Illustrating is more about communicating specific ideas to a reader. Painting is more like pure science, more about the act of painting.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
It's been noted that writing about the production of art is a masquerade or metaphor for writing about writing. This may be true, there are similarities - both the verbal and the visual represent the thing or the concept.
Photography is about finding things. And painting is different - it's about making something.
The value of writing about art is its effect on the imagination. Paintings allow us to inhabit another culture, place, and time period, and address the issues of those time periods that resonate with our own time.
Painting (like poetry) chooses from universals what is most apposite. It brings together, in a single imaginary being, circumstances and characteristics which occur in nature in many different persons.
Well, everything surprises me about the writing process because illustrating comes much more naturally to me than writing does.
Painting is seen as picture making, the making of an art object, something that can stand on its own.
Not all paintings are abstract; they're not all Jackson Pollock. There's value in a photograph of a man alone on a boat at sea, and there is value in painting of a man alone on a boat at sea. In the painting, the painting has more freedom to express an idea, more latitude in being able to elicit certain emotion.
Painting is an essentially concrete art and can only consist of the representation of real and existing things.
Music is a lot more like solving an intricate puzzle with moments of pure, random creative bliss... whereas painting is much more purely random creative bliss with moments of problem solving.
Writing is largely about time, while visual art is largely about space.