A Question

Once again, something CO said in the comments has got the ol' noodle going. Just something to throw out there, perhaps to be fleshed out in some fashion at a later date.

Modern Art vs. Modern Music

CO said he "can enjoy abstract painting for what it is and the emotive response it creates," while he does not get the same enjoyment from free jazz. Obviously, there is no rule saying that liking one means you must like the other, taste being subjective and all. Still, I find this fascinating. Again, because he's not the first person I've known to have the same feelings when it comes to modern visual art and modern music. It begs the question: what is it that makes equally "abstract" or otherwise modern visual art easier to digest than its musical counterpart, even though the former can run into even wilder abstraction? What is it that makes Rothko harder to understand or enjoy than Rothko? Why are the (relatively) experimental works of Kiarostami more palatable than Iran?

Just a thought.