Which is the highest art form: music, literature or visual art?
>>24884967Better question: Has anyone ever become renowned in all three fields?
Dumb question because nowadays most of them are filled with dog shit made to be consumed by brown overweight people globally with no sense of identity, integrity, or inspiration. So it literally just does not matter.
Poetry
>>24884967Music
>>24884967As a visual artist: music, though it’s a blunter instrument than literature and visual arts
>>24884975No.Furthermore, unless my memory fails me, only Cellini became truly renowned in two.Michelangelo and Wagner became renowned in one and very good in another, but only Cellini managed to write a truly classic book while also creating at least one truly classic sculpture. He's the only person who, had they not practiced one of these arts at all, would still be very famous for his work in the other. Michelangelo, had he not painted and sculpted, would have been only a good but not great poet, and Wagner a good but not great playwright.
>>24884975>Music and LiteratureWagner>Literature and Visual ArtBlake>Music and Visual ArtCharlie Chaplin
>>24884990This. Schopenhauer was right.
>>24885269i hate this putdown but it feels called for here:reddit.
>>24884978Why does this make people seethe so much?
>>24885685no one replied.
>>24885693Ah, I see. Carry on.
>>24884967Art itself.Music is a nice abstraction. If you prefer it, that's fine. One could also say cinema. When done right you can combine most the arts into an experience of reality the Greek theatre or Italian operas could never attain. The highest is whatever it is that elevates you. Art done well.All three answers are right.
>>24885759orson welles said film is more narrative than drama.
>>24884967Painting surpasses all human works by the subtle considerations belonging to it. The eye, which is called the window of the soul, is the principal means by which the central sense can most completely and abundantly appreciate the infinite works of nature; and the ear is the second, which acquires dignity by hearing of the things the eye has seen. If you call painting dumb poetry, the painter may call poetry blind painting. Now which is the worse defect? To be blind or dumb?
>>24885775>Now which is the worse defect? To be blind or dumb?Jean Cocteau said, ‘whereas a blind man is a tragic figure, on the stage, the deaf man is a comic one.' But you meet a blind man, and meet a deaf man, and the deaf man is much more tragic in real life. He's cut away entirely, he can see everybody, but he can't communicate. And by the way, painters have always been dependent on poets for their inspiration, never the other way around (until about 100 years ago).
Music, as it is the least material of all art forms.
>>24885822this the answer given to us by almost every thinker and writer in history. though poetry with its use of rhythm and rhyme is just music (or musicality) paired with… thoughts and language. the appeal of rhyme to us must be something primitive, it reminds our animal brain of heartbeats or waves or birdsong, and we just made our man-made invention of language tap back into that natural instinctual trance. honestly, i think poetry is something separate from every other artform.
>>24885683kys
>>24885775Dumbness is a fault of the tongue, not the ears. And the sense of poetry is language, not the tongue nor the ear. Now which is the worst defect? To be blind or to be without words? A blind man is still a man, but a man without language is a reasonless beast.
>>24884975Huh genuinely kind of interesting nobody managed to pull off all 3 modes. I think there might be some exceptions if you allow lyricism to be counted as literature.
Jesus christ, what a pseudfest this thread is. It's always like this. The outcome for such a stupid question (highest artform? Really?) will always be the utmost buffoonery, as all can see here.
>>24885863and the award for biggest midwit goes to...
>>24884975Toby Fox
>>24884975Daisuke Amaya
>>24884967Literature is the hardest and the most complex, so it is the highest art form.
>>24885863the point of this thread is to eke out s conversation about the humanities. if anything you chose the only wrong answer by simply… saying nothing, just shutting down conversation for. there are people on this board who want to talk about ideas and people who just want to use the word ‘buffoonery’
There is such a thing as a stupid question
music > visual arts > literature
>>24885683>pseud when all 3 of its neurons are overwhelmed
>>24885904literaturenis accessible in a way music or visual art often isn’t. lorry drivers who talk a lot and observe life carefully often quit to write compelling stories as a ‘softer option’, without ever mastering the technical difficulties of painting or music.
>>24885845>>24885946they’re always choosing the ‘main’ one where there was a much better contemporary just off to their side. verdi not wagner. though obviously this one should really go to mozart. keaton not chaplin. though OP meant painting by this category. blake is a wild card but still manages to be entry-level and untenable.
>>24885949i am talking about high literature not stephen king shit, obviously. just a when we are talking about painting, we are not talking about finger painting here
>>24885972compare joyce to bach or caravaggio and your ‘literature is the hardest’ claim evaporates instantly. besides, ‘high literature’ doesn’t mean the most complex. earlier civilisations than ours have forgotten the necessarily spontaneous nature of the art, and have tried (for lack of any compelling utterance) to beat the sophisticated critics of their day by piling an immense number of technical devices on their prose, killing what little passion there was, by the tyranny of self-imposed rules
>>24885959Verdi and Mozart didn't write their librettos, and Keaton didn't compose music, dumbass.>blake is a wild cardKill yourself.
