Is there a major difference between visual and auditory art?

Use this forum to have philosophical discussions about aesthetics and art. What is art? What is beauty? What makes art good? You can also use this forum to discuss philosophy in the arts, namely to discuss the philosophical points in any particular movie, TV show, book or story.
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8771
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is there a major difference between visual and auditory art?

Post by Greta » January 10th, 2020, 6:33 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 8:11 am
Greta wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 6:33 am
I have explained myself clearly enough and don't need to labour the point. You either understand what was said or you don't.
But you didn't even directly answer simple questions I was asking.
As you did not try to understand what I was saying, taking a rather odd and unexpected angle that made no sense to me. We cannot help expressing ourselves in everything we do.

So I see no point pushing forward until I have a sense of how you see what I think is a basic and obvious premise. Otherwise it'll just be just back-and-forth babble running at ephemeral cross-purposes.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2185
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is there a major difference between visual and auditory art?

Post by Terrapin Station » January 10th, 2020, 7:50 pm

Greta wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 6:33 pm
Terrapin Station wrote:
January 10th, 2020, 8:11 am


But you didn't even directly answer simple questions I was asking.
As you did not try to understand what I was saying, taking a rather odd and unexpected angle that made no sense to me. We cannot help expressing ourselves in everything we do.

So I see no point pushing forward until I have a sense of how you see what I think is a basic and obvious premise. Otherwise it'll just be just back-and-forth babble running at ephemeral cross-purposes.
The whole reason that I'm asking you the questions I am is that I'm trying to understand exactly what you're claiming. They're clarification questions.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8771
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is there a major difference between visual and auditory art?

Post by Greta » January 11th, 2020, 12:21 am

Don't you agree that we cannot help but to express ourselves in everything we do? That everything we do to some extent is influenced by our morphology and mentality? Simply, we cannot help but to be ourselves.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 2185
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Is there a major difference between visual and auditory art?

Post by Terrapin Station » January 12th, 2020, 10:15 am

Greta wrote:
January 11th, 2020, 12:21 am
Don't you agree that we cannot help but to express ourselves in everything we do? That everything we do to some extent is influenced by our morphology and mentality? Simply, we cannot help but to be ourselves.
Yes, I agree with that, but "All art represents something" doesn't say the same thing as what you're saying above. "Representationalism," with respect to visual art, music, etc. refers to a much more specific idea than the fact that the art at hand is going to be influenced in some ways by the artist's particular body, including the mental aspects of our particular body.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8771
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is there a major difference between visual and auditory art?

Post by Greta » January 12th, 2020, 7:36 pm

Okay, it's a matter of language.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 473
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Is there a major difference between visual and auditory art?

Post by Count Lucanor » March 15th, 2020, 4:24 pm

SubatomicAl1en wrote:Visual art tends to be easier to express thought in my opinion.
All art forms carry form and content, and both of this are carriers of meaning. But this is also true for a newspaper or a scientific article, and perhaps they're more effective in expressing ideas unambiguously, so it doesn't look like expressing clear ideas is the main function of art, or what makes it distinct from any other human expression. It is on this basis that I find plausible criticism of contemporary conceptual art, many times focused on sending a message requiring very little interpretation effort. In any case, under the modern conception of art, at least high-end art, understood as a autonomous practice with its own ethos, the link between expression and serving other non-artistic purposes (including the communication of semantic contents) is almost completely broken, unlike ancient and medieval times, where art was subordinate to other practices, especially religious ones. Paintings and sculptures in cathedrals, for example, were meant to illustrate the gospels to the illiterate masses.

The distinctive feature of art lies not in content, but in form. Content, as per the author's intentions, can even be lost in time, or evolve along with culture and produce new interpretations, while the form prevails in the public's experience of the artistic object. And the most relevant contribution of form to such experience is the aesthetic dimension, which blends an intellectual response with an emotional one, in different degrees. So even when we experience an artistic object exclusively for the emotional response we obtain from it, it is almost impossible to disconnect ourselves from the "how it is made" that allows such response.
SubatomicAl1en wrote: When you listen to songs, the information passed through is mainly expressed by lyrics instead of the melody.

Some people might do that, but I'm not one among them. I often pay less attention to lyrics than to musical ideas, in other words, I care more about form than about content.
SubatomicAl1en wrote: When you listen to lyric-less music, what it expresses is more emotion than information.

Again, information can be comprised of both content and form. Although it is widely accepted that from all art forms, music is the one that most appeals to our emotions, in other words, creates an emotional response, not necessarily that means that it represents, in its content and form, emotions. Music from the European romantic period (19th century) is often regarded as an artistic program that avidly sought representation of emotions and producing such effects in the public. It is also widely accepted that today's western popular music is a heir to that tradition. But not necessarily it has to be that way, there are other artistic programs that look to distance themselves from that tradition, for example, dodecaphonism, which explicitly avoided the comfort zones of tonality and the responses associated to it.

User avatar
detail
Posts: 66
Joined: June 1st, 2019, 1:39 pm

Re: Is there a major difference between visual and auditory art?

Post by detail » March 29th, 2020, 12:36 pm

Certainly there is a processing difference . People who consume severe drugs sometimes realize the interchanging of sense, like listening and seeing .This interchanging somehow gives no real clue for the persons what is percieved so the processing of the data is totally different. The higher auditory regions of the brain are the wernicke broca areal on the gyrus supramarginalis and the brodmann areal , meanwhile the processing of optical data reaches from the corpus geniculatus laterale as the parietal and temporal lobe , important for them is the retinotopic organisation of the visual part of the human brain. So somehow there seems to be just from the way the data is processed a severe difference.

Post Reply