Popularity of visual art compared to music

[JAVO]

Why is music so much more popular and integrated into our culture compared to visual art such as paintings and photography?

Popular musicians rake in the money and popularity, while even the top visual artists struggle just to make a survivable income.

Popular musicians are perceived nearly as a cultural god, while visual artists are perceived as outcast nerds playing with their camera gear or hypersensitively painting a scene by themselves in a corner of society somewhere. If a popular musician were to appear in a movie, it would likely drive up sales, but if it were a visual artist, people would go: "Hmmm... who? What are they doing trying to act?"

What causes this dichotomy?

Is it that musicians are seen as more extraverted and in-touch with their fans and life?

Is public visibility and performance of musicians a factor?

Is visual art perceived as more esoteric and removed from day to day life?

Is music more of an emotional medium, and thus more appealing?

Does the price and availability of visual art play a role? If so, what if visual art were made more affordable and more easily obtainable? It seems to me that one reason the photographer Ansel Adams was so popular is that he tried to make his work available to a wider range of people by selling it for less than many photographers of his caliber would have.

 

[StrappingYoungLad]

I think its because its easier to market shitty music than shitty visual art.

Also, music has a role in human interaction because without it dancing between people would look pretty damn retarded.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Why is music so much more popular and integrated into our culture compared to visual art such as paintings and photography?

Popular musicians rake in the money and popularity, while even the top visual artists struggle just to make a survivable income.

Popular musicians are perceived nearly as a cultural god, while visual artists are perceived as outcast nerds playing with their camera gear or hypersensitively painting a scene by themselves in a corner of society somewhere. If a popular musician were to appear in a movie, it would likely drive up sales, but if it were a visual artist, people would go: "Hmmm... who? What are they doing trying to act?"

What causes this dichotomy?

Is it that musicians are seen as more extraverted and in-touch with their fans and life?

Is public visibility and performance of musicians a factor?

Is visual art perceived as more esoteric and removed from day to day life?

Is music more of an emotional medium, and thus more appealing?

Does the price and availability of visual art play a role? If so, what if visual art were made more affordable and more easily obtainable? It seems to me that one reason the photographer Ansel Adams was so popular is that he tried to make his work available to a wider range of people by selling it for less than many photographers of his caliber would have.

I think the BOLDED is especially true. Also, we like to look at pretty people who don't make us think more than pictures that do.
But remember that most musicians don't make much money at all, and have to have a day job to keep going. Lady Gaga does not represent what most musicians experience.

 

[vilijaba]

I don't know any scientific facts but I suppose that even babys are able to distinguish specific sounds in terms of liking or disliking them. It's the same with adults. We hear all kinds of sounds every single day and we can tell simple noise from a good sound or a song. It's already in us when we are born. It's much more complicated with visual arts. I don't think it has much influence on a person who has no basic knowledge of it and hasn't benn taught to appreciate it. We of course see photos in advertisements, in magazines, on TV but they don't give us any feelings most of the time, do they?
Then again, there are both musicians and visual artists who earn a lot. BUT. In order to earn that money, their work has to be comercial. Well, maybe not necesserily comercial but it has to appeal to the listener or the viewer. It could be a good thing that visual art is not as comercially successful as music because the artist is free in terms of creativity. He is free to do whatever he wants to.
I wish my English was more fluent so that I could explain my view of point better.

 

[Stanton Moore]

I don't know any scientific facts but I suppose that even babys are able to distinguish specific sounds in terms of liking or disliking them. It's the same with adults. We hear all kinds of sounds every single day and we can tell simple noise from a good sound or a song. It's already in us when we are born. It's much more complicated with visual arts. I don't think it has much influence on a person who has no basic knowledge of it and hasn't benn taught to appreciate it. We of course see photos in advertisements, in magazines, on TV but they don't give us any feelings most of the time, do they?
Then again, there are both musicians and visual artists who earn a lot. BUT. In order to earn that money, their work has to be comercial. Well, maybe not necesserily comercial but it has to appeal to the listener or the viewer. It could be a good thing that visual art is not as comercially successful as music because the artist is free in terms of creativity. He is free to do whatever he wants to.
I wish my English was more fluent so that I could explain my view of point better.

Your English is very good!

 

[angelhair45]

It's more interactive? Music talks back, visual art doesn't?

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I think it's because music is both a personal and a communal experience, and visual art is exclusively a personal experience. Nobody has a party and puts a painting up on the wall for entertainment.

Music is also used for more purposes. You can listen to music in the car, at work, while working out, at a party, etc. Visual art is just there to be looked at. It doesn't complement your life in the same way, because to appreciate it, it must be your focus. And unless you're making a trip to a museum, that doesn't really happen.

 

[Shimmy]

I beg to differ. Movies are visual art as well, and that industry is even bigger than the music one. There isn't a musician in the world who gets paid the same amount as say, Will Smith.

 

[Tallulah]

I think it's because music is both a personal and a communal experience, and visual art is exclusively a personal experience. Nobody has a party and puts a painting up on the wall for entertainment.

Music is also used for more purposes. You can listen to music in the car, at work, while working out, at a party, etc. Visual art is just there to be looked at. It doesn't complement your life in the same way, because to appreciate it, it must be your focus. And unless you're making a trip to a museum, that doesn't really happen.

