# Art vs. Entertainment



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I argue that art is made very personally for self-expression only for you and to process emotions and/or thoughts or is created for a loved one.

Entertainment is more successful because it doesn't attempt to be very personal, typically, and is fun and enjoyable.

Most things people usually call art still attempt to be entertaining so it's pseudo art and entertainment, laying somewhere in the middle


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I suppose if the art is self-expression, anyone that loves you as a man or woman will love your art depending on how well it describes you.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Another way to put it is that many artists that don't cross over into the mainstream are poor artists. Perhaps it's not a question of being impersonal, but effective and elegant.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Some artists, such as Joni Mitchell, James Taylor and Elton John, are able to write intensely personal songs that still resonate with a wider audience.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Although I agree there is some distinction between "art" and "entertainment", it is absolutely not about how personal it is. Much of daytime TV drivel is people telling very personal stories composed entirely of self-expression, whereas a lot of great art is not at all about personal expression (e.g., most religious art).


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Another way to put it is that many artists that don't cross over into the mainstream are poor artists.


Mainstream success is 90% marketing, 10% talent. Or possibly less.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

NoCoPilot said:


> Mainstream success is 90% marketing, 10% talent. Or possibly less.


I think it is the trend for something truly remarkable to cross over into mainstream success like the Eroica, Beetlejuice (Burton) and top selling Stephen King novels.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

There is Art that is entertaining.

There is entertainment that qualifies as Art.

And vice versa.


----------



## feierlich (3 mo ago)

Art is not entertainment: artwork should never be entertaining. But one can choose to view art as entertainment, or "entertainmentize" art, which is frequently happening and causes artwork to be devalued.

On the other hand, one can create something as entertainment but ends up qualifying as art. An example of this would be _Blade Runner_: Ridley Scott visioned it as a commercial blockbuster but it's now considered a cult film and a sci-fi classic.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

feierlich said:


> Art is not entertainment: artwork should never be entertaining.


That's a bit harsh I think.

Art that vehemently strives to be UNentertaining--as some does--tends to be pretty pretentious.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I enjoy shopping at big stores for my art like Meijer and Walmart for DVDs and Barnes and Nobles for Vinyl, because it's indicative of what has crossed over into mainstream success and are classics.

With books, Meijer and Walmart as well, because they tend to have the top sellers by relavent authors.

I don't do specialty stores anymore.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

feierlich said:


> Art is not entertainment: *artwork should never be entertaining*.


Never? Seriously? The Kalinnikov symphonies are about as entertaining as anything can be, at least for me. Other really entertaining "art": operas by Puccini, ballets by Tchaikovsky, symphonies of Dvorak. That's the real problem facing classical music today; it can and should be entertaining. What's it supposed to be? Dull, boring and so serious that only scholars listen? Orchestras can show that art music is every bit as entertaining - and even more so - than any pop artist. Just takes the right music, the right performers and some testosterone.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I agree with the Captain in that art is a priori self-expression with the resulting work obviously being contingent on the circumstances that influence and determine its creation. For me, absolute self expression in music can offer much in the way of spiritual, emotional, intellectual and cultural depth and composing per se should not be constrained, or thought of as only being a servile offering to immediacy and popularity. Music has much to offer the composer _and_ the listener, more so than a pretty tune and nice harmony and I'm glad so many of the musical giants of the 20th and 21stC have understood this and continue to exploit it for its expressive capabilities.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I argue that art is made very personally for self-expression only for you and to process emotions and/or thoughts or is created for a loved one.
> 
> Entertainment is more successful because it doesn't attempt to be very personal, typically, and is fun and enjoyable.
> 
> Most things people usually call art still attempt to be entertaining so it's pseudo art and entertainment, laying somewhere in the middle





feierlich said:


> Art is not entertainment: artwork should never be entertaining. But one can choose to view art as entertainment, or "entertainmentize" art, which is frequently happening and causes artwork to be devalued.
> 
> On the other hand, one can create something as entertainment but ends up qualifying as art. An example of this would be _Blade Runner_: Ridley Scott visioned it as a commercial blockbuster but it's now considered a cult film and a sci-fi classic.


What to make of Shakespeare (most of whose plays are based on existing works or history)? Or Dickens?


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I enjoy shopping at big stores for my art like Meijer and Walmart for DVDs and Barnes and Nobles for Vinyl, because it's indicative of what has crossed over into mainstream success and are classics.
> With books, Meijer and Walmart as well, because they tend to have the top sellers by relavent authors. I don't do specialty stores anymore.


Mainstream regresses toward the lowest common denominator. You'll never find anything surprising, you'll never find anything challenging, you'll never find anything out-of-the-ordinary at Walmart.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

for art to work, it has to have an audience. that doesn't mean it has to have its purpose be to entertain, but art doesn't exist in a bubble. Its like the tree falling in the forest sort of thing.

But you are getting to the reality of being an artist in this society. You have to earn a living, and the bigger your audience, the better off you will be. The whole situation reminds me of Kafka's "Hunger Artist"


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

NoCoPilot said:


> ...You'll never find anything surprising, you'll never find anything challenging, you'll never find anything out-of-the-ordinary at Walmart.


Clearly you've not been to the Walmart over on Lower Paxton Drive.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Nate Miller said:


> for art to work, it has to have an audience. that doesn't mean it has to have its purpose be to entertain, but art doesn't exist in a bubble. Its like the tree falling in the forest sort of thing.
> 
> But you are getting to the reality of being an artist in this society. You have to earn a living, and the bigger your audience, the better off you will be. The whole situation reminds me of Kafka's "Hunger Artist"


Agreed and fortunately, the last hundred years of music does have an audience It's just not made up of the traditional canon loving audience.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

NoCoPilot said:


> Mainstream regresses toward the lowest common denominator. You'll never find anything surprising, you'll never find anything challenging, you'll never find anything out-of-the-ordinary at Walmart.


But I'll find what has been declared a top seller and I can pick my favorites from that collection.


----------

