Music Gets the Grammy, Art Gets the Gallery: But, Why?

As a visual artist and painter, many might assume my inspiration comes primarily from what I see—street scenes, photographs, random objects I stumble upon. But honestly? That’s secondary. My real spark comes from music. Weird, right? Music isn’t a visual thing, but somehow it gives me a whole composition in my head.

Every single artwork I create has a soundtrack. Even when I’m live painting, you’ll find me with an earbud in, blasting whatever song I’m currently obsessed with. And yes—I am notorious for listening to the same track on repeat while working on a particular piece. Over and over. It’s not that I choose a composition and then pick a painting to match it. It’s more like: whatever I’m feeling in life, I put on a song that mirrors that energy, and the painting emerges from that mood. Music is my spark, my motivation, my reason to step into the studio.

Being the analyzer I am, I can’t help but wonder: music moves people in profound ways, often reaching more hearts and minds than visual art does. And that makes me ask—why is that? Both are art forms—painting, sculpture, printmaking, music—they all have the power to move us. Yet music seems to play in the major leagues, while visual arts often feel like they’re stuck in the minors.

Before you roll your eyes, think about it: musicians are pop culture icons, they make big money, their work is easily shared, and it’s everywhere—movies, concerts, bars, restaurants, your car, your phone, shops… it’s omnipresent. Visual art? Not so much. But why does it have to be that way? Why can’t visual arts sit right beside music in the cultural conversation?

And here’s the relatability thing: I hear it all the time from passerby at markets while I’m live painting: “Oh, I don’t know much about art,” or “I’m no expert, but I like that.” It makes me laugh because, well—I’m no professional musician, but I know music. I know what I like, what I don’t, and how to find more of it.

You don’t need a degree in art history to enjoy art—you just need to feel it. 

So why isn’t visual art as popular as music? Accessibility. Music has countless channels for people to experience it; visual arts feel limited in comparison. And that leads me to my second point: what if we thought of art as a form of entertainment?

Think about a concert that literally changed your life. You were in the crowd, the lights hit just right, and a song came on that grabbed your soul. Memories flood back, emotions surge—you want more. You go home, you listen again, you chase that feeling. Music isn’t just art; it’s an experience.

Now imagine that for visual arts. Museums and galleries are wonderful—but they carry a certain prestige, a formality, like attending the ballet in a grand theater. Beautiful, yes, but a little distant—people going to these typically are more involved in the profession or have deeper ties to art or music. What about the gritty, festival, live-band energy of a local bar or concert hall, but for painting? That’s where live painting comes in. Showing up, creating something from nothing, sharing the process with people in real time—it can be chaotic, intimate, beautiful, thrilling—it depends on the artist, the work, the vibe.

This is why I live paint: to push the boundaries of what’s expected from visual arts and create an experience.

I want it to have a place in pop culture, in people’s everyday lives. I want it to hit someone the way music hits me. Because art—visual art—is about feeling. It’s about giving someone what they need emotionally at that exact moment.

Art doesn’t have to be something you hang on a wall, just like music doesn’t have to live as a dusty CD in your basement. It can be entertainment. It can be an experience.  It can move you, surprise you, inspire you. And that, for me, is the ultimate goal.