Well, Lawrence said "Seven Pillars of Wisdom", so maybe that's a clue?
Wasn't it Ruskin . . . .why, yes it was.
Art or Entertainment?
*is disappointed to see Whistler hasn't tried to answer the question*
I know you must have something remarkably wise to say, Mr. Whistler, because you were part of the reason I created this thread. I mentioned once before that I saw a difference between art and entertainment and you agreed which made me think I must be onto something. Now the question is, what I am on.
I know you must have something remarkably wise to say, Mr. Whistler, because you were part of the reason I created this thread. I mentioned once before that I saw a difference between art and entertainment and you agreed which made me think I must be onto something. Now the question is, what I am on.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
-
baby tuckoo
- Deluded Simpleton
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:53 pm
- Location: Sacramento
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
bt--
I would push that particular frontier back a few decades, to Duchamp. Once you display the urinal, you've changed the rules.
I probably should add that even though I can describe the generally held differentiation between Art and entertainment, I don't necessarily agree with the differentiation, since it inevitably leads to a definition-by-negation I've heard too many times: "Art is something I can't do."
I think the artistic impulse is quintessentially human, but that it's generally squeezed out of us at a young age, by "setting the bar" higher than is attainable except through professional study. This turns the vast majority of us into consumers of art, not producers, which I find dubious from a cultural and ethical point of view. The main purpose for keeping the bar high is to keep art a money-making commodity for galleries, record companies, publishers, et al.
I don't think you have to be a master draughtsman, or a gifted author, or a graceful ballet dancer, to paint, write or dance. The products of the artistic process are equally valid no matter what the level of training or even talent. That doesn't mean they are going to end up on your wall or in your iPod or on your bookshelf...unless of course you made them yourself and like them.
I would push that particular frontier back a few decades, to Duchamp. Once you display the urinal, you've changed the rules.
I probably should add that even though I can describe the generally held differentiation between Art and entertainment, I don't necessarily agree with the differentiation, since it inevitably leads to a definition-by-negation I've heard too many times: "Art is something I can't do."
I think the artistic impulse is quintessentially human, but that it's generally squeezed out of us at a young age, by "setting the bar" higher than is attainable except through professional study. This turns the vast majority of us into consumers of art, not producers, which I find dubious from a cultural and ethical point of view. The main purpose for keeping the bar high is to keep art a money-making commodity for galleries, record companies, publishers, et al.
I don't think you have to be a master draughtsman, or a gifted author, or a graceful ballet dancer, to paint, write or dance. The products of the artistic process are equally valid no matter what the level of training or even talent. That doesn't mean they are going to end up on your wall or in your iPod or on your bookshelf...unless of course you made them yourself and like them.
Yov, it is my opinion that the difference between art and entertainment reveals itself in people's minds over time, with or without the artist's cooperation or intent.
For example, it is impossible to even discuss Victoriana without mentioning Dickens. His world is somehow more "real" than reality itself, and if we could walk the streets of London in Dickens' day without encountering Oliver Twist or Ebenezer Scrooge, we'd be deeply disappointed.
Dickens never intended this. He was just writing stories, making a living. Yet people have made an investment in his work for which it is impossible to account. He has struck a nerve that we didn't even know we had. It's an almost mystical thing.
His work became art because we made it art, in our own hearts and imaginations. His work became something we need, though we don't know why we need it. It rings in our minds so strongly that we can't place it in the same category as work that amuses us briefly and is then forgotten. We have to call it something else, so we call it art.
That's a grossly general and inadequate definition of the term, and it ought to be. Art is something that defies clear definition and categorization, and that's what makes it art. We don't know what it is, but we darn sure know it when we see it.
For example, it is impossible to even discuss Victoriana without mentioning Dickens. His world is somehow more "real" than reality itself, and if we could walk the streets of London in Dickens' day without encountering Oliver Twist or Ebenezer Scrooge, we'd be deeply disappointed.
Dickens never intended this. He was just writing stories, making a living. Yet people have made an investment in his work for which it is impossible to account. He has struck a nerve that we didn't even know we had. It's an almost mystical thing.
His work became art because we made it art, in our own hearts and imaginations. His work became something we need, though we don't know why we need it. It rings in our minds so strongly that we can't place it in the same category as work that amuses us briefly and is then forgotten. We have to call it something else, so we call it art.
That's a grossly general and inadequate definition of the term, and it ought to be. Art is something that defies clear definition and categorization, and that's what makes it art. We don't know what it is, but we darn sure know it when we see it.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46177
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
-
baby tuckoo
- Deluded Simpleton
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:53 pm
- Location: Sacramento
Yes, Whist, time and cultural context matter enormously. Many works judged "great" soon after creation have become quotidian in the years. Great work in an Eastern context fails to move Western sensibilities.Whistler wrote:Yov, it is my opinion that the difference between art and entertainment reveals itself in people's minds over time, with or without the artist's cooperation or intent.
