Music and Painting

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
1. As to how one can love music and not like painting, as I noted in a simlar thread not too long ago, there is NOT ONE quote by a first rate great Germanic composer (Handel, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, R. Strauss) to my knowledge, which expresses any liking for painting, sculpture or architecture, except a few enthusiastic quotes by Wagner on Holbein and Titian. This depite their well-known love of poetry and literature in general. Oh, well...

I've noticed also with many literary people that they tend to have little interest in music! There are of course exceptions such as Thomas Mann and E.M.Foerster.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Anthina]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
1. As to how one can love music and not like painting, as I noted in a simlar thread not too long ago, there is NOT ONE quote by a first rate great Germanic composer (Handel, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, R. Strauss) to my knowledge, which expresses any liking for painting, sculpture or architecture, except a few enthusiastic quotes by Wagner on Holbein and Titian. This depite their well-known love of poetry and literature in general. Oh, well...

2. If you like Vermeer's light... if Vermeer were a disaffected, alienated twentieth century city dweller, he might have painted like Edward Hopper, who also loved light.

[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 02-28-2006).]

oh well good point. It's intresting to hear that none of those great men were into paintings. But why? Because music is "higher" art than painting? Everyone can paint while composing music is something you can't learn if you haven'T got the talent.Because paintings are silent? (at least they don't speak to me) What does a painting do if you stand in front of it? While music is able to take you back in time, music is full of emotions and life.
Well that's at least what I think. Yes I admit paintings are not my thing(especially modern art)just because they don't touch me, even when I know what they express-they don't affect me.

@Edward Hopper I've googelt for him and yes, he uses beautiful light in his paintings. Not bad


------------------
*~Ja, was haben's da scho wieder gmacht, Beethoven?~*

[This message has been edited by Anthina (edited 02-28-2006).]

[HaydnFan]

I honestly and truly don't mean any offense Anthina, but you clearly do not know very much about visual art, based on what you have said.

For many people, paintings and sculpture and so forth DO speak to them, as loudly and passionately as music does.

Also, even though everyone can put scribbles onto a sheet of paper, not everyone can create true art. Just the same as, everyone can place notes onto a music staff but not everyone can produce something that makes sense (for most people, the placement of notes would be arbitrary)

Art is actually very similar to music, actually. Every new artist tries to create something "different" from what has come previously, and tries to stand out. The result are paintings and artists that operate in a certain category, like Impressionists, Surrealists, Classicists, etc. each trying to create something new. The same is true for music, where certain composers come along and try to be different like Mozart and his Classical style (departure from the Baroque), Beethoven into Romanticism and Mahler...well...not really sure what this is...

You need to undertand that modern art is not necessarily about expression but about coming up with something bold, daring, and new that changes the vocabulary of art history and gets the artist into the history books.

[Frank H]

Thanks to all who have contributed their comments and suggestions to this thread.

I hope we don't get too deep into an argument about which is the superior art-form. Each has its particular virtues which will appeal differently to different people - only to be expected as, thank God, we are not clones of each other.

While I personally rate music the "higher" art-form, I am quite prepared for others to disagree. In music itself, I've never found I can get much out of Jazz, but others, whose views I respect, rate it very highly.

And I do find certain painters almost as inspiring as many composers.

On which point, may I thank those who have given us links to various web galleries. Each is a notable and valuable resource. However, as I feel my favourite, Caspar David Friedrich, is rather under-represented, in that some of his finest works are not directly available on those sites, may I draw attention to a site which has some more paintings by him:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum...dfriedrich.htm

Regards to all,

Frank

[Teresa]

Originally posted by Frank H:
Thanks to all who have contributed their comments and suggestions to this thread.

I hope we don't get too deep into an argument about which is the superior art-form. Each has its particular virtues which will appeal differently to different people - only to be expected as, thank God, we are not clones of each other.

While I personally rate music the "higher" art-form, I am quite prepared for others to disagree. In music itself, I've never found I can get much out of Jazz, but others, whose views I respect, rate it very highly.

