Art vs. Entertainment: Is there a clear line?

The Butt

The Butt

The Admiral
Sep 10, 2007
10,875
984
113
The void.
Sooo there's this site I go to

Basically I kept hearing the "lol art is ALL SUBJECTIVE GUISE" bullshit... I mean quality-wise, yes I can agree I guess. One man's trash is another's treasure. But I made the argument that there is a CLEAR DIFFERENCE between entertainment and art.

  • Music with a meaningful auditory/lyrical intent or message behind it (which admittedly not all but a GOOD AMOUNT of metal has. Other genres such as dark ambient, punk, etc have a relevant message or intent too)... music that provokes thought/takes you on a journey, is art.
  • Music that innovates/explores new ground, music that takes itself to places music's never gone, music that DEVIATES FROM A STANDARD FORMULA, is art.
  • Music marketed to appeal to teenagers and sell CDs, is not. It is entertainment.
  • Music that follows the same generic song-structuring (verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus), the same formula, is not. It is entertainment.

And basically I keep getting the "lol its ur opinion man"... "who are you to decide wat is and isnt art derp-a-de-derp".

Personally I feel that people with some semblance of artistic knowledge, or knowledge of artistic philosophy (rather than just "man this song is sick") SHOULD be able to decide what is and is not art. Or at the very least, their opinions should hold more weight.

But why should some random Justin Bieber-loving chick get to decide that her favorite music is art, when it most blatantly is not? Why should such riff-raff, such blatantly commercialized bullshit, where the intent is MONEY and FAME, rather than ARTISTIC EXPRESSION, be allowed to be classified as "art"?

Again, this is not a discussion on quality, but on the line separating art from entertainment.

Discuss.
 
What do you expect when majority of people have the "gay" or "first" way of commenting things?

Anyway, I agree with you totally on the art case. If music sends a message or induces some kind of emotions, then I consider it as art.

What about the situation when a band is experimenting, brings something new with their new material? Many failed experiments may be considered as a "sell-out" thing. What I mean is, generally when a band "sells-out" it leans more towards the public that is entertainment, not art, right? It is hard to conclude if the case of experimenting is art or if a failed experiment may still be considered as art.
 
To alot of bands and musicians, "experimentation" seems to mean to throw a bunch of genres together and write a jumble of incoherent crap. I don't think that's arty, it's more entertainment as it seems to be more akin circus gymnastics musically more than anything. Yet people still refer to some of these bands as "art".

* Music with a meaningful auditory/lyrical intent or message behind it (which admittedly not all but a GOOD AMOUNT of metal has. Other genres such as dark ambient, punk, etc have a relevant message or intent too)... music that provokes thought/takes you on a journey, is art.
* Music that innovates/explores new ground, music that takes itself to places music's never gone, music that DEVIATES FROM A STANDARD FORMULA, is art.
* Music marketed to appeal to teenagers and sell CDs, is not. It is entertainment.
* Music that follows the same generic song-structuring (verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus), the same formula, is not. It is entertainment.
Click to expand...

Apart from my statement above, I largely agree with this. Although, as you grow past your teens, people still seem to listen to the same crap on the radio just as most teens do at the current time.
 
@Vitor:

All art is entertainment, yes.
But I don't believe that all entertainment is art.

There are clear lines that separate the two.

You also have to take INTENT into consideration. Some music is created with the SOLE intent of getting people to buy CDs. The music is bland, consumerized, music-by-numbers that doesn't deviate, do anything new, have any meaningful intent or message or anything.

The "artists" have no intent of being artists, they have the intent of shifting units.

It's the musical equivalent of McDonalds. Now surely McDonalds is not an example of gourmet cuisine, since there are standards that divide gourmet cuisine from fast food? The same way there are standards that divide art from entertainment?
 
By that logic, all still-life paintings are not art, yet still life is still one of the most popular forms of art-class art.

