Of course the iPod won't kill visual art. But it may change it.

Manjoo makes an excellent point ("you can plug in your iPod and look out the window at the same time"). I would add that the very nature of the combined audio-visual experience may expand the nature of visual art.

An artist myself and admirer of your work, I know that music can heavily influence me. It's less in content, and more in my ability to think outside the box in technique and approach. Music has a spatial, mathematical quality to it that opens up my ability to see aspects of the visual field.

But I would take it a step further. I think the printing press was a significant contributor to the development of painting over the past few centuries. Artists were able to read a broad variety of ideas from a broad variety of sources, and when they looked at their world, they had new filters and algorithms in their brains to interpret it. These were instantiated on plaster and wood and canvas and more, and the self-feeding cycle that led to the glorious variety of art we have today was created.

In the same way, I think wandering around the planet listening to music constantly is bound to present the world differently to the artist. The context of places will change, perhaps radically, according to the music of the moment. The randomness of shuffled music will enhance this. And unlike books, music not only lurks in the back of your mind, but is also aggressively present on your immediate experience.

Surely this will not end visual art, but will lead to new, different visual representations to add to the cycle of creativity.

Some responses:

• Theoretically, I believe art should have no restraints as to medium, etc. The artistic will goes where it wills, and for one artist to tell another "Your desire to place visual art in motion is not artistic," is antithetical to art.

  
  

  Now, because someone has a desire to use a different medium does not mean their results are art. Many times (perhaps the vast majority) they are not. But the same can be said for oil and canvas.

• Because someone is listening to an iPod or reading a book does not mean they are tuning out their world. People can either find themselves in music or lose themselves, and which happens depends not on whether they listen to music at all, but the type of person they are.

  
  

  Always, always, always, the artist is the person who sees, in a sea of people who don't. While many may use their iPod to escape the world around them, I think some do indeed use it to help them see their world. The commenter who mentioned that he saw more of his world post-iPod than before, when he read books, made a good point.

• Isn't it good people have the itch to try to create art, even if they don't succeed? Won't such people develop a greater understanding of it through the effort? I'm not an athlete, but I know how to throw a football and so I have a better level of respect for them.

  
  

  I'm not a great artist, but I know how to use a brush and charcoal and pencil, and the issues of composition, and I have a deeper level of respect as a result. And I know better painters than myself who have who have found the medium limiting and moved to animation to discover themselves.

An artist does not deny another artist their choice of medium. More than anyone, artists should respect the choices of those around them, and be open to the possibilities in the world.

This is not dredging up ancient crimes. If Placa was hiding the truth about molestation, the crime of obstruction of justice might be claimed to be much more recent. And the moral judgment that believes it's better to cover up evil, rather than expose it for what it is, is questionable to say the least. From a Catholic perspective, even if the legal statute of limitations has run out, the sin of concealment, and of hurting the victims with that concealment, is renewed every time Placa considers the issue and keeps his mouth shut.

For a public official to hold such a person so close to their hearts is questionable to say the least. Giuliani may "love the sinner and hate the sin" in the case of his long-time friend, but he should also be aware that Ceasar's wife (and by extension, best friend) should be above reproach. And if Placa is such a dear friend, should he not have long ago removed himself from all association with Giuliani in order to protect him?

Both parties' patterns of behavior seem to point to selfish motives. Placa did Giuliana the favor of having his marriage annulled. To anyone familiar with Catholicism, the idea that a marriage lasting the better part of two decades can be erased as if it never happened is ludicrous and wrong. Giuliani does Placa the favor of maintaining him on his payroll. Friendship is nice, but "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" seems to be the basis of it.

A christianly friend of a child molester would want the molester to redeem themselves, and would want truth to be part of that redemption, not cover-up. A christianly child molester (and in this case, a priest!) of a person of authority would want to do what was good for their friend, and would remove himself from all contact to protect him. Neither of these two are behaving in a Christian manner.

One wonders if both aren't doing each other the "favor" of not revealing the truths they know of each other.