And I do find certain painters almost as inspiring as many composers.

On which point, may I thank those who have given us links to various web galleries. Each is a notable and valuable resource. However, as I feel my favourite, Caspar David Friedrich, is rather under-represented, in that some of his finest works are not directly available on those sites, may I draw attention to a site which has some more paintings by him:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum...dfriedrich.htm

Regards to all,

Frank

Hello Frank,

Thank you for the very nice link to Friedrich. I must confess he's one I was not familiar with but now, thanks to your prompting, intend to pursue more of. He's paintings almost look like photographs, they're so fine and detailed.

Regards,
Teresa

[Anthina]

Originally posted by HaydnFan:
I honestly and truly don't mean any offense Anthina, but you clearly do not know very much about visual art, based on what you have said.

For many people, paintings and sculpture and so forth DO speak to them, as loudly and passionately as music does.


Art is actually very similar to music, actually. Every new artist tries to create something "different" from what has come previously, and tries to stand out. The result are paintings and artists that operate in a certain category, like Impressionists, Surrealists, Classicists, etc. each trying to create something new. The same is true for music, where certain composers come along and try to be different like Mozart and his Classical style (departure from the Baroque), Beethoven into Romanticism and Mahler...well...not really sure what this is...

You need to undertand that modern art is not necessarily about expression but about coming up with something bold, daring, and new that changes the vocabulary of art history and gets the artist into the history books.

Yes HaydnFan you are right-I don't know much about visual art. Not because I've never heard of it but because it's never intrested me and further I admit I don't understand it (especially modern art).
By saying music is very similar to visual art I don't agree. In my opinion those are two very different categories. Of course every new artist tries to establish himself with his own style and his own interpretation of things/emotions/places/whatever and it might be that modern art ist not meant to express in the same way what classic art does. But what do you feel or experience when you look at a so called painting which is only a blue canvas and a black or white (don't remember) dot on it? That's as if you write a piece in c-major consisting of a repetition of two notes, let it be c and g. That's not art in my eyes.
Yes, sure, the painter has his intentions to paint a blue canvas but every child could do it-so why is it art? (I'm only using that example because that's one of the worst memories of Vienna for me-that blue canvas in the MUMOK, being locked up in that museum for the entire day with my group and getting more and more annoyed by all those weird creations of various artists).
I might be wrong-headed in that but it really annoys me because in my eyes that's no art. Even if someone explains the meaning to me-I don't see it. You are absolutly right by saying I don't understand it and I don't think I ever will. I've seen Picassos, Klees, Kandinskys but they had no impact on me.

That's what I think and I know I don't have the slightest idea of visual art but I am only expressing my opinion.

No need for an argument

------------------
*~Ja, was haben's da scho wieder gmacht, Beethoven?~*

[This message has been edited by Anthina (edited 02-28-2006).]

[HaydnFan]

That's alright, you are free to express whatever you want to; I didn't mean to be overly critical.

Just to clarify, I don't actually like a lot of modern art, myself but I DO understand it:

Again, it is not about "getting something out of the painting"...basically, the best way I can explain it is, the first artist to paint a canvas entirely black or blue or red, etc. will become famous and noteworthy because he/she has taken art to a new level or in a new direction. Any artist after this who does the same thing, is not a good artist because they are not giving us anything new. I agree with you then, that the artists today who are making these types of paintings a) do not understand about art or b) are just copying works from 50 years ago. Once we reach complete abstraction (complete lack of representation), there is nowhere else to go in painting expect back towards representation. Just like fashion, art comes in cycles...I would argue this is the same for music (not only instrumental / choral but any type of modern music as well). Think about this: there are periods of time where poetic, introspective pop/folk music is popular and when the world tires of it, flashy/trivial pop music comes back in vogue and back and forth. It is the same for art...art may go through cycles where expression is important and then, the theme portrayed may be important, then use of colour is the main factor, etc. etc. This is how I meant music and art are similar.

[JA Gardiner]

Originally posted by Chaszz:

A lovely piece of writing, JA. Hopper is an American master not generally much appreciated in Europe, so it's nice to see some one from the UK write so well about him!

Thanks for the flowers Chazz ! I've always adored Hopper, just as I enjoy Hitchcock's American films and Raymond Carver's writing for their spareness and strangeness. We had a fabulous exhibition of his work over here at the Tate last year which was very well appreciated and attended so maybe the Brits are getting him at last. I've always felt that the test of a great artist (or musician or writer) is when they can make you see the world their way. After wandering through room after room of Hopper's finest it was fascinating to look out of one of the huge picture windows overlooking the Thames towards St Paul's cathedral ( now there's a building that sings to me ! ) and to catch myself seeing it and the people on the Millennium Bridge as Hopper would have painted them. I have a similar reaction with artists as diverse as Canaletto,Monet,Turner,Constable and Rembrandt and the Dutch masters. Its not just that they show me things about light and landscape and architecture or indeed about humanity that I might not otherwise have noticed, but that they give me a whole new vocabulary for seeing and feeling that puts a whole new frame on my experience and changes my world irrevocably.

------------------
Beethoven the Man!

[Anthina]

Originally posted by HaydnFan:
This is how I meant music and art are similar.

Alright I understand what you meant :-)



------------------
*~Ja, was haben's da scho wieder gmacht, Beethoven?~*

[Chaszz]

Anthina, some people just don't respond to certain art forms. You have a hard time or it is impossible for you to feel the emotion which is expressed by most great artists, except possibly Vermeer. This is just a facet of your personality, I think possibly genetic.

On this forum, we have a member who cannot feel the emotion which is present in Bach's music, no matter how many times he listens to him.

I have an even more striking example. The wife of one of my best friends cannot feel anything about music, period. No style or genre moves her. She is certainly not indifferent to the arts in general, is a refined, feeling person, and loves visual art and literature. She realizes she is missing something tremendous in music, from the reactions of everyone she knows, but she cannot feel it herself.

And even more interestingly, her twenty-something daughter is the same. The father (my friend) is passionate about music, but his daughter seems to have inherited the mother's inability to feel it. This is why I think such traits may be genetic.

[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 03-01-2006).]

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
Anthina, some people just don't respond to certain art forms. You have a hard time or it is impossible for you to feel the emotion which is expressed by most great artists, except possibly Vermeer. This is just a facet of your personality, I think possibly genetic.

On this forum, we have a member who cannot feel the emotion which is present in Bach's music, no matter how many times he listens to him.

I have an even more striking example. The wife of one of my best friends cannot feel anything about music, period. No style or genre moves her. She is certainly not indifferent to the arts in general, is a refined, feeling person, and loves visual art and literature. She realizes she is missing something tremendous in music, from the reactions of everyone she knows, but she cannot feel it herself.

And even more interestingly, her twenty-something daughter is the same. The father (my friend) is passionate about music, but his daughter seems to have inherited the mother's inability to feel it. This is why I think such traits may be genetic.

[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 03-01-2006).]

Replying to my own post, I realized after I posted it that I forgot to mention another example, a neighbor of mine. This is an older lady who has several thousand classical CDs in her collection and prides herself on being able to come up with at least one version of almost any work I mention. She has wide expereince in European and American concert going dating from before the second world war, is a connoisseur of great voices, and... has no reaction to or interest in any visual art.

[HaydnFan]

Chazz, I disagree with you that response to different art forms is genetic (although ability to CREATE these art forms certainly is).

I think it has more to do with knowledge: if these people were to learn about these art forms and about specific pieces, especially from experts, then I am sure they will be better able to appreciate it.

Also, it is not surprising that the daughter of your friend has no interest in music (or is not moved by it) because children often rebel against the interests of their parents.