This. Maybe a better comparison would be music vs. poetry? But it seems pretty obvious to me why music is a more commercial medium than either poetry or the visual arts. It envelops the listener, affects the emotions, gives the opportunity for the listener to lose himself/herself in the rhythms and melody. Static visual media can't do that (well, not can't, but is less likely to), though film certainly can.

 

[KDude]

It's just the current movement. At one point in time, painters were more popular, while musicians struggled with finding larger audiences (also due to lack of recording) or patrons.

Actors were some of the lowest classes in Rome.. In other times, some also functioned as prostitutes and courtesans. Things change. Now it's everyone else kissing their asses, treating some like demigods.

Lastly, music is changing as we speak.. recording is not as lucrative as it once was.. there's an emphasis on performance again.. as well as people thinking of new ways to market it in general. Twenty years from now, it may not be the big thing. Video games or crafting virtual worlds and experiences could be the new artform. Who knows.

 

[JAVO]

Impressive insights everyone!

 

[Queen Kat]

Because it's easier to carry all of your favorite music with you than Rembrandt van Rijn's Night Watch.

 

[alcea rosea]

Why are you asking difficult questions, Javo?



Maybe there are more people in the world who need to feel things, and music can be felt (e.g the sound of the bass) when a picture cannot be felt in your guts? Maybe music brings us back to the days of the when we were all dancing around the fireplace and just blended into the music and to the general mystic atmosphere?

 

[KDude]

My earliest experience falling in love with music actually had much to do with imagery.. Being taken to a symphony, hearing Beethoven, closing my eyes, and picturing (what I thought at the time) myself riding in a carriage through 19th century streets, buildings going by... But I also felt it as well, and it brought tears to my eyes. Or the first time I heard Hendrix, it was on the Woodstock video, and I was just saw his back.. he looked crazy and awesome.. afro, tassles, etc.. I think it was kind of one of my earliest exposures to someone who really stood out. I didn't even think of his music much until later, at around 13, when I started playing myself. I met an older kid who had a "real electric guitar" and everything, and played Hey Joe.. and I was like "Whoa!! Normal people can do this too?" So I took it up myself.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Is it that musicians are seen as more extraverted and in-touch with their fans and life?

Is public visibility and performance of musicians a factor?

Is visual art perceived as more esoteric and removed from day to day life?

Is music more of an emotional medium, and thus more appealing?

Does the price and availability of visual art play a role? If so, what if visual art were made more affordable and more easily obtainable? It seems to me that one reason the photographer Ansel Adams was so popular is that he tried to make his work available to a wider range of people by selling it for less than many photographers of his caliber would have.

I think a lot of these are valid possibilities. I think accessibility is a factor - not just financially, but even how people relate to the art form. Visual arts now have a very elitist quality to them - they are often expressing some deep feeling, some profound commentary, and they ask you to, well, think. Pop music is accessible money-wise and mentally/emotionally to a wide variety of people, from wealthy to working class. The exclusivity of the visual art scenes, well, exclude many "average" people. It is removed from everyday life in that sense, and it can even come off as critical of everyday life. Actually, I think art has always been that way. I doubt peasants of the past were having their portraits painted...but there was also no recordings of music. The average person was probably a bigger fan of folk music than paintings though. (I think poetry used to be more popular because it has a musical quality, could be carried in small books (god I love those), was accessible to anyone who could read, and often covered rather universal topics.)

Which brings us to the matter of reproduction. Music can be produced & distributed in large quantities and everyone is getting the original in a sense. With visual art, the exception being photography, a reproduction means a picture of the art, which shows you one perspective of it. IDK about anyone else, but a Monet looks way better in person than on a calendar . You see the texture of the brush strokes, the way it changes from different angles, etc.

That brings us back to accessibility, in the form of convenience. Music has become increasingly convenient to get a hold of, to store, to carry with you. It's easy to integrate it into your life and that increases its value to many. Most people will have a greater appreciation for something they have a practical use for, and music can be practical in a way. It provides ambiance through background noise, it's a form of entertainment, and it can be interactive (ie. dancing, karaoke).

I think music is also more popular for the reason is does NOT have to fully absorb your attention. It certainly can, but I definitely feel visual art can do the same (unfortunately, we're often restricted to looking at it in public places where a sense of intimacy is lost - it takes on a tourist attraction quality at times, which lessens the visceral response). Music can be played in the background and not interfere a lot. You can play in your car, at work, etc. You can enjoy it on many levels, in many settings.

As for visibility and performance, I think this is has to do with how music is marketed. Visual art is not marketed as entertainment, so the artists do not become pop stars, and yes, that means people don't connect to them as individuals the way they do musicians. In some ways, I think artists like it that way & musicians envy it - their art can stand alone.

 

[luminous beam]

in my opinion music is a lot more popular than visual art because it evokes a lot more when you encounter it. usually art is left up to interpretation of the viewer, unless you are reading a description on the history behind the visual. music on the other hand, expresses the artist's emotion much more loudly as well as allows the listener to interpret in his or her own way.

minor chords will evoke a melancholy feeling like using a cool color palette on a painting. however, music directly communicates with our subconscious...more to those who are open and susceptible to it. visual art takes a lot longer to process in that regard, unless you happen to be an extremely sensory and visual person.