Art vs. Entertainment: Is there a clear line?

[skeptik]

I would posit that that which is entertainment is separate from that which entertains us individually. This thought occurred to me while typing my last post but I didn't bring it up for some reason. I think Entertainment with a capital letter is representative of all activities in which we as a species engage for luxury purposes, but obviously this doesn't mean that any one individual is going to enjoy all of these things. Like I recognize golf as entertainment, but I don't enjoy playing it (though I watch it on tv every now and then, so maybe that's a flawed example).

Regarding Walden, I'm inclined to agree. There are a smattering of brilliant and inciteful lines surrounded by a ton of either meandering or senseless self-indulgence. I much prefer his political/philosophical writings. In that regard that's definitely one example I can agree with of artistic merit that doesn't 'entertain' me. But then again I fail to be moved by what I've read of Faulkner as well.

 

[Einherjar86]

I would posit that that which is entertainment is separate from that which entertains us individually. This thought occurred to me while typing my last post but I didn't bring it up for some reason. I think Entertainment with a capital letter is representative of all activities in which we as a species engage for luxury purposes, but obviously this doesn't mean that any one individual is going to enjoy all of these things. Like I recognize golf as entertainment, but I don't enjoy playing it (though I watch it on tv every now and then, so maybe that's a flawed example).

And I would agree with this.

 

[waif]

[*]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.

What sort of music has no intent behind it? "Yeah we just kind of plunk our instruments just to see what happens." Dance music has the intent of making you dance. Classical has the intent of making you smug. Etc. All music is meant to do something to you. I reject the notion that the instrumental sections of, say, thrash, have more artistic merit than the synths and electronic beats in a pop song.

[*]Music marketed to appeal to teenagers and sell CDs, is not. It is entertainment.

Why? This seems silly. Why can't it be art just because it's released on a major label and some men in suits want to sell it?

[*]Music that follows the same generic song-structuring (verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus), the same formula, is not. It is entertainment.

You're a fag.

 

[damnromulans]

I like the breakdown of your responses WAIF. I LOLed at that last one.

TheButt means well but I think he needs to reevaluate his concrete definitions.

 

[entanglement]

what a shit argument.

 

[Badbird]

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.

I agree with this but cooking and sports take a lot of talent too. In fact cooking a good food takes a fuck more talent than making the music Briney Spears does.

 

[waif]

I consider thrash, to be awesome art, etc.

Okay, no.
I mean, maybe some specific songs or albums, but as a whole...no. It's all about rocking out, playing fast, and being METAL. Those are all great things. But none of them are art. Some thrash has socially or politically charged lyrics. That doesn't make it art anymore than one of Obama's stump speeches is art.

 

[skeptik]

iit WAIF is clueless

edit: Tom Brady, yes, of course there are many skills that require an enormous amount of talent, but there is no direct correlation between talent and art. Like mechanics. Very challenging physically and mentally, yet it's purely a skill and has nothing to do with art.

 

[waif]

iit?

Anyhow, I'm going with his definition of art and just pointing out that his own argument doesn't stand up on it's own. Personally, I agree with your definition of art, but TheButt seems to have created a position designed solely to elevate the stuff he likes above other stuff.

 

[DarkBliss]

I want to bring Metallica into this argument. Because I do believe their music is basically pop. It's easily accessible in the way it's structured, so it appeals to fans of many genres, even if those people don 't like any other metal. Metallica rock, so they appeal to rock fans, it appeals to headbangers worldwide, because it's aggressive enough, with good riffs and hooky guitarwork, easily comprehensible transitions,etc.
But those who look beyond that, will find that Metallica's music also sports great atmosphere. Listen to Call of Ktulu, for instance, and feel the goosebumps on your skin
Basically, any music can be said to have artistic depth.If you want to find depth in something, you'll find it. It's not by chance that artists are well, called artists.

The same thing is true of movies.Someone will only watch art-house movies, while someone else enjoys only action flicks. They're both forms of entertainment and art in one.

They say real art leaves an indelible impression on the person.
Are cartoons like Tom and Jerry art then? Because many people regardless of age still recall them with fondness,(maybe cos they evoke childhood memories) while others may see them only as entertainment for kids.So, some cat chases a mouse all the time. Big deal. Right?

So what's art and what is entertainment? Ah, who knows, really.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I agree with Matt in that art is specifically the individual creation of its creator (or the compositional property specifically of a group of people, in regards to groups of artists working on one thing i.e. a band).

 

[skeptik]

iit?

Typo.

