The Difference Between Art and Entertainment

Nice thoughts, Jeff.  My objective when I write (create art) is to hopefully inspire others to apply what I’ve created to their own lives and situations.   The stories might be my own, but I think good art teaches and inspires.  I still don’t have it all figured out but I’m going to keep practicing. 

“Art on the other hand transforms us…” I like this notion.

This post challenges me to create with conviction–produce something unique that moves people and moves people forward.

Good thoughts.

Mike

This was art. Thank you

Honestly I’d never considered this question. Art vs. entertainment. I think based on that definition, they don’t have to be mutually exclusive, but they certainly are different.

Great question.  I hope that what I am doing is transforming.  I think it does with with some and others not so much.  Just like anything else.  Some art moves me.  Some art leaves me flat.

Great thought Jeff. Thanks for sharing!

Really interesting post, and definitely something I occupy a huge amount of my time thinking about.  I wonder whether entertainment often can start out as art. Like, great films/TV etc might have this huge transforming power in their initial phase for example, when they first come out.  But then we get used to who we become after the transformation and continue to ‘consume’ the art, thus turning into entertainment because it has lost its power to transform (the paradigm shift has already occurred).  What do you reckon?  Therefore this puts the defining power back into the hands of the audience.  It was originally art, but the impact that it has had has turned it into entertainment.  Does that happen?

I think the line between art and entertainment isn’t as clear as you’ve made it. “All in the Family” was a family sitcom that entertained and, to some extent, transformed the way people viewed other ethnic cultures.

Art doesn’t always surprise and does at times offer “predictable pleasures.” When I read a familiar passage of literature or view a familiar painting, I may expect a pleasurable return to that which is known.

I think a better distinction is to note well-crafted, average, and shoddy. This can describe meal preparation (a world-class chef vs. fast food), furniture, fashion, automobiles, movies, sitcoms, literature, painting, sculpting, etc.

I’ve learned through my particular craft, writing, to respect those who are good at what they do in other areas. I certainly respect those who do their work well and their well-crafted work sometimes surprises, sometimes pleases, and sometimes causes me to be stretched with new thoughts and ideas (kind of like this blog today).

I guess I’ve never really thought of myself as an ‘artist’ before. But I know one thing – I don’t like the thought of being an ‘entertainer’!  This post might haunt me the next time I sit down to write. 

This idea of transformation also shows up in Goodall’s “Writing the New Ethnography”—which I was just reading this afternoon (in France). I love how God sends these kinds of things my way multiple times. His voice, to me, seems to be about connection and repetition. Anyways, thanks for being part of the communication chain between me and the Master of the Universe!!!!!

Great article.  It was very though provoking and inspiring.  Actually your post would be considered art ^_^.  Although I mostly agree, I do still believe that you can’t neglect that art is really in the eye of the beholder.  There are many types of art that appeal to people differently since we are all different.  One art piece could be viewed as earth-shattering by one and dull to another.  It is kinda like beauty isn’t it? 

Still, I do agree that artists should push themselves when creating art.  However, not trying to be revolutionary to everyone (you can’t transform/please everybody), but by making it meaningful and extent of ourselves in hopes that it could transform/help someone.

This definition creates a problem for me and other people working in hypemperia, ie., the art of creating a sensory experience from hypnotic suggestion. You’re probably unaware of this art. Most people have no idea it exists. But I and a few dozen others develop hypnotic recordings that enable the listener to ‘experience’ their sexual fantasies.

A few of us are true artists, exploring and expanding potential for the art. While most are hacks, mass producing recordings with no artistic value at all. The problem is that because many of the listeners want to be changed by hypnotic suggestions, they may in fact be changed by even the most mediocre recordings. So by your definition, even the most unoriginal script could be considered art. But if someone accepts your criteria and rejects that conclusion, then they might reject the possibility that any hypnotic recording could be considered art.

But I assure you, it is possible to create true art from hypnotic suggestion. I’ve done it. So I would appreciate a definition of ‘art’ that accepts this, and at the same time distinguishes what I do from the hacks and opportunists who mass produce mediocre quality.

Daniel
http://www.hypnoticdreams.com

This is a superb post.  There is definitely a necessary distinction between art and entertainment.

Mark Blasini

Entertainment can certainly surprise, wound and change us. That’s all part of being entertained. This need to separate art from entertainment is pointless, let alone impossible. And to say that “we need to change” is pure opinion–not one I disagree with, but an opinion nonetheless and, therefore, irrelevant to this issue, seeing as we can only use objectivity to settle this matter.

