Art and Entertainment

[Quantum Perception]

Would you say there's a difference between the two? Maybe their the same or one encompasses the other? Can you have one without the other?

What do you think?

 

[P A]

Ever read Infinite Jest or E Unibus Pluram by David Wallace? Although neither of the two works address your question directly, I strongly recommend them to anyone pondering over the bizarre sociocultural phenomenon of American consumptive entertainment, with particular attention to those forms of entertainment that are mass-produced for and electronically (i.e., instantly, efficiently) distributed to 'the masses.'

 

[rangrz]

I'd say sure they exist separately. I find the overwhelming majority of that which falls under the general heading of "arts/humanities" to be devoid of interest, meaning or entertainment value.

Similarly, I find many things which would be considered not art/aesthetically off-putting to be very interesting and entertaining. I'd much rather being doing some linear algebra than reading fiction, and I'd much rather be fast roping out of a UH-60 in a stiff cross wind than going to a live theater performance.

 

[P A]

Similarly, I find many things which would be considered not art/aesthetically off-putting to be very interesting and entertaining. I'd much rather being doing some linear algebra than reading fiction, and I'd much rather be fast roping out of a UH-60 in a stiff cross wind than going to a live theater performance.

Upon my second my second reading, your response made me smile. You contrast applying linear transforms with savoring Moby Dick. But which acts, in your opinion, is/are representative of 'art?' Which constitute(s) 'entertainment?' Or does one or the other activity not fall under either banner? I perceive just as much, if not more, 'art' in linear algebra than I read in Melville, and can explain my reasoning and share my sentiments thereabout. A decent argument could be made in any of ~6 unique directions - 1) Neither activity is representative of art nor can either be considered entertaining; 2) Both activities are artistic and both can be considered entertaining; 3/4/5/6) One or the other is or is not artistic and one or the other is or is not entertaining; and so on.

...whence come all my mixed feelings re. largely semantic problems such as these. They're great conversation (argument) starters for those who don't mind openly disagreeing with others over directionless topics, but are of little use to those looking for 'the truth' about such things, precisely because, the way I see it, there is no such truth to be found. This question could be easily answered with a Venn (or Euler) diagram in which a few artistic and entertaining activities were grouped at the intersection of two bubbles (one representing the Art set and the other representing the Entertainment set), with especial attention to those activities that share a common pattern of some kind - but what fun would that be?

 

[rangrz]

I know what you are saying P.A. My response was more directed at the usual concepts of "art" and "entertainment"...perhaps the popular consensus definition... it's not exact. Much like this quote on mathematics and pornography

Manifolds are a bit like pornography: hard to define, but you know one when you see one

So, while no exact definition of pornography exists, there is a general popular consensus on what is pornography... Some girl moaning and panting while she takes a BBC in the ass, vag and mouth at the same time is going to be almost unanimously called pornography.

But an image of girl in shibari bondage with her breasts exposed and her vag visible but not overly explicitly will be a grey area and there will be a split on who calls it pornography, who calls it erotica and who calls it just art.

I, myself, find mathematics to be very artful and entertaining. The unwashed pleab masses would fail to see the art and beauty in a Fourier time domain analysis of a periodic function and would likely just groan and be like "NOPE!" or "Boring!"

I fail to see the entertainment value in watching gossip about people who flip switches on a panel to make sound come out of speakers or about some chick with bags of saline in her gluts banging a rapper, but many people seem to find this utterly fascinating.

 

[pskyhighatrist]

It seems to me that all entertainment is artistic in nature but not all art is entertainment. Music, theater, sports, these are done for entertainment but are artistic endeavors.
but all artistic endeavors are not entertainment. Tilda Swinton sleeping for example.

 

[Foreigner]

A lot of artist I've met need to practice their medium and if they don't they start to get depressed and feel lost. For some people it's not entertainment, it's their route to self-expression and self-actualization. That they might enjoy the process along the way is secondary, because getting their internal message onto an external medium matters more to them.

In modern America, art has to have entertainment value for most people to understand it, but that's not how a lot of dedicated artists operate. In places like European countries where art is more integrated into day to day culture, it's meant to challenge the status quo with new ways of thinking.

 

[MrGrunge]

I think they are basically the same thing. Art can be entertainment and entertainment can be art.

Art, as I've always understood it, is the creative or skillful expression of a person's imagination. This means that all film, television, music, comedy, literature, paintings, sculptures, graffiti, drawings, performances - all of that stuff is art. There is good art and there is bad art, but it is all art. Art can be genuine and personal or it can be monetized and incorporated. TV shows like The Big Bang Theory and Two and a Half Men may seem like generic, pandering sitcoms designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator (*cough*imo*cough*), but they are still creative works and therefore art (at it's lowest). The goal of both entertainment and art is to stimulate us in one way or another, so the distinction between the two terms is purely semantic.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

They're both essentially communication with flair. They're both ways for one person to affect another by skillfully crafting an aesthetic experience for them. I think the difference is that an entertainer's primary objective is the immediate rapt attention and intrigue of his audience. In many phenomena that are thought of as entertainment but not art, this goal takes complete priority over any message conveyed, or any interplay with other stimuli in the audience's environment. Cockfighting is entertainment, but not art. There is little skill or flair that goes into arranging the aesthetic experience of it, and it's set up to do little more than to keep people watching it.

