Someone once said that the aesthetic domain closest to music is architecture, for in both cases the aesthetic expression is rooted in (pure) form, with the lack of inherent content (unless the artist has attempted to make explicit gestures of imitation, such as can be found in the sound of birds in music or gargoyles on Gothic churches).
Yet this does not preclude differences between the two domains. Music, for all its pedagogy and technicality, is an art of purified and controlled air and time, in essence physically impalpable, and full of obvious mysticism due to its ability to effect living beings – human and animals – so profoundly. So much is offered in its nothingness. It is hardly surprising that music occupies much thoughts in Western history and philosophy.
In contrast, what about architecture? The greatness and mysticism of architecture derives precisely from its physicality. Architecture controls space. Architecture is…
View original post 230 more words