I like your circus-gymnastics analogy, Episteme. The band Anubi always seemed to me to be the metal-fusion-wtf equivalent of that - the songwriting isn't particularly memorable or strong, and they seem to have been intent on just tossing as many different sounds together as humanly possible. BUT just because something is ineffective in its experimentation, does that really reduce it to "just entertainment?" I dunno, I'm awfully lenient on my definition of "art," mainly because it's a big circular argument that will never be "won."

Also to play devil's advocate here, the songwriters who write the pop songs we all love to hate are actually brilliant at what they do. I'd venture to say creating an effective pop hook is a fine art that many, many, many, many smaller and indie bands fail miserably at.

I do agree that all art is is a form of entertainment. Why bother painting a picture or writing music if you never plan on having an audience?
 
I agree with you Butt, for the most part. However, not on the point of Similarly-structured songs being just entertainment.

But I would also like to say: I see Pop Music ( and its culture ) as an Art form in itself, with the entertainment/money/celebrity issues being factored into the whole Art factor.Every aspect of Pop music, such as the people, the personalities, blah blah contribute to its unique and oddly fascinating facade. I hope that made some sense.
 
panzerfaust666 said:
I agree with you Butt, for the most part. However, not on the point of Similarly-structured songs being just entertainment.

But I would also like to say: I see Pop Music ( and its culture ) as an Art form in itself, with the entertainment/money/celebrity issues being factored into the whole Art factor.Every aspect of Pop music, such as the people, the personalities, blah blah contribute to its unique and oddly fascinating facade. I hope that made some sense.
Click to expand...

I mean poorly constructed songs, that have no meaningful intent or message behind them.

I consider minimalistic lo-fi black metal, for example, to be awesome art. The production and song structuring have some intent behind it. Weeding out the weak listeners, etc. It perfectly illustrates a misanthropic, hateful-towards-others, almost elitist attitude. If you want to enjoy the genre, you have to get used to the lo-fi production, the repetitive song structures, etc; everything that most "untrained" music listeners will turn their backs on, and understand the genre for what it is. If you can't, no big loss, BM doesn't need you anyways.

I consider punk, to be awesome art. I consider ambient, to be awesome art. I consider thrash, to be awesome art, etc.

As for pop (and I'm not referring to good pop since I know it exists... I'm referring to the terribad top 40 stuff... the poorly-written stuff)... the music is simplistic with the intent of shifting units, to gullible teens/early adults who get incredibly wet or hard for DEEEEEEEEEEEEP lyrics like "so why can't you seeeeeeeee / you belong with meeeeee". That stuff is NOT art, and I think it is clear.

I got argued with, being told "oh what gives you the right to decide what is and is not art". Well, it's not solely I that should have the right... but anyone KNOWLEDGEABLE about art or artistic philosophy should have a bit of a higher opinion of what constitutes art and what doesn't, than some random person sitting on the bus listening to Taylor Swift cause "shes sooooo deep and heartfelt <<<<3"

Am I not correct in this assumption?
 
Nah, you explained yourself well enough, we just seem to have differing opinions (which is alright).

I wonder what Andy thinks :lol: (imagining the shitstorm)
 
What about Anal Cunt? Are they "art?"

Is it fair to classify people who dislike Ildjarn as "weak listeners?" If you don't subscribe to the whole "misanthropic is badass" mindset, and see those bands as sniveling losers who hate everyone because they can't fit in with normal people, what artistic value could that stuff possibly have to you?
 
You can dislike it because you view it as dumb... but art is art. As I said... IMO quality is objective. Whether or not something is art/entertainment, isn't.

Whether or not one hates Ildjarn, they should be able to see that there was intent and a lot of thought put into the music... all facets of it. Simplicity, production, all. And regardless of whether or not one likes these factors, they should be able to see that they fit an artistic purpose.
 
I disagree that all art is entertainment.

