatest composer who ever lived.

Music is the greatest artform known to man and the universe.

The composer can write whatever he wants, even if it is totally anti-musical, because it is the conductor's job to fix any problems during rehearsal.

Deforming composers' names into cutesy abbreviated versions is high humour.

There, now that the ground rules have been set we can get on with our discussion.

Youre sure you didnt miss anything?.....:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:

Youre sure you didnt miss anything?.....:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:

nope, I think I got it all.

care to answer Robin's question about recorded music?

Music is a greater art and stands on a higher level then paintings.

This is what I believe in and I stated the reasons why.

Recorded music or performed music though are different still the sound that comes out of a recording is considered music and one can get the same benefits as if listening to a live perfromance though with a different effect.

Cowboy... are you trying to change my mind? I hope not.

Cowboy... are you trying to change my mind? I hope not.

Well, aren't you trying to do the same thing?

I also liked robinjessom'es remark about recordings. And I would like to see Saul's response on that.

I'd also like to see Saul's response on my comments, because I really spent some of my time writing my comment and I do believe the least I deserve is a decent reply from his part.

What's more, you compare these two totally different things. A composer writes the score. The score, no matter how many times is looked at, gives out no feeling at all. It has to be performed. And the composition has no meaning as "music" if there are no performers/conductors to perform the piece.

But what about pieces such as George Crumb's Makrocosmos - which uses scores that are shaped to mirror their subjects? For instance, the "Twin Suns" movement which is shaped in two circles? Or the "Agnus Dei" movement, which is written as a Peace sign? Or Peter Maxwell Davies' Eight Songs for a Mad King, in which one movement is written to look like a birdcage?

Are these scores that give no feeling?