 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Art or Entertainment ??
|
|
|
Subject: Art or Entertainment ?? From: GUEST,Les B. Date: 30 Nov 01 - 05:29 PM Since Mudcatters are by definition a sophisticated, knowledgable lot, I'll run this up the flagpole. The other night I went to a long (and boring) meeting of a local arts council. In a review of an "arts audience" survey the question came up about how to succinctly differentiate between Art and Entertainment. In one or two short sentences how would you describe the two ? Thanks for your help.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: gnu Date: 30 Nov 01 - 05:38 PM I don't know Art, but, if I did, I might like him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Amergin Date: 30 Nov 01 - 05:39 PM Art seems to be an ok sort of fellow that has been providing entertainment to many folks for years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: catspaw49 Date: 30 Nov 01 - 05:42 PM Art is a guy standing in the shower and farting the 1812 Overture, on key, without shitting himself. Entertainment is the same guy doing the same thing but toodling on stage, SRO, at Carnegie, on Wdnesday, at a matinee, for 100.00 a ticket. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: CarolC Date: 30 Nov 01 - 05:46 PM Art is the form of 'entertainment' that requires Grant Money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Hollowfox Date: 30 Nov 01 - 05:46 PM Why does your local arts council think that they have to choose between the two? Could they be comfortable with the idea that, at least sometimes, something can be both? Or is this something they have to deal with for the language in a grant proposal or somesuch? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 30 Nov 01 - 05:49 PM Art is for the kultchuured, entertainment is for the rest of us. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: gnu Date: 30 Nov 01 - 05:52 PM Spawhahahahahah !!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: GUEST,Les B. Date: 30 Nov 01 - 05:52 PM Actually, Hollowfox, they've already done the survey. My question to them was, how did you differentiate between the two when asking for responses about what motivates attendance, leisure time use, and between rural and urban audiences. For me, I'm trying to sort out if their survey findings have validity for my area - film programming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: mousethief Date: 30 Nov 01 - 06:29 PM Entertainment is art you can charge for by the hour. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Nov 01 - 08:15 PM If it's not entertaining in some sense, it's not art.
And if it's not art in some sense, it's not entertaining.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Amos Date: 30 Nov 01 - 08:30 PM In other words this is a case of intersecting sets, semantically. I am sure there is some entertainment that has no real art in it, such as the scrimmage line of the Green Bay Packers -- at least not Art. He doesn't play for the team. And I have been to concerts which were surely a form of Art but so poorly executed I found them not at all entertaining. McGrath has the flavor of it though. How much of this sort of group foofarah could be cured with a handy dictionary, I wonder?....
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Hollowfox Date: 30 Nov 01 - 09:11 PM Good luck, Les. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: simon-pierre Date: 30 Nov 01 - 09:38 PM At the recent WTO negotiation (free trade thing) in Quatar, american delegation wanted to see unregulated the domain of entertainment, including music and books (!). Many countries were expected to bring a strong opposition, including Canada and France, among others, who tries to protect their culture in different ways (laws, subvention, etc.). The point of the american delagation was that there's a disctinction between entertainment and fine arts (dance, opera, theater...). In other words: it is art when there's no money to make with it. SP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Art Thieme Date: 30 Nov 01 - 10:25 PM I am what I am----and I am Art. Entertainment with traditional American folksongs (and a few others) is what I used to do. Now-a-days, though, what I can do is nothing I would want people to have to pay good money to hear. So I guess I'm Art (just) now. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Amergin Date: 30 Nov 01 - 10:37 PM naaahh, Art...you give us good entertainment with your stories and your puns.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Jon Freeman Date: 30 Nov 01 - 11:49 PM I'll try: Art is the actual portrayal/making of something. Entertainment is the enjoyment we may or may not get from art. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: catspaw49 Date: 01 Dec 01 - 12:51 AM I think I already said that Jon. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: breezy Date: 01 Dec 01 - 02:03 PM Come in Les B., your growl. