Spinoff Thread: "Everyone knows that art isn't entertaining."

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Discuss.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Monday, 13 October 2003 19:01 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.artistdirect.com/Images/Sources/AMGCOVERS/music/cover200/drd600/d664/d664297lpg3.jpg

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 13 October 2003 19:05 (twenty-one years ago)

(ps you do realize that statement on the other thread was made in jest, no?)

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 13 October 2003 19:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, but I think it should be explored, nonetheless.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Monday, 13 October 2003 19:08 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not sure there's anything to discuss here because the base statement is patently and obviously untrue.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 13 October 2003 19:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Define entertaining

― oops (Oops), Monday, 13 October 2003 19:12 (twenty-one years ago)

when it's said in seriousness (which happens a lot on both ILE and ILM) I find it to be amazingly irritating. So-called "escapist" entertainment doesn't turn your mind off! And "difficult" art/music/movies/whatever can be entertaining, in spite of (or maybe because of) their complexity. The idea that it's the artwork's fault because YOU don't get it is sheer stupidity, wrapped in egomania.

― hstencil, Monday, 13 October 2003 19:14 (twenty-one years ago)

200 posts later another rockist popist argument and I'm still not drunk enough to believe you can all have this argument once every two weeks and be actual human beings at the same time

― TOMBOT, Monday, 13 October 2003 19:16 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah but Tom why is it so difficult to say there's a place for both? I don't want to fall on either side of the rockist/popist divide, because hey it's a false construct anyway, like high/low.

― hstencil, Monday, 13 October 2003 19:18 (twenty-one years ago)

There is a place for both, it's the people who fail to see this who end up looking silly and/or pedantic.

― Nicolars (Nicole), Monday, 13 October 2003 19:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree, but I see so many instances of people failing to see that, so I'm kinda surprised this thread's so quiet.

― hstencil, Monday, 13 October 2003 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Probably because the people who fail to see it are deluded enough to believe that they do.

― Nicolars (Nicole), Monday, 13 October 2003 19:48 (twenty-one years ago)

haha, right now I'm listening to "Big Balls" by AC/DC. which TOTALLLLY disproves this argument.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Monday, 13 October 2003 19:49 (twenty-one years ago)

How about this for a conversation-starter: To be art, it must be entertaining.

― NA (Nick A.), Monday, 13 October 2003 20:23 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.photowrld.com/pics6/garfuart.jpg

― Ally (mlescaut), Monday, 13 October 2003 20:24 (twenty-one years ago)

And thus, nick's provocative statement is disproven.

― oops (Oops), Monday, 13 October 2003 20:30 (twenty-one years ago)

yawnsville

― s1utsky (slutsky), Monday, 13 October 2003 22:20 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean is there ANYONE who actually believes this? Even people who say it?

― s1utsky (slutsky), Monday, 13 October 2003 22:21 (twenty-one years ago)

s'all about engagement, no?

― Matt (Matt), Monday, 13 October 2003 23:50 (twenty-one years ago)

all art is entertainment but not all entertainment is art

― ryan (ryan), Monday, 13 October 2003 23:54 (twenty-one years ago)

examples for s1utsky?

"Discover America is one of my favourite ever records but I've always had a harder time with Song Cycle: there are moments of extreme prettiness there but the whole thing seems written in code, an extended in-joke for Parks' songwriting mates. It's a remarkably dense album but a difficult one to love."

"I respect [Van Dyke] parks but would never listen to it [Song Cycle] for fun, it feels like doing one of those really hard cryptic crossword puzzles or something - way too much work for the pay-off. i can see how song-writery types would dig it more for the same reasons."

It's complex, therefore it's art, but it sure ain't "fun" or "entertaining."

― hstencil, Monday, 13 October 2003 23:56 (twenty-one years ago)

What I take issue with is the idea that the two are incompatible.

― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 14 October 2003 00:06 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, I do too. I thought that was clear?

― hstencil, Tuesday, 14 October 2003 00:07 (twenty-one years ago)

well there is an idea that if art is not "good for you" then it's not art. it should make you more smarter, more ethical, what have you.

entertainment is seen as producing laziness, idiocy, etc.

― ryan (ryan), Tuesday, 14 October 2003 00:11 (twenty-one years ago)

There was an mp3 that Momus linked which I would certainly call art which is like one of the dumbest things ever recorded (I would say that's its virtue, actually).

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 14 October 2003 02:09 (twenty-one years ago)

what is the difference between bad art and not art?

― Maria (Maria), Tuesday, 14 October 2003 02:16 (twenty-one years ago)

a black turtleneck

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 14 October 2003 04:16 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.