i think a 3 month old infant appreciates nursery rhymes more then it does van gogh and picasso.
i think a 12 years old appreciates say, metallica or green day more than they do jackson pollack.
so, i think i disagree with nearly all of you as schopenhauer is correct at the most essential level of meaning, or just taking the first post as it is.
visual arts are more stimulating, are more information, and use a more refined sense and amount of reasoning. that music is intellectual, and that visual information is emotional not being denied, imho, by the idea the music appeals, at least, more directly to emotion than do the viz arts.
if schopenhauer is so wrong, more intellectuals would “be moved” by brittney spears and more pimply teenagers would be crowding around the museums and talking about how “emo and fucking RAD”" jackson pollack is. clearly, intellectuals are “more moved” by symphinic movement, and i say that is because it is more intellectual thatn other forms of music. same is true of jazz, for the most part - which is the highest form of art as it also is the form of music that first allowed for abstract expressionism in the sense of the avant garde element of some of it.
when i see a kid say “that’s hot” while admiring Irises at the ghetty center, i will reconsider this…