Honestly, a lot of times I wish you used instant messenger programs so I could take my time to explain things to you in detail and have you give immediate responses to make sure you're understanding. A lot of times I see you post and I feel like "oh god damnit, there goes WAIF again", and then I actually read what you say, and fairly often I'm just baffled as to how you developed the reasoning to support your position and I just want to either yell at you or go into minute detail in explaining why you don't really have the frame of reference to hold the position that you do.

Yeah, anyway...

So what's art and what is entertainment? Ah, who knows, really.

I honestly didn't really read must of your post beyond this, but I just wanted to say that I am of the position that all art is entertainment in that all art is essentially the product of luxury and desire, but by no means, and obviously so, is all entertainment art, which has already been discussed. The question is misleading because there's so much overlap between the two. The real question that should be discussed is "what is entertainment that isn't art". But even that isn't terribly interesting, so a better question that I already brought up is what is art and what is not, but we already discussed that too.

 

[skeptik]

iit?

Typo.

Honestly, a lot of times I wish you used instant messenger programs so I could take my time to explain things to you in detail and have you give immediate responses to make sure you're understanding. A lot of times I see you post and I feel like "oh god damnit, there goes WAIF again", and then I actually read what you say, and fairly often I'm just baffled as to how you developed the reasoning to support your position and I just want to either yell at you or go into minute detail in explaining why you don't really have the frame of reference to hold the position that you do.

Yeah, anyway...

So what's art and what is entertainment? Ah, who knows, really.

I honestly didn't really read must of your post beyond this, but I just wanted to say that I am of the position that all art is entertainment in that all art is essentially the product of luxury and desire, but by no means, and obviously so, is all entertainment art, which has already been discussed. The question is misleading because there's so much overlap between the two. The real question that should be discussed is "what is entertainment that isn't art". But even that isn't terribly interesting, so a better question that I already brought up is what is art and what is not, but we already discussed that too.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Why is entertainment that which is the product of luxury and desire? I believe entertainment to be axiomatically defined; that which entertains can only be considered entertainment, and entertainment can only be considered something which entertains. Art is pretty much explicitly the product of human whim, with a side of inspiration (conscious or subconscious, I don't think it matters) in nearly every case.

 

[skeptik]

Well, is there anything that we do out of luxury and desire that isn't 'entertainment?' I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean that all entertainment is a product of luxury and desire, like being entertained by fixing the engine in your car that you need to fix, but I don't think I said that.

 

[DarkBliss]

Artists make art.Actors, painters, musicians, sculptors, etc.

If an actor played brilliantly in some movie for which he's become famous and the movie becomes a classic afterwards,praised by critics and fans alike for decades, then he's made good art. But if he then starred in some terribly contrived B-movie then he's made bad art. It's still art.And may hold higher entertainment value to some casual viewers than the picture that brought him fame.

A good painting is art, a bad painting is art. The real value of both is defined by art experts and collectors. But who are they? Ordinary people with different opinions as to what is good art and what isn't.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Well, is there anything that we do out of luxury and desire that isn't 'entertainment?' I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean that all entertainment is a product of luxury and desire, like being entertained by fixing the engine in your car that you need to fix, but I don't think I said that.

You didn't say that, but I'd consider the axiomatic definition of 'entertainment' to be my personal definition that I'd be likely to use. I think luxury and desire are just that; both are concepts that are not necessarily entertaining, into and of themselves.

DarkBliss; there is no concrete "value" to any art, and there is certainly no intrinsic detail that states the "worth" of a piece or pieces of art. It is entirely a subjective system.

 

[The Butt]

I'm not arguing on the "worth" of a piece or pieces of art, I simply am of the belief that there is a clear line which separates entertainment (some music simply falls under this definition) and art itself. IMO some music (for example... the very Britney Spears-type chaff that Nec mentioned... the stuff that's created solely for the sake of pushing units, the stuff with no meaningful message or intent behind it... the kind that does not provoke any intelligent thought... the generic bullshit that offers nothing you won't find elsewhere) simply IS NOT art.

WAIF: yer mums a faggot.
And thrash is awesome art. The very concept of "rocking out, playing fast, and being METAL" has inspired an entire movement, an entire subculture. Thrash was meaningful as all fuck, it was practically a fucking lifestyle in the 80s. It has a MASSIVE mindset behind it... and the artists fucking LIVED their music. That's what I feel makes it art.

 

[damnromulans]

well, I think Lady GaGa is all about art. She incorporates skillful multi-octave range singing, painstakingly choreographed dance, a playful sense of irony when it comes to her public image, and incredibly fashion-forward style. Not to mention she was trained in music school as a kid, and her songs are EXTREMELY catchy and not direct rip-offs of other artists.

 

[panzerfaust666]

I agree Krampus. Like I said before, every aspect of Pop Culture is part of an odd form of Art....

@ the Butt. SO does Jackson Pollock qualify as art to you?