And you are right: the artist loses his/her parental authority upon completion. We in the lit biz have long recognized that the least reliable authority regarding a text is the author. They forget or deceive themselves or simply don't know, but they still comment.
And this is the heart of deconstructionism as a critical theory. Time and context move on. The artist/writer stays back. "Deconstruction" does not mean "close analysis for a hectoring purpose". It is often used so, wrongly. It means removing the work from its original time and culture. It is a method of analysis that simply seeks to ignore the original relationship between the artist and his work, for it matters not.
Art tends to survive a dislocation of time and culture. Entertainment tends not to.
So we've mentioned "timelessness" (for the lack of a better word, perhaps) a couple times as being an indicator of art. Is that always the case, though? Great comedy keeps coming to mind. Me and some fellow 20-something friends were cracking up watching the original Abbot and Costello "Who's on first" routine. Thing's still funny generations later. Is it now Art?
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Oh, I don't think I can make a call on Abbott and Costello. I'll have to think about that one.
But I'll make a call on another comedy team: the Marx Brothers. When Salvador Dali was busy making ART, these clowns were making silly ENTERTAINMENT for the masses. Yet Dali perceived (correctly, I think) that the Marxes were doing much the same thing he was doing: dismantling the world and freely re-assembling it. Dali called the Marxes great Surrealists and held them in the highest regard as artists. The Marxes never took themselves seriously, and would have lost their anarchic charm if they had. But a serious artist saw in their work the timeless qualities that made them something more than entertainers.
Innumerable critics since those days have said the same, and the Marxes' place in the pantheon of greatness is beyond question.
They'd have responded to such acclaim with a honking horn and a squirt from a seltzer bottle, the last to understand their own importance. But as bt observes, the artist loses parenthood of his work when he takes it to the masses. Then it takes a life of its own, living or dying as a separate entity that even its creator might not recognize.
But I'll make a call on another comedy team: the Marx Brothers. When Salvador Dali was busy making ART, these clowns were making silly ENTERTAINMENT for the masses. Yet Dali perceived (correctly, I think) that the Marxes were doing much the same thing he was doing: dismantling the world and freely re-assembling it. Dali called the Marxes great Surrealists and held them in the highest regard as artists. The Marxes never took themselves seriously, and would have lost their anarchic charm if they had. But a serious artist saw in their work the timeless qualities that made them something more than entertainers.
Innumerable critics since those days have said the same, and the Marxes' place in the pantheon of greatness is beyond question.
They'd have responded to such acclaim with a honking horn and a squirt from a seltzer bottle, the last to understand their own importance. But as bt observes, the artist loses parenthood of his work when he takes it to the masses. Then it takes a life of its own, living or dying as a separate entity that even its creator might not recognize.
-
baby tuckoo
- Deluded Simpleton
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:53 pm
- Location: Sacramento
Comedy suffers most greatly from the time and culture test.
Great though it may be, outside of the references a cle the work will be flat. An audience 100 years out won't "get it."
The exception would be if the comedy is adequately generic: social circumstance, personal relationship, family dynamic.
Shakespeare's comedy survives 400 years of distance because it addresses these. Abbott and Costello probably won't, for it relies on mere mysunderstanding, though so does much of Shakespeare.
So long as Angalysshe est esprocken . . . .
. . . we can have fun with the mochen.
Great though it may be, outside of the references a cle the work will be flat. An audience 100 years out won't "get it."
The exception would be if the comedy is adequately generic: social circumstance, personal relationship, family dynamic.
Shakespeare's comedy survives 400 years of distance because it addresses these. Abbott and Costello probably won't, for it relies on mere mysunderstanding, though so does much of Shakespeare.
So long as Angalysshe est esprocken . . . .
. . . we can have fun with the mochen.
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Gracious!
I already knew that story. I thought you had a new one.
I already knew that story. I thought you had a new one.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
It has stood the test of time, true.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
)Oh, it is emphatically not art.
Darned entertaining, though. In a creepy sort of way.
As a marshal it is now my responsibility to point out that this board is not be used for exchanging cryptic messages, especially when they derail a good thread from its original purpose.
Even if they're really amusing cryptic messages.
Now! What was the subject, again?
Darned entertaining, though. In a creepy sort of way.
As a marshal it is now my responsibility to point out that this board is not be used for exchanging cryptic messages, especially when they derail a good thread from its original purpