Music VS Visual Art: Which One Is Most Advanced?

[curiousnorway]

Which one is most advanced and why? Talking of how advanced it's I mean:

- To appreciate, analyze and understand it
- To make it

Definition on music and visual art:
Music = Sounds put intentionally together by someone. It can be of any genre, instruments and any sound making elements.

Visual art = Anything made by someone that you can appreciate by sight. It may be paintings, drawings, sculpture, interior, architecture, food designs, movies/videos, fashion etc.

#Art #Music #VisualArt

Music (Explain Why)

Visual Art (Explain Why)

Depends on the person/piece (Explain Why)

Equally difficult (Explain Why)

[SuperManiac]

As one who enjoys creating both, I would say visual art is the slightly less restricted medium. At least the rules of what makes great music are more understood than what makes a beautiful painting that can draw a demographic.

You can see that economically at least. There are very abstract paintings violating all classical rules that can hang in museums. If a musician violates all the rules of scales, chords, rhythm, and harmony to create something of pure dissonance and abstraction in this way, I think he would find a harder time gaining such popular appeal. It would generally take people with expertise in music to appreciate someone violating so many rules.

[SuperManiac]

Music is a more technical medium, usually, in my mind if we want to appeal to a demographic. You can't necessarily just strum random notes on a guitar at irregular intervals and make a hit song. There's rhythm, chords, scales, things of this sort. Of course, visual arts are dictated by rules like composition, perspective, anatomy, etc. But I would say there's a bit more freedom to violate those rules, safely, and without losing the market, in visual arts. With music, you're much more venturing off the deep end if you abandon the fundamentals like chords, scales, counterpoint, harmony, etc.

[SuperManiac]

If my case seems weak, then study classical music, and their chord patterns, and scales, and whatever shift in scales they make and compare to modern music. The rules are much more rigid as to what commands mass appeal. With art, although there are rigid rules, there's much more of a pattern of outright breaking rules historically, not merely expanding on them, or tweaking them, that produce mass appeal.

[SuperManiac]

None of this is to assign greater importance to the other. I don't know what "advanced" means. But I would say visual arts is the "freer" medium, less bound by technical rules. Sometimes the most technical mediums are the most immediately important to our lives, like architecture which includes structural engineering. Is that a more "advanced" medium? Perhaps so. But it's also a more rigid one bound by stricter rules.

[burlen]

Visual art and music composition have equal artistic value to society. Hence, neither is superior over the other. It's like asking which is better: oranges or apples.

Music composition and visual arts share common traits; notably, they are artistic, stem from an idea, and are creative products.

However, music and visual arts are consumed differently and provide different benefits to consumers. Likewise, they use different resources and have different production processes.

Hence, it is pointless and naive to even suggest one is more 'advanced'. It's like saying oranges are 'advanced' over 'apples'.

[saeyamazaki]

I feel like music because it’s already hard to create unique music structure and everybody can interpret it with their own emotion while often arts come with an explanation to why they did this so. But I also think they’re equally as advanced

[Cute_syrian]

I am singer and guitarist i draw too i would say equal

[CoffeeWC]

A bad song is just noise. A bad painting can be called abstract art. Our hearing has no filter, so music has to stand out from the rest of what we hear, unlike visual art. We can control what we see.

[Massageman]

I do both (visual for a living and my first degree) and I have seen both music and graphics take great strides. But I'd say its visual by a nose.

In my lifetime printing has evolved from Linotypes> type-high type>mat>curved plates>press> print to photocomp>negative>flexi offset plate>press to virtual design in a computer and print-on-demand.

I play keyboards, guitar and a touch of drums. In my lifetime, music has evolved from analog> digital and sampling to create sounds rather than from acoustic sources.
But other than those, much of music has been more a matter of increase in scale, rather than a total change. We need to remember that the first "synthetic" sounds were the theramin invented in 1919 and brought to light in 1928, and the Hammond organ in 1935, so even rudimentary synthesizers have been around for a century!

It's a toss up

[QooLipBite]

Visual Art only has 3-4 dimensions at most.

Music is infinite. Music also has to do with TIME factor (which is one of the most advanced concepts), and most to do with EMOTIONS than any other art form (fight me.)

If anyone says that visual art is more advanced, they’re fucking dumb. Name the times where you’ve cried after looking at a painting versus when you heard a piece of music. That’s all I’m saying.

[Wolframium]

OK. Do you know how people sometimes talk about something not related to the article in the comments? Yeah, I'm that guy now.
So, you put „VS Visual“ in the title. VS is Visual studio for me. And after that string, I'd expect something like C#.
And then, that pic in D option. Just like 2 buttons in GUI, the glass effect. Only thing I miss, is some label on them.
It took me noticeable time to get how you mean it. And even after, my brain is telling me that you have it wrong.

[curiousnorway]

You didn't answer the question.

[GD360]

Anytime something is based of a point of view like music and art, it's hard to label advanced or not. Everything is on your own taste. The tools used to make art are way more advanced then yesteryear. We as a culture are discovering new sound and ways to get to the end result. So when it comes to art itself both music and art have advanced greatly. To actually measure which is greater I don't know or think is measurable

[someginger]

Well I would say music is a little harder (am a musician) due to the fact that you can do stuff wrong in music but in art you can't as much

[Jamie05rhs]

I would say it's about even. Each one can be pretty complex in their own way. Also, there's the fact that music has no visual element and art has no auditory element.

[Jamie05rhs]

Also, videos don't count as visual art unless they're silent.

[curiousnorway]

Yes, movies, videos and TV-series are considered visual art too. They're considered both visual and auditory art - so them fitting both categories doesn't make them less category A than B. In Norwegian it's called "Sammensatt tekst" because of it consist of both the visual, the auditory and a script (text).

[Jamie05rhs]

Exactly; they're both. Which is why they should be excluded from both categories for the purposes of this poll.

[Phanta]

How in the world can you compare music and painting? That's like comparing apples and grapes.

[Wvguy]

Any artwork can look like a masterpiece or pure garbage on a person to person basis. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[FunkyMonkee]

Right now, probably visual art! Today's music sucks large rubber donkey donagles!!! Turn on the radio and you'll know what a black hole sounds like!

[eminde]

Cause you can listen to music with your eyes closed 😂🎧

[Aiko_E_Lara]

It always depends on the person since art isn't really objective. I'm more on the music side.

[JP_Man]

There are techniques that can be applied to both. However, talent is required in both fields to be able to stand apart from the crowd.

[BronzedAdonis]

Music