>>24885211>only Cellini managed to write a truly classic book while also creating at least one truly classic sculptureWilliam Blake has created truly classic art, and truly classic poetry.
>>24885991>didn't write their librettosright, they focused on the music (the category)and chaplin just stole all the credits blake lost heart in poetry and turned prophet
>>24885935then unironically video games are the highest art form because they combine all the others
>>24886031if we’re going by your criteria then yeah i guess it would be.
>>24886023>right, they focused on the music (the category)Which means they didn't create both Music and Literature, dipshit.>chaplin just stole all the creditsNot for his silent works, asshole.
>>24886055>Not for his silent works, asshole.>Keaton didn't compose music, dumbass.
>>24886058>greentexts random shit>explains nothingkill yourself
>>24886063silent films didn’t have music. my fault, didn’t realise i needed to explain that one
>>24886066>silent films didn’t have musicyou are so retarded
>>24886078they had live musical accompaniment, which obviously chaplin didn’t write.
>>24886086>city lights>modern timesKek, you are so retarded. Just kill yourself already.
>>24886093decades later he realised soundtracks for them with composition done by david raskin & arthur johnston
>>24885987the novel in its finest form can take years to write and requires prodigious intellect. even the best painters never require so much time and are often quite empty in the head
>>24884967>Which is the highest art form
>>24886112>making shit upKill yourself.
>>24886116 doesn’t have much to do with complex technical ability does it >empty in the headas are a lot of writers
>>24886128my mistake the original release had a synchronised soundtrack… done with arthur johnston/david raskin.
>>24886140>done with arthur johnston/david raskinKill yourself
>>24884967feet
>>24886146fpbp
>>24884967Film, unironicallyPeople called it the seventh art for a reason, but those who bloomed early died faster and now the entire medium has pretty much dead while the corpse are being raped over and over again to provide entertainment for pleb
>>24884967The one that shows her feet
>>24886156His was the (54th) fifty-fourth post, RETARD
>>24886168FPBPFifthy-fourthPostBestPost
>>24886168>>24886173Rekt
>>24884967Literature by far.
Visual arts, specifically film and photography. All human art forms pale in comparison to the divine artform: Nature. But film and photography are king because they can capture Nature the best. In contrast, literature is hideous, because it's purely human.
>>24886505>he does not see neither the divine element nor the nature's element in humanityngmi
>>24886133>doesn’t have much to do with complex technical ability in fact, if you have tried writing a novel, you would know that it does
>>24886173It was actually Foot Post Best Post
>>24886157It's also a potent psyop tool. No imagination required.
Feet > music > literatureRest is irrelevant
>>24884967Each of those artforms contain beauty, so neither
>>24884967Music, obviously.
>>24886157>Film, unironicallyLol. Genuinely embarrassing for you.
>>24884967Sissy hypno captions
>>24884967Music > sculpture > painting > literature >>>>>>>>>> cinema
>>24889472Painting is higher than sculpture, you can paint a sculpture but not sculpt a painting. Painting can express form and its sequence, but can express so much more.
>>24884967The one with all of those artforms combined
>>24886122this guy sucked Clintons cock
there.s no higher or lower, it's a retarded debate since all are capable of expressing novelty
>>24884975Kurt Cobain
>>24890074That would be opera (in theory)
>>24889472>t. hasn't watched Murnau, Dreyer, Welles, Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, Bresson, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Parajanov, Angelopoulos et al
>>24884967It's actually paper mache.
>>24885211>Michelangelo, had he not painted and sculpted, would have been only a good but not great poet, and Wagner a good but not great playwright.I disagree. I think Michelangelo and Wagner are both very renowned poets. We can see the direct and numerous influences on literature that their writings have had. I don't think Cellini's autobiography is superior in literary qualities than either Michelangelo's lyrics or Wagner's dramas.
>>24885991Mozart closely collaborated with Da Ponte on his librettos. That being said, Mozart's skill in writing can be found in the insane prose contained in his letters.
>>24886173HOLY
>>24885959>they’re always choosing the ‘main’ one where there was a much better contemporary just off to their side. verdi not wagner.Wagner's music and libretti are infinitely better and more important than Verdi's. The trajectory of Verdi's opera career can be summed up as being more and more influenced by Wagner as the years went on. It's really not even a contest. How arrogant can you be that you know so little about 19th century opera and then criticise someone for knowing what they're talking about? Although it's ridiculous in the first place to mention Verdi and Mozart since they didn't even write their own libretti, and no, working on it with a collaborating writer is not the same as them actually writing it.
Literature is undeniably the most important. Never heard any reason as to the contrary that wasn't pure cope.
>>24886116>the best painters don't take years to finish a painting
>>24886146>>24886158>>24887418This is true.
>>24886031>>24890074This is only true in the most trivial sense. You mostly just have music loops here, art assets there, a script in the background, and gameplay mechanics on top. The latter is the actual artistic core of games, not the surrounding media. They're just a formal system of rules and player actions. It's a completely different category than literature, music, or painting.>>24890734Only Wagner's (in theory).
