Monday, September 30, 2013


Does music have no meaning? is it not fine art? Kant seems to believe that music is nothing more than surface beauty. I may be wrong but I believe it was said that poetry is a form of fine art. For music that has vocals, it is pretty much just poetry accompanied with a melody and instrumental reinforcement. How can adding instrumental music to poetry disqualify it from being fine art? secondly, many solo works in instrumental music seem to me to speak a language all its own. Although without words, there is still a tone and theme that come across to the audience. I personally believe music in all forms is a fine art for this reason, let me know what you guys think!

1 comment:

  1. Fine art-
    "a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture."

    Although music is not a visual art, it still serves an aesthetic purposed and is judged for its beauty and meaningfulness. It is definitely an aesthetic experience and can connect people in the same way that other types of fine art can.

    The mission of music as art is to show how passion creates feeling and to share on the meaning. Old and new intelligent selections always inspire and will forever include uncensored thoughts, music expressions, and intense details to demonstrate sincere and grateful appreciation.