^ David on Xanax
Here, I did all the heavy lifting and found the threads for you.
FILM: IS IT ART OR ENTERTAINMENT?
FILM AS ENTERTAINMENT VS FILM AS ART
DO YOU CONSIDER FILMS TO BE A FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT?
CAN GREAT FILMS BE MERELY GREAT ENTERTAINMENT?
WHAT’S WRONG WITH ENTERTAINMENT?
Ordered by how old they are. Enjoy.
Art is entertainment, but entertainment is not always art….
Art, by definition, will entertain. It will make you think, hence, entertain your mind, pleasurably or otherwise…
But is entertainment art? that is the question…
“Art is entertainment, but entertainment is not always art….
Art, by definition, will entertain. It will make you think, hence, entertain your mind, pleasurably or otherwise…
But is entertainment art? that is the question…”
Spot on!
In a word, (if you are being serious and for fear of digression!) no.
Art can bring both entertianment and thought to certain individuals so it really depends on the person. I like to think of some films as both artistic and entertaining and their are others that are soley art to me and soley entertainment as well. Fim has the power to go anyway you want it to so therefore it can be a both a combnation or art and entertainment or it can be percieved as only one or the other depending on the viewers perception. Everyone has a different idea about what is “artistic” or “entertaining” anyways. Also I imagine that some film makers veiw their films to be art while others veiw theirs to be entertainment, so there really is no right answer to this.
i think there is no purpose at all, when you go to watch a film you can like it or not but this has got nothing to do with art or entertainment, a film can be entertaining and a film is always a piece of art but that’s because it has no purpose at all, to explain this concept i’ll explain the difference between art and design, a design object can be used, it might be a chair or a fork, art instead is something that doesn’t have a purpose, there are no practical reasons for 2001 or the michelangelo’s david (but they have a meaning). This is my opinion
The distinction between art and entertainment is an arbitrary one. Most great art is entertaining, otherwise we wouldn’t bother with it. If you ask me the difference is between truth and entertainment, and either one will do. Preferably both.
I agree that the boundary between art and entertainment is somewhat collapsible, however, only somewhat. Some works of art require actual work on behalf of the audience, in order to be appreciated. We are often willing to do the work because after the work is done—-after the process and the art has stretched and broadened us—-what is left is something wonderfully cool, and even redemptive. This is the agenda that seems to me, distinguishes the artist from the entertainer—-the eagerness to sort of ‘enlighten’ the audience, to turn the audience on to certain truths even if those truths are uncomfortable or….(gasp) unentertaining.
Entertainment is entertainment; it can be cool, thrilling, sexy, fun, but above all, it is comfortable. Entertainers unlike true artists seem unwilling to disturb their audiences in anyway. Their agenda is only to deepen the audiences comfort, to turn the knob for more anesthetic.
I’m not saying now, that great art can’t be be comfortable or pandering in this way—-works of art that suggest the contrary are too well exampled. I"m saying that what distinguishes art from entertainment is the agenda and process behind the art not to mention the capacity that the art holds to offer a kind of enjoyment beyond entertainment.
I think that this question rests upon the creator-viewer relationship. Initially, it is the creator’s intent which dictates whether his film is an artwork or simply entertainment. Second, this question lies also in the way in which the viewer perceives and judges the film; some people will tend to consider everything (and not just film…) as entertainment while others will judge all films as if they were genuine works of art. Some people, again, try to judge films according to what they perceive as the creator’s intent, and therefore try to make a distinction between art films and films made cheifly for entertainment. In the grand scheme of things, it is very unique to each individual, though I guess we may say that certain films are “less artistic” than others if the filmmaker’s intent was only to create some profitable entertainment, but note that even such films may not be totally devoid of artistic qualities for someone who nevertheless perceives certain qualities. We can make an analogy with Marcel Duchamp’s dada artwork, for example; take his “fountain” sculpture- it is simply a urinal and some people consider it artwork because they ascribe a meaning to it while others do not consider it artwork at all (in fact, the commitee for an art show refused to expose this particular artwork because it did not perceive it as art and Duchamp was quite bitter about that).
House of Leaves
^Weird.