Picasso, based on nothing more than personal preference for the artists output.

Plus, I suppose you could argue that the average man on the street would recognise a Picasso sooner than they would pick Mozart out as the composer of a particular piece

Picasso

Mozart

Mozart

Mozart

@TP Well observed! Gf probably sold her soul and is not herself anymore. We should make that her vote goes always to the best candidate:

Picasso (I would have preferred to vote Escher, but Picasso comes closer to him than Mozart).

Mozart

I vote Mozart.
Picasso: 5
Mozart: 8

The musical genius of Mozart is undeniable. Picasso was philosophically important, but the aesthetic value that Mozart gave humanity trumps him, especially since this is the artist category. There is something to be said for doing one thing better than anyone, and Mozart wrote music for European orchestras better than anyone has ever done, and will ever do.

I mean come on... listen to this shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mYUMctFm60
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02k2KQw2lGA

Those are a few of my favorites, but honestly, it's everything he ever wrote.

Mozart.

A tough one. Mozart was something of a child prodigy gone bad, but certainly brilliant. His moral qualities at the end of his life do not endear him to me. Picasso may have been more stable, more recognizable (most people seem to recall visuals before auditory, and have run into more high art than they have classical music). In the end, I'm picking Mozart because I don't think he rejected as many of the conventional forms of his art as did Picasso.

What's wrong with rejecting conventional forms of your art?? Mozart deserves your vote over Picasso, but I find that statement highly dubious.

Thanks for the links Thucy. Am enjoying them

I honestly prefer Beethoven, but as he is not here... :(

Love both immensely...

But unless he runs up against the Bard himself, you know it's almost certain who I'm voting for here. ;)

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, baby! :D

@KingCyrus: I had that debate a week or so ago, Mozart vs. Beethoven...and while Ludwig won in the Musicians tourney, I still say that while both are about equal in terms of their genius, Mozart's operas are the tiebreaker, at least for me.

Beethoven? One opera, not too commonly performed today.
Mozart? Many, with multiple hits in German and Italian, with The Magic Flute and The Marriage of Figaro in particular regularly ranking among the world's most performed operas.

(Speaking of most-performed, I just remembered...after Shakespeare, Henrik Ibsen's the most performed playwright in the world today, and he didn't even make the tourney, shame...A Doll's House, Hedda Gabler, The Wild Duck, Ghosts...Ibsen deserved a shot over a couple of the authors who made the cut here...I'm looking at you, Robert Heinlein.)

Anywho, I'd argue that even if you don't like opera, it's the tiebreaker. Both Mozart and Beethoven have piano, violin, and symphonic pieces which are legendary...but Mozart has an undeniable edge in the operatic sphere as well, making him not just more performed and thus arguably allowing him more exposure, but one of the best opera composers of all-time as well.

I'd like to hear your case for Beethoven, though, of you'd like to give it. :)

Obi, I will pay you to write something that doesn't somehow go back to Shakespeare.

Obi, Mozart was a master, and no denying it. His genius is evident, and is arguably better than Beethoven's, which I accept. He is perhaps the greatest musician ever.

But he is not my favorite. He is superior in technical ingenuity. But what I find so moving about Beethoven is the soul. His music rings of his character. A tempest, trapped within the man, and his only avenue to let it through was his music. Listening to Beethoven, I stop hearing notes and am wrapped in the emotion of the piece. The passion in his work is, in my opinion, unsurpassed.

Sonata Number 8, Opus 13... Mmmm... Breathtaking! If you have 20 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrcOcKYQX3c

@Thucydides, re: conventional forms -- I can't speak for Picasso's philosophy, only my disposition towards an attitude. I'm not terribly "well read" in terms of art history, I'll freely admit, which probably amounts to a full concession on an internet board. But this is more of a preference than an informed opinion, anyway.

Art depicts beauty, or rather, depicts things beautifully. I don't think it's primarily about head games, social commentary, broader philosophy, or sticking it to the man.
In my experience of people doing something and calling it art, those choosing to deliberately reject convention often do so for reasons that aren't related to depicting something beautifully. I'm not talking about someone who figured out a new way to do perspective, or the guy who decided to try watercolors or pointalism. I'm thinking of the guy who dunks crucifixes in urine, or the guy who let his hamsters do finger-hamsterfoot-paintings that sold for millions, and called it "art."

Form and order and structure (in art, in science, in literature, etc) aren't evils that hold us back, they are the tools by which we can be creative. I'll grant that conventions get stale, and someone needs to find a new one. I'll grant that form and order done poorly, mechanically, tends to stifle creativity. On the other hand, endless novelty and variety doesn't exactly produce something I'd call beautiful. Endless variety and novelty isn't beautiful. Things that are beautiful do seem to follow some conventions. Therefore an ethic which intentionally seeks to break conventions seems at some level inimical to the depiction of beauty overall.

teacon: have one of my rare likes, for both a well-written and excellent argument

Oh, and Mozart, just.

If artists always stuck to their forms, we would have never got past cave paintings. Also, you seem to have a rather narrow sense of what is beautiful. Why can't a "head game" or a social commentary also be beauitful? Why can't something that is designed to make you uneasy not also be beautiful? It doesn't have to be pretty to be beautiful. As long as the subject of classical music is at hand, have you never heard Mahler's "Tragic" symphony? It was not written to be pretty, but it is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful and moving pieces of music a human has ever devised.

If you deny that Picasso's work had order and form, as well as purpose, then you short change both him and yourself for failing to appreciate a great artist.

@Thucy - I already conceded all of those points, and admitted ignorance before we even started. Yes, I'm shortchanging myself. Yes, Picasso is wonderful. You win. Stop arguing. I'm simply prickly about the very contemporary attitude I see all around me which rather immaturely rejects conventions simply because they are conventions. That has very little to do with the greats of artists past, but one point, briefly, felt familiar: the rejection of convention. That's all. You win. Share some links to great paintings so we can all benefit.

Mozart

Mozart

Meh I don't personally enjoy Picasso that much. Mozart was a better artist.

Picasso: 5
Mozart: 14

mozart

Mozart

Ataboi votes for Ataboi