Art or Entertainment?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Unless said cryptic messages are art.

[Whistler]

Well, there is of course a level of artistry in my every utterance.

[Primula Baggins]

The curious (all over 18, of course) may Google "Ruskin Brazilian." I did and recognized the story without clicking on any links.

[Whistler]

You folks might also want to read about my famous lawsuit against this...Ruskin person. It was the hot celebrity trial of its day.

Prim...at first it is easy to laugh at Ruskin for being (in middle-age!) so unimaginably uninformed and naive. But there is a darker side to the story: He is believed to have had a streak of pedophilia that rose to the surface at the moment of his terrible discovery, at which time he also realized that a sexually mature female was an even more horrific creature than he had expected.

[Primula Baggins]

Oh, it's a dreadful story—nothing titillating about it. Brrr. I believe when I read it it was presented as an example of Victorian ignorance, but I remember thinking that couldn't be it, or all of it.

[baby tuckoo]

And . . . Teremia will confirm an interesting coincidence.

Ruskin, before gaining fame for his art critiques, worked as an art tutor to the children of privilege around Oxford. One of his gigs was teaching drawling to the five daughters (FIVE, says Rev Tevya) of Dean Liddell at the Math faculty.

Dean Liddell's second oldest was Alice, who cared not at all for Mr. Ruskin, for he cared not at all for children in any wholesome way. The girls made fun of him. Joining them in making fun of Ruskin was a junior member of the faculty: Charles Dodgson He genuinely liked children for the good reasons. He especially liked spunky girls who reminded him of his own younger sisters, whom he'd had to raise and entertain after their mother died.

Dodgson wrote many poems and stories and stage entertainments that he published privately. Then he wrote a story for his special friend Alice. He called it "Alice's Adventures Underground." The publisher (McMillan and Sons) asked him to change it and we now know it as "Alice in Wonderland."

Dodgson was probably not a pedophile, though one cannot disprove the non-existence of a thing. It is likely his life was sexless, which is somewhat less wierd than Ruskin's situation.

Somewhat.

[Whistler]

Both Ruskin and Dodgson had a fondness for naked little girls. Dodgson liked to photograph them (though always with their mothers' permission) and raised a few eyebrows for that, even in his day. Ruskin prefered his naked little girls on canvas.

Creepy to our minds, yes. But those were radically different days, and perhaps we err in injecting too much of our modern sensibilities into such accounts.

[PrinceAlarming]

There is a school of people who find the naked child beautiful. I have to say that I find the honest curiosity and innocence expressed by a small child is something us "grown up" people lack all too often... I don't know if I could find a photo of a naked child to show any type of innocence.

A statue maybe?

[yovargas]

So this thread didn't go much of anywhere, probably because I didn't have much to contribute beyond the question. I still can't find even a rough imprecise answer that satisfies me.

I will say, however, that, though this thread had been on my mind for a while, the main impetus behind this thread was some of the music talk going at the time I started it. It is my impression that most people who listen to "contemporary music" (whatever that means) are listening allmost solely for entertainment rather then art. As such, most of the well-known musicians of our times are, in my eyes, entertainers more then artists. However, since I still can't grasp what that distinction is, it is hard for me to verbalize why I feel that way. Agree? Disagree?

[PrinceAlarming]

I agree.

Today's artists... Let us say mainstream artists, are entertainment more than art. They are more pop than science... more press apptitude than genius. I think a lot of producers today are looking for that next 'big hit' all of the time. And bands are like summer blockbuster movies.

The entertainment industry gets more disgusting all the time.

May I ask (probably on a tangent), if you are an entertainer, are you an artist?

[baby tuckoo]

Thank you for asking!!

I'm a public high school teacher, so "yes" is the answer.


My life is my art. My job is entertainment. Applause ends every class.





Oh. Were you talking to yov? Sorry.



Anyway, yov, I think you did get your answer in many ways, just not the one that satisfied you. It doesn't exist. You might wish to stop looking for it.

[yovargas]

I agree.

Today's artists... Let us say mainstream artists, are entertainment more than art. They are more pop than science... more press apptitude than genius. I think a lot of producers today are looking for that next 'big hit' all of the time. And bands are like summer blockbuster movies.

I wasn't commenting on the people who make music but on what people are looking for in their music. Most people, I believe, are looking for easy entertainment in their music, therefore, that's what the music industry provides them. Nothing wrong with that. It's just that if you don't realize that, it creates a disconnect in communication. When most people say Band X is Great, I guess I'd always assumed they meant Great Artist, but it occurred to me that they most likely mean Great Entertainers. Which is fine, just not my focus.

[PrinceAlarming]

To entertain is an art.

[Rowanberry]

Good art is also entertainment, and good entertainment is also art.

[yovargas]

Does that mean you disagree with this statement by PA:

I'm easily amused, and that makes me easily entertained. A football in the groin on some funniest home videos show is entertaining to me, albeit for 15 seconds. In no way, shape, or form would I consider a football accidently careening into the unsuspecting testes of a middle-aged man art.

A war memorial on the commons is art. But it is not entertainment.

[ii-V7]

I think I'll give my two cents on this topic one day, but until I save up the energy, I'll just contribute with this quote.

Entertainment demands nothing, and condones mediocrity;
Art demands everything, and inspires excellence.

While ‘googling’ the quote to try to remember where I first heard it, I found this interesting pdf presentation on the very same subject. It’s entitled “Why Art is NOT Entertainment”

http://johnedwardkelly.de/texts/Art&Entertainment.pdf

[yovargas]

Wow, thanks for that ii-V7. I don't think I agree with a lot of that pdf's assertions - for one because it makes the two seem mutually exclusive - but your quote feels like it is starting to get at the difference that I feel (and it has been just a feeling) exists between the two realms. It has proved very thought-provoking. I'll hopefully have more thoughts on it later.

[Rowanberry]

Does that mean you disagree with this statement by PA:

I'm easily amused, and that makes me easily entertained. A football in the groin on some funniest home videos show is entertaining to me, albeit for 15 seconds. In no way, shape, or form would I consider a football accidently careening into the unsuspecting testes of a middle-aged man art.

A war memorial on the commons is art. But it is not entertainment.

I said, "good art" and "good entertainment". A football in the groin is definitely not art - but, the performance of a clown is. The waltzes composed by the Strauss family were "pop music" of their own time, made for sheer entertainment, but today, we regard them as art. A war memorial may not be entertainment as such - but, one can be entertained by studying its history, art style, the artist's biography, etc. And, say, a stage play or a ballet performance is definitely art, but also very entertaining.

[yovargas]

There's a quote from a review of the movie Barry Lyndon that's stuck with me for years and that I think says a lot about Art:

"While watching Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon," I realized a story about a visitor to an art exhibit who, having studied each canvas with increasing perplexity, came up to the artist who painted the pictures and said, "I like your work--but I'm not sure exactly what it is you're trying to say." The artist replied, "If I could say it, I wouldn't have bothered painting it."

That idea, that art says what cannot be said, fascinates me and strikes a deep chord with me. Entertainment, on the other hand, says what can be said or simply says not much at all.

Thoughts?