This post is a loose reference to one of my posts from the past, named “Photography vs. movies.” Once again, I believe that a confrontation “Music vs. Photography” is a non-sense.
Why such a confrontation is unworthy? Because music and photography have much more in common than we think. In photography, it is just like in music. In both cases, we can have total chaos, a cacophony of sounds, from which ears hurt us, and we can have a headache. On the other hand, we may have a visual mess that sticks our eyes, which makes us feel bad in a given place. The essence of artistic activity is that chaos transforms to order that will soothe people’s nerves, not stimulate them. Of course, as usual, there can be some exceptions, but it is a general rule, I would say. The fact is that we can have a similar approach in both cases, that is in visual art (painting, photography, etc.) and with music.
The artist’s role is to transform the world around him so that he becomes not only livable but also beautiful.
Sometimes I see photographers as rock stars musicians. If we add the proverbial fireworks (e.g., in Adobe Photoshop) to our works, the audience will go crazy. Indeed, both photography and rock music accept fireworks in their works of art.
Nevertheless, my artistic activity is an exception.
I do not like my photographs to look as a tuned reality. Is a confrontation “Music vs. photography” the only possible way to confront the world of music with visual art? Of course not. For example, I can somehow imagine classic painters are the equivalent of classical composers.
Moreover, in my imagination is more shared features than differences between jazz musicians and abstract painters. Now, I hope that you see my Dear Friend that making a confrontation titled “Music vs. Photography” is not a good idea. I believe that broadly defined visual arts possess much more shared features with music, than opposites.
