My husband and I were having a discussion about art this afternoon, and he made the statement that "Writing is a higher form of art" than say, painting or sculpting.
Quote of the Day:
We need not all agree, but if we disagree, let us not be disagreeable in our disagreements.
--Martin R. DeHaan
While I would love to believe that writing is a higher form of art, reserved for intellectuals, I cannot demote other art forms in this way.I do not believe it takes more skill to write a book than to paint a masterpiece, just like I cannot say Shakespeare is more artistic than Botticelli. But it does raise some interesting thoughts.
My husband is an artist, and, from his perspective, it is obviously easier to paint than to write. For me, on the other hand, there is something magical about the ability to take a paintbrush and some pigment to a piece of canvas, and bring it alive. How do other artists see the fields they do not dabble in?
Do musicians, sculptors, poets see their own craft as almost inferior to other artists, simply because they find it easier? Does the fact that ones own art comes easy truly make it inferior to those that do not come naturally?
It may also appear that writing is reserved for the intellectuals, since one has to have a fair grasp of language, as well as how to wield it. There are, of course, many scholars who know reams of words, but would not be able to cook a story, even if all the ingredients are provided and the recipe spelled out. But is there truly a difference in intellectual capacity between someone who can tell a story with a paintbrush and the person who can tell a story with words?
Personally, I think that no matter what the medium, a good story teller is a good story teller, and the only clear distinction should be between good story tellers and bad ones.
Now Playing: Roxy Music - Slave To Love