Art, on the other hand, can be relatively understated, often even fading into the background of the audience's sensory experience. Art is designed to be noticed and to affect those who behold it in some intended way, but it isn't necessarily meant to be a salient experience that absorbs the beholder's full attention while beholding it. The skill or flair in conveying the intended message or effect is higher priority than the temporary domination of the audience's experience of the world. Intricately carved wood paneling in a house is art; its presence says something about the house builder who commissioned it installed, and its presence in a house has effects on the people there. But it can't be defined as entertainment. Very few people sit in a house and spend time doing nothing but enjoying and thinking about the paneling. Some avant garde art is anything but entertainment -- it's designed to revolt or jar people, who tend to promptly pay attention to something else as soon as possible.

Many works are both art and entertainment, of course. There's a lot of overlap. But I think they can be distinguished, and as I showed above, there are many examples of purely one without the other.

There's an issue here of authorial intent versus audience reception / perception that needs to be addressed. One can intend to make art or to entertain, but to have these efforts received very differently. By the same token, I think one can see the art in something someone else made, or find something entertaining, that was not intended to be received as such by the maker. Is art, or entertainment, more in the eye of the beholder or the creator? An interesting example that comes to mind is cultural artifacts from indigenous peoples that are purchased and displayed by Westerners for their aesthetic value. Sometimes the original creators or their descendants will find this sort of appropriation offensive, saying that they only intended to make practical objects the traditional way, not art. But it clearly is art, because it creates a certain experience in those who behold it by its design. I wonder if the concept of "art" and "entertainment" are even meaningful to groups of people who craft all the things and phenomena they do purely out of unquestioned tradition, or the belief in the power of symbols to affect the physical world.

 

[Quantum Perception]

There's an issue here of authorial intent versus audience reception / perception that needs to be addressed. One can intend to make art or to entertain, but to have these efforts received very differently. By the same token, I think one can see the art in something someone else made, or find something entertaining, that was not intended to be received as such by the maker. Is art, or entertainment, more in the eye of the beholder or the creator? An interesting example that comes to mind is cultural artifacts from indigenous peoples that are purchased and displayed by Westerners for their aesthetic value. Sometimes the original creators or their descendants will find this sort of appropriation offensive, saying that they only intended to make practical objects the traditional way, not art. But it clearly is art, because it creates a certain experience in those who behold it by its design. I wonder if the concept of "art" and "entertainment" are even meaningful to groups of people who craft all the things and phenomena they do purely out of unquestioned tradition, or the belief in the power of symbols to affect the physical world.

Very interesting thinking about the cultural/subjective aspects to this question.

Assuming we mean something personal to the person, art and entertainment, as I see it, are the same. I believe it's when we start to talk about other peoples experiences of what they might see, we get in to a divide. Perhaps what fuels this divide is the consumeristic culture which relies on popular images (which everyone is supposed to like) that force people to believe there is such a thing a an objective aesthetic because of the perceived mass appeal.

One could go on into why people seem to like the same kinds of media resulting in pop culture. Perhaps its availability, normality, and a kind of laziness: you like it because others like it and it seems normal. Its easy to think of when people recall their favorite songs for example, they mostly recall what was going on inherent lives then, rather then the inherent significance of the song. This may show that the art in this case is the expressive feeling of recollection and quasi-community as experienced subjectivity by the person.

People find their entertainment to be expressive of joy or memories, and all artists are entertained with their work (to a certain extent).

Perhaps everyone's art is also their entertainment?

I think they are basically the same thing. Art can be entertainment and entertainment can be art.

Art, as I've always understood it, is the creative or skillful expression of a person's imagination. This means that all film, television, music, comedy, literature, paintings, sculptures, graffiti, drawings, performances - all of that stuff is art. There is good art and there is bad art, but it is all art. Art can be genuine and personal or it can be monetized and incorporated. TV shows like The Big Bang Theory and Two and a Half Men may seem like generic, pandering sitcoms designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator (*cough*imo*cough*), but they are still creative works and therefore art (at it's lowest). The goal of both entertainment and art is to stimulate us in one way or another, so the distinction between the two terms is purely semantic.

You think that hierarchy is subjective?

A lot of artist I've met need to practice their medium and if they don't they start to get depressed and feel lost. For some people it's not entertainment, it's their route to self-expression and self-actualization. That they might enjoy the process along the way is secondary, because getting their internal message onto an external medium matters more to them.

In modern America, art has to have entertainment value for most people to understand it, but that's not how a lot of dedicated artists operate. In places like European countries where art is more integrated into day to day culture, it's meant to challenge the status quo with new ways of thinking.

You think its like that in Europe because of their socialist economic system and government?

Originally Posted by P A
Ever read Infinite Jest or E Unibus Pluram by David Wallace? Although neither of the two works address your question directly, I strongly recommend them to anyone pondering over the bizarre sociocultural phenomenon of American consumptive entertainment, with particular attention to those forms of entertainment that are mass-produced for and electronically (i.e., instantly, efficiently) distributed to 'the masses.'


I was reading up on this guys after watching an animation of one of his interviews. I was interested to see that his style is called metamodern. I will try to read his book soon, too bad he died.