The only difference between art and entertainment is the observer’s perspective. The piece in and of itself is neither art nor entertainment. It simply IS. The art/entertainment happens within the beholder. That’s the beauty of it. Even the artist’s intentions are irrelevant in the attempt to distinguish between art and entertainment as they are known only to the artist him/herself. Therefore, an objective distinction cannot be made.

I don’t know about you, but when Rachel got off the plane to stay with Ross I cried like a baby. I also cry like a baby every time I see Juliet cradle Romeo’s body and take her own life. People have to learn to appreciate things for WHAT THEY ARE. Friends is not trying to be Shakespeare. It’s trying to be Friends. Both Romeo and Juliet and Friends can be engaging. Both can make us laugh, cry, and even take a harder look at ourselves.

Anything can contain societal relevance, even if none was intended. It’s all a matter of the viewer’s perspective. Go to see any show on Broadway, be it Mamma Mia or A Streetcar Named Desire. You will not find a leaflet in either playbill classifying either piece as art or entertainment. No announcement will be made prior to the show. Why? Because there is no standard by which to measure what qualifies as art and what qualifies as entertainment. If there was a standard, then there wouldn’t be much relevant art post-Shakespeare because the man said just about everything there is for a human being to say more eloquently and thoroughly than anyone else could possibly say it.

Dramatic artists are particularly guilty of attempting to divide art from entertainment. It has been said that good drama pits two truths against each other in an effort to raise questions, and therefore social awareness in regards to a particular issue. It is said to “illuminate the human condition”. First of all, while that may create great drama, there is no such thing as “truth” as it relates to a societal point of view. That’s why they are viewpoints and not facts. Writers are just people. It is pretentious to claim that these people are the holders of great societal truths which we, the public, need to be taught. It implies a (nonexistent) separation between writer and the public. It also implies a general ignorance among the public, which I resent. The fact that someone has had their words published in a book doesn’t make those words true.

Secondly, this phrase: “to illuminate the human condition” is a senseless, meaningless cliche’ perpetuated by so called “artists” with inflated senses of self importance to convince themselves and others that they are providing a noble service to society. We are all human and therefore do not need to be made aware of something which we are all, by nature, already privy to. I don’t need to see a play to know that people lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, love, hate, etc. I don’t need a movie to reiterate that people have both good and evil within them. I don’t need to be made aware of the consequences of our actions through a piece of crafted by an author with an agenda. I don’t even need “art” to imagine another person’s point of view. We know these things through our own observations. In fact, the human condition is all we know. It would be one thing if art could illuminate, say, the squirrel condition seeing as we have no subjective understanding of what it is to be a squirrel. But alas, even if another creature HAD the means to adequately express and communicate their experience, it would not bring us any closer to a subjective understanding as we are human and can only experience the human condition. Whether the artist intended us to see something human in their work or not, we WILL and we MUST because we only have our perspectives and experiences to compare it to. Therefore, it is senseless and irrelevant to state that art illuminates the human condition because the illumination of the human condition, intentional or otherwise, is present to some degree in anything and everything humans participate in. Even if you take a less literal approach and say that it illuminates different parts of the human condition to people who may not be aware, I will say to you that it is useless because, firstly if you can experience something I cannot, then you’re not illuminating anything by attempting to make me aware of it. Secondly, an audience’s preexisting knowledge of the human condition is REQUIRED in order to be engage that audience. Yes, I may not know what it is like to, say go to prison for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread, but the particular circumstances of the piece (Les Miserables, in this particular case) are irrelevant. It is the emotional experience of the character that I am meant to relate to. If the circumstances were the primary means of engaging an audience, Les Miserables would not be the wildly acclaimed piece of literature it is, because even at the time of it’s publication, hardly anyone would be able to directly relate it. Clearly, this is not the case. I do not relate to Jean Valjean because I know what it’s like to be sent to prison by a harsh legal system or even what it is like to struggle financially. I relate to him because I can appreciate and subjectively understand the FEELINGS of desperation, rage, and heartache he experiences as a RESULT of the circumstances.

Art engages an audience. Entertainment engaged an audience. That is their primary function. Euclid stated that two things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Therefore, I submit to you that art and entertainment are the same thing. We simply use two different words to describe it.

To try to make a distinction between art and entertainment is to deprive the individual of their subjective experience. We all have different preferences. Personally, I find Hamlet and Spider-Man equally engaging–that does not make me unenlightened, unintelligent, or uncultured. It means that I am willing to accept and enjoy things for what they are and for what I see in them.