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Les B Date: 01 Dec 01 - 02:14 PM OK - a few of these summarize it pretty well, but I'd like to see more. The one that really makes me smile, but would probably piss off the serious arts types on the council, is CarolC's: "Art is the form of 'entertainment' that requires Grant Money"!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Don Firth Date: 01 Dec 01 - 02:38 PM I don't see the necessity for a dichotomy here. Granted, there are those who seem to think that Art is something "good for you," kinda like taking a spoonful of castor oil, and that Entertainment is something trivial, strictly for the masses. These people don't know how to smile, poor souls. I'm with McGrath. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 01 Dec 01 - 02:49 PM Jon, I'm with you. I never know what catspaw means, he is too complex for me (leaving myself wide open for a...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 01 Dec 01 - 03:14 PM I remember reading SOMEWHERE (don't ask at this point) a quote from Rembrandt, calling himself a decorator. That's the same kind of distinction, and if HE didn't see a difference, I'm not going to worry about it. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Amergin Date: 02 Dec 01 - 12:46 AM i'm a decorator....i decorate many a fine desk chair...and couches... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Amos Date: 02 Dec 01 - 09:29 AM I think generally entertainment is meant to give pleasure or amusement, please, delight, cheer, gladden, gratify, tickle, pleasure, titillate, overjoy, excite, thrill, electrify, regale, entertain, charm, captivate, enchant, entrance, enrapture, spellbind, hold spellbound, mesmerize, ensorcell, enthrall, transport, bewitch, or send. To do any of that without art...well, I dunno how you could expect to! This "yeah but is it Art" discussion which is a fond turf for sophomores and other spin-bin candidates is really a granfaloon. According to the authority on granfaloons, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., the handiest definiution is:
If you would see a granfaloon, Now, that's art! Is that you, Art? Regards, A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: GUEST Date: 02 Dec 01 - 07:05 PM art will not necessarily entertain..being considered too serious for many..but serious entertainment is possible...put the two together and you generally find genius. The world is capable of recognising a combination of both. Art may also be able to con people into not noticing that it has no clothes..entertainment cannot do that..either it has clothes or people don't mind that it's naked..entertainment does not lie...art can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Dec 01 - 07:25 PM I don't know about the Green Bay Packers, but there's definitely art in sports. Hence the term "The Beautiful Game" for Football (soccer that is).
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Gervase Date: 03 Dec 01 - 05:51 AM To follow the guest above... Entertainment should entertain, pure and simple - by making us laugh or cry - and leave us feeling better as a result through some process of catharsis. Art, on the other hand, can disturb, shock, frighten and dismay us, and may leave us feeling worse as a result through a process of confrontation. Defining the difference is a tricky question, though, Reminds me of a poser my son pitched at me when he was about seven: "Daddy, is music decorative or functional?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: GUEST Date: 03 Dec 01 - 09:52 AM I suppose we all know the difference between an entertaining movie and an art film. One is a fun experience, the other; well, you have to accept that someone has taken over your ability to think for yourself and that person (or council) called it art. I see no reason not to extrapolate that example to other experiences, visual, audible or otherwise sensory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: LR Mole Date: 03 Dec 01 - 09:58 AM Art lies either in its ability to unexpectedly touch the individual/audience, or its ability to fulfill the audience's expectation for something it cannot do itself. Entertainment passes the time, not that there's anything wrong with that, in a pleasant way. How's that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: M.Ted Date: 03 Dec 01 - 11:44 AM People give a great deal of respect to art, but they give a great deal of money to entertainment. Most arts institutions have figured that out,and have gone into the entertainment business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: breezy Date: 03 Dec 01 - 02:50 PM Les b. entertains o.k. so where there's a grunt there's art. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Amos Date: 03 Dec 01 - 03:44 PM Hey guys -- let us remember our general semantics, our basic Korzybski, and the difference between a word and the concepts we hang on it. It should be very clear we are playing the name game here by running one discussion using one phonemic blob ('ahrr-te) to mean several different things. That way we can get all stirred up. This is a heap o' fun if the laternative is picking your nose. Sure there's a level of "art" in fooball. There's art in cleaning friges and painting walls right, also. A second definition with a little higher order of abstraction is what the philosopher Benedetto Croce insisted was the core component of communication; or perhaps he was inisting the other way around, that Art is really and only communication. I forget. This is a useful definition if you can get your arms around it. he core impulse of the creative spirit, made manifest in some physical form as a way of communicating. A third, much less useful defintion comes from the endless dips and loops of cultural complexity and opinions, and is the fodder for endless arguments similar to the one we have around here about what "folk music" IS. When you get into this kind of semantic Waring blender, there is no real "is" in it -- it's just endless whipsaws of opinions. What IS Art? Is ART commercial? What if it is only partially commercial? Does one's tax return reflect on one;s ability to create ART? Is ALL Art neurotic by definition? What is the relationship between God and Art? Is Jesus a form of Art? How does this relate to the Eight-Fold Path? When does Art become a Commodity? How many copies may Art have while still being Art? Does the German character really understand Art? This is all bushwa folks, designed to keep mental energy running in small tight circles to the detriment of any productive activity that might otherwise ensue. My advice is to aim it at the Disposall. Pop the skin on that toy balloon. Best regards, A.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Amos Date: 03 Dec 01 - 03:49 PM Art is ruled uniquely by the imagination.
Benedetto Croce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: CarolC Date: 03 Dec 01 - 05:16 PM If it's a waste of time, why are you putting so much energy into it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Amos Date: 03 Dec 01 - 05:28 PM Jeeze, Carol! What is with these snide remarks? You practicing for an unsuccessful relationship or sompn?
A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: CarolC Date: 03 Dec 01 - 05:33 PM Amos, snide is a value that you have placed on my words. Have you no sense of subtle irony? I would like to make a suggestion. Watch the Mudcat radio show that was broadcast right after the Getaway. Look at the expression on my face. Notice the playful twinkle in my eye. Then, when you read my words, remember that twinkle. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Dec 01 - 05:40 PM Well Carol, I watched the show and the camera obviously ain't the best and unless the archive is somehow magically better, the expression on your face led me to believe you had a bad case of gas. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: CarolC Date: 03 Dec 01 - 05:43 PM You're probably right, Spaw, it was probably gas that caused the twinkle. Still, a bad case of gas is better than no sense of humor I suppose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: catspaw49 Date: 03 Dec 01 - 05:47 PM Alwyas works for me....... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: mousethief Date: 03 Dec 01 - 06:13 PM Sports are far more an art than a science. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: CarolC Date: 03 Dec 01 - 06:26 PM Anyway, Amos, I usually don't aim my subtle humor at people I don't think are intelligent enough to get it. You seem like an intelligent man to me. So I find myself wondering if maybe there's some other reason you're so quick to make negative assumptions about my tone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Amos Date: 03 Dec 01 - 07:30 PM Jes' kiddin', huh? Okay. I can accept that. NOI, NOT. A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: CarolC Date: 03 Dec 01 - 07:45 PM I don't know what NOI, NOT means. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Amos Date: 03 Dec 01 - 08:45 PM No offense intended, no offense taken. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: CarolC Date: 03 Dec 01 - 09:02 PM Cool. NOI, NOT. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Art or Entertainment ?? From: Deda Date: 03 Dec 01 - 09:23 PM When I see my husband, my kids and/or my grandson, I think that they are works of art -- even when they aren't very entertaining. This may not advance the question at all, though. What I mean by thinking that they are works of art is this: they amaze me; looking at them can cause me to catch my breath, to stop whatever I'm doing and just gaze. They seem to capture something indescribable. Any wonderful art can do this. Entertainment does not have to meet this standard at all. Anything can be entertaining if it just lessens a sense of boredom, or conversely increases, even a little, a sense of interest, maybe or maybe not to a level of fun. |