Blood Meridian and Ulysses aren't entertainment. They're hard fucking work, and you only get out what you put in. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed them, so I did find them entertaining... oh shoot, now I've gone and contradicted myself. Or perhaps entertainment is also subjective...

I personally do not think that a large number of people would consider those works that are heralded as great artistic achievements great works of entertainment.
 
Well personally I believe that the art you have to work hardest to like, GENERALLY, is the art that has the most artistic purpose, and that's gonna bring the most long-term appreciation.

With work comes reward.
 
The Butt said:
You can dislike it because you view it as dumb... but art is art. As I said... IMO quality is objective. Whether or not something is art/entertainment, isn't.

Whether or not one hates Ildjarn, they should be able to see that there was intent and a lot of thought put into the music... all facets of it. Simplicity, production, all. And regardless of whether or not one likes these factors, they should be able to see that they fit an artistic purpose.
Click to expand...

Hahaha okay. You seem to think it is impossible to view that sort of art as an ineffective attempt at creating something meaningful and too "deep" for the average listener.

Answer my Anal Cunt question! "Hitler Was A Sensitive Man" - never been done before, will never be done again, this must be fine art.

You made an interesting point about the art that is most difficult to view being the best art - I would argue that shock value is the opposite of art, meant only to entertain and possibly provoke discussion.
 
I do not view Anal Cunt as art. As you say, "shock value" by itself is not art... if it's presented in an intelligent manner, in a way that provokes intelligent thought, maybe. But "Hitler Was A Sensitive Man"? :erk: Come on.

As I even said before, one of the factors that defines art is a meaningful, auditory or lyrical message or intent. Something that provokes intelligent thought.
 
But media provokes different responses in all its audiences. I'd wager that 10% or less of the human population would see any deeper meaning in ambient, lo-fi or other fringe black metal genres. While I may jizz my pants over "Suicide at the End of a Film" by Vomit Orchestra (a nice little instrumental tune, Youtube it), out of the like 10 friends I sent it to, only one of them thought it was of any interest, the rest just thought it was harmless and/or boring.

Intelligent thought, meaningfulness...this is why I just cave in and say "oh fine it can be art."
 
Art is that which is about something in such a way that is designated by a creator to have that specific content. Sports, martial arts, and things of that nature are not art. Cooking is not art. Variety shows and reality shows are not art. Britney Spears is art. Lost is art.

The other line is what is an artistic drawing and what is a sketch, or what piece of music is art and what is not. This line divides things like Bach and elevator music and ring tones, or Monet and medical textbook illustrations.

Einherjar, I disagree with your position. I think that you are taking the term 'entertainment' in too narrow a sense. Some people enjoy being challenged. It hurts my head to listen to Ildjarn, but it still 'entertains' me.
 
Dodens Grav said:
Einherjar, I disagree with your position. I think that you are taking the term 'entertainment' in too narrow a sense. Some people enjoy being challenged. It hurts my head to listen to Ildjarn, but it still 'entertains' me.
Click to expand...

I came to this realization as I was writing my post above (hence my little meandering moment when I mentioned how, if I enjoy it, then isn't it still entertainment for me?); however, I also admit attributing artistic value to certain works that I do not enjoy.

For instance, I recognize the artistic merit of Thoreau's Walden; but I do not enjoy it, nor do I find anything about it entertaining. So, for me, it's a work of art but not a work of entertainment.

I would posit that entertainment is far more subjective than art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NinjaGeek
Abortion Art (No Pics)
Replies
17
Views
660
GMD Social Forum
waif
W
Episteme
Entertainment, Art and Pretentiousness
Replies
17
Views
474
General Metal Discussion
Cythraul
C
Badbird
What is art and what is not.
Replies
70
Views
10K
The Philosopher
monoxide_child
M
Cythraul
What is art!? (Cythraul paper included)
Replies
16
Views
883
The Philosopher
OldScratch
O
SADUDE
Almost thought provoking
Replies
54
Views
995
General Metal Discussion
AjDeath
A
Top Bottom
Back