Are all the Arts forms of entertainment at some basic level?

Are all the Arts forms of entertainment at some basic level?

I would argue that this is not the case. Art, in whatever form is more than entertainment. Art is a way of thinking, a reflective mirror on society and culture, a challenge to present thinking and a selfish font for expression and creativity. It can be all of these and still not entertain.

Agree? Disagree?

 

I think so. Art is art whether it's a painting or a book or a sculpture.

It drives me nuts when people are hypocrites, though. For example, those who fight to have Science Fiction not be seen as inferior to other fiction, and then go and say that comics are inferior literarily to books.

I say, good art is good art regardless of the medium.

 

I'd agree with the hypocracy issue. However, is all art entertainment at some basic level?

 

Please define Art for the purposes of this discussion?

 

"Art": Painting, Sculpture & 3D, Illustration, Ceramics, Printmaking, Weaving, Drawing, Visual Communication, Graphic Design, Textiles, Fashion, ICT art, Photography.

"Arts": As above with; Music, Drama, Theatre Studies, Dance & Performance, Art History, Architecture, Product Design, English Literature.

Plus: Any other method or process that involves the use of creativity to produce an outcome measurable or unmeasurable.

Take your pick from either definition.

 

"Art": Painting, Sculpture & 3D, Illustration, Ceramics, Printmaking, Weaving, Drawing, Visual Communication, Graphic Design, Textiles, Fashion, ICT art, Photography.

I disagree. That is to say, if I were to drip some paint randomly onto a piece of paper, or if I were to fish a poop out of the toilet and paint that -- would that be considered art? If I were to draw some random crap, is that art? No. There's got to be something more to it.

 

Art (and Craft & Design) cannot always be entertainment, although, granted, it is often used for that reason.

Art is used for Communication. To retell cultural events important to a peoiple or society. The design of a corporate logo for instance is not entertainment but the search for a seperate identity to seperate itself from its competitors. Again this is not entertainment but communication. Art can be used for educational purposes especially with those who have difficulty learning through other media and processes. While art educators try to make the learning entertaining it is not in itself entertainment.

I would argue that yes, in many instances art can be a form of entertainmet. However, a lot of the time it is used for other reasons. Granted, the artists intentions may not fit to the viewers interpretations and in this case can turn something not intended to entertain into an entertainment medium. But on the whole "all Art forms" are not entertainment.

 

I think all art forms can be entertainment at a basic level, even when they do something more. When we see a good film that inspires us or teaches us something, it could also be entertaining us. When we go to an art gallery, full of thought-provoking art, we can also find it entertaining. And so on and so on.

 

I agree with Sun of the Suns. "Art" is defined by the viewer. "Entertainment" is defined by the viewer. What I see as art is someone elses "paint drop on a canvas".

It's all subjective. I think Robert (?) Mapplethorpe's "art" is trash. Some people think it's brilliant and "entertaining".

So, at a basic level all forms of art are some form of entertainment to someone.

 

Even primitive art such as cave art?

 

I don't believe art should merely entertain. We may view the art and feel enjoyment (entertainment) However, the art may not always have a positive reaction. But for it to be "art," I believe the viewer should have some kind of reaction, whether it be negative or positive.

As an artist, for me, to get no reaction at all really is the 'kiss of death.' I'd rather someone actively hate what I do rather than have no reaction whatsoever.

 

I believe that the arts are a form of entertainment, yes. But I also believe that they were created for more reasons than just entertainment. What our society can consider art -- such as heiroglypics (sp?) and cave drawings could have been articulate plans for hunting and so forth, as well as keeping records. Anything can be viewed as entertainment to one's mind. But back to my main point that I didn't explain so clear.

All arts can be considered a form of entertainment, although a good deal of them are created for other motives.

 

Every piece of art must have something about it that is entertaining in some way if it is going to succeed in conveying its message.

By entertaining I mean that it must grab my attention and hold it. There has to be something about it that will make me want to look at it / listen to it / think about it for more than a couple of seconds. The sonata that I don't listen to and the painting that I don't look at are meaningless to me.

 

And then there's the inverse question as well- Is all entertainment art at some higher level?

Just had to say that, I saw this topic while scrolling, and immediately that question came to mind.

But really- what *is* entertainment, precisely? Defining that may be harder than answering the topic question.