So I learned something interesting about myself while visiting the met, I learned there is a difference between someone who appreciates art and someone who simply enjoys art. And I enjoy but don’t appreciate. What’s the difference? I guess the old saying ‘I don’t know if its art, but I know what I like.’ Really sums it up. I realized that art to me is pretty pictures and neat sculpture. There are some artist who I really enjoy, Dali or H R Giger for example, I love. But a large majority of art either bores me or annoys me. I just plain ol’ don’t appriciate art. I could see the entire met in as little time as it takes to walk through it at a brisk pace. And, afterward, I would not feel that I missed out on anything.
But as I was going through I realized that if the met was nothing other than a series of sound proof rooms each playing a different musical artist I could spend weeks & weeks there. I enjoy & appreciate music.
It makes me wonder how much of ones ability, to appreciate the various arts, is nature vs nurture. Was it something in my upbringing that caused the portions of my brain that interprets music to become more developed than the visual regions? Or is my genetic pattern such that I would, regardless of upbringing, eventually prefer aural stimulation to visual stimulation?
Guess I’ll never know.
But one thing I did learn from my visit to the met is this:
andy warhol sucks ass.
-De
1 comment:
i know what i've done, the question is have i done it because my parents exposed me to more music influences in my formulative years. or if i was put up for adoption, and the family that adopted me was heavily into the visual arts, would i grow up to love the met? or would the blood win out and would i gravitate toward the music.
i know the immersion i'm wondering about what dirrected which 'art' i preferred being immersed in.
Post a Comment