Do you prefer visual arts or music?

[Bridge]

Music doesn't need analysis. If you truly think it does you've been tricked by people who don't know a thing about music.

I think you're describing a consumer's approach to art (not in a derogatory sense, mind you; by consumer I mean just that - someone observing a piece of art rather than creating it). Delving into the details and technicalities behind a piece of art will usually do little to increase the enjoyment you receive from it, in fact some people (myself included) would argue that this would ruin the experience.

But among creators of art, analysis holds a high and rightfully deserved place. There is tons of theory going into the creation of both visual art and music. In some way, with how much artists and musicians know about their medium, analysis is unavoidable. Understanding exactly what makes you love a painting or a musical piece helps you become a better creator yourself.

^,^

I disagree. I think all these music students writing fugues are fooling themselves. Many schools place a high emphasis on reading music also which is something you should spend a week tops studying. They train their students to follow little symbols on a piece of paper and playing without making a single mistake and by doing that turn them into monkeys. Nobody takes a monkey seriously no matter how well trained. They may impress the "highbrow" crowd but very rarely will they write an interesting piece of music. It's no coincidence that the musicians regarded as the best are never seen ogling at sheet music during a performance. These are the musicians that actually have something to say and can turn the mundane act of moving muscles into something three-dimensional. Instead of playing sounds, they are playing ideas. I am generalizing as much as I can to illustrate a point, this is of course not absolute and I admit it is an ad hoc argument. But it does apply for a shockingly large amount.

If you find heavy analysis works for you then go ahead. It's all about what you do with what you learn. Personally I find it pointless at best and detrimental at worst. Mind you that some degree of analysis is always necessary in order to proceed. The way I "analyze" something (which is regrettably rarely) is using my ear to figure out what notes are being played by listening to the colors and how they feel in relation to the harmony. Using only a basic understanding of functional harmony, and not even thinking about "forms" for one minute, you can learn everything there is to know about the piece. You know that you feel the way you do because these notes were used here, the dynamics and articulation were … and it was played over a … chord. By doing this you not only know learn how to emulate it but you create an emotional connection with what's going on, which means you are guaranteed to remember it. This is the only way to learn how to improvise (apart from being born with perfect pitch) which is what every musician should strive for. Classical douchebags will shun improvisation as being just random crap and place a higher emphasis on flawless technique and slavish mastery of forms when in fact most of the masters were monsters at improvisation. Bach actually improvised fugues (which is insane). Likewise, Mozart, Chopin, Beethoven and a bunch of others basically lived for improvisation. Writing pieces of music was basically like recording improvisations today (Chopin based many of his pieces on improvisations of his) and for some it was a 9-5 thing (even though they enjoyed it).

So I hope you see where I'm coming from with this extremist viewpoint. I think the priorities in academia in general are totally screwed up. Most people end up forgetting everything they learned and the only things they remember are the things they strove to remember (e.g. they had an emotional connection to them - an interest). Which is why school is bullshit. I know my rant is all over the place but that's my opinion in a nutshell. I've written a modest amount of musical pieces and I've drawn enough sketches to fill a small library. The quality varies and my interest ranges from total enamoration to total resentment depending on the mood but I think they are all at least competently made which is what I'm trying to say. All you need to write music and draw is a pair of ears, eyes and preferably 10 fingers.

When
for example looking at someones painting. If its in any way
traditional, you will get to the fundamental skills (composition, form,
perspective, color, etc.) Which you have to then steal to create your
own art. And that stuff is taught in schools.
And this .

Yeah, but that's all stuff you can learn by observing. Then you can apply it intuitively. If it really helps you to perform an autopsy on a painting you like then go ahead but I personally feel it sacrifices individualism. You're not supposed to "steal" you're supposed to learn. You have to "steal" it in one way or another, but the way you implement it is totally up to you. You can draw what you like from it and leave what you don't like. In my experience, art schools just talk about technique and don't leave any of the decision making up to you.