[Anthina]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
[B]Anthina, some people just don't respond to certain art forms. You have a hard time or it is impossible for you to feel the emotion which is expressed by most great artists, except possibly Vermeer. This is just a facet of your personality, I think possibly genetic.

]

Thanks It might not be a genetic fact but definitely about how you grow up and your surroundings I believe. The rest of my family is not into visual art either but we are a family of musicians(granddad, dad, brother, me..). I couldn't recall a day where my parents took me to an art exhibition but I remember numerous concerts. Also if I think about it 95% of my best friends are musicians (orchestra and music college is my family) and I can only name one friend who's into visual art. And another reason why I might not understand it: I've never had "art lessons", not even at school because in germany in your last two years you have to decide between two subjects if you want to study "visual art" (and that's about painters, strategies, ways..) or if you want to study "music" (which is where you learn more about Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Harmony etc.). No question which subject I've taken

So I believe it is a matter of how you grow up and what you've seen and experienced. So that leads us to the question if Mozart's music really enhances children's intelligence....


------------------
*~Ja, was haben's da scho wieder gmacht, Beethoven?~*

[Frank H]

Originally posted by Teresa:

Hello Frank,

Thank you for the very nice link to Friedrich. I must confess he's one I was not familiar with but now, thanks to your prompting, intend to pursue more of. He's paintings almost look like photographs, they're so fine and detailed.

Regards,
Teresa

Hello Teresa,

I'm glad I've "introduced" someone to Caspar David Friedrich! (You did the same for me with the American Impressionists)

As for the "photograph" simile, Photography can itself, at its finest, be an art form. Although I believe that the greatest painters, such as Friedrich, surpass the finest photographs.

I believe that what Friedrich does (as do the finest nature and landscape painters and photographers) is to reveal something of the spiritual, "other-worldly", dimension which infuses the natural world, for those with eyes to see.

As for the human dimension - look at the painting "Evening Star". The painting gains added poignancy when it is learnt that the human figures represent Friedrich, his wife and his child.

It is notable that, when present in Friedrich's paintings, human figures are usually represented from the back. This certainly isn't for technical reasons - he was perfectly capable of portraying faces (he did several self-portraits). I believe it is to do with conveying something of the sorrow of mortal existence (Friedrich himself had experienced family tragedy) in the face of nature - beautiful, awe-inspiring, relentless. I wonder if this is what is meant by the French sculptor David d’Angers, when he said of Friedrich, "Here is a man who has discovered the tragedy of landscape." Otherwise the phrase "the tragedy of landscape" might sound pretentious, even faintly ridiculous.

Regards,

Frank

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 03-02-2006).]

[Frank H]

Originally posted by HaydnFan:
Chazz, I disagree with you that response to different art forms is genetic (although ability to CREATE these art forms certainly is).

I think it has more to do with knowledge: if these people were to learn about these art forms and about specific pieces, especially from experts, then I am sure they will be better able to appreciate it.

Also, it is not surprising that the daughter of your friend has no interest in music (or is not moved by it) because children often rebel against the interests of their parents.

As a biologist with a special emphasis in genetics (formerly as a professional, now as an ongoing "amateur" interest - I still do some lecturing in biology in the university where I work as a Chaplain) the question as to how much our taste and appreciation of different art forms is genetic, and how much is environmental, is of interest to me.

I have a university colleague, who has very similar interests and tastes to mine (including "classical" music - in the widest sense of the term, and nature - animals, plants etc.). This man has an identical twin, who has of course exactly the same genetic makeup as my colleague. Yet this identical brother has very different tastes in music, being much more fond of Jazz. He also doesn't share his brother's interest in wildlife.

Recently it has become quite fashionable to emphasize the genetic basis of personality. I suspect that it has become over-emphasized.

However it is very probably true that the ability to create artistically, e.g. to compose music to a high standard, is largely genetic. Although environment must play a part in how that is expressed. For instance, if "clones" of Beethoven or Mozart were to be born today, what sort of music would they be involved with as composers?

Frank

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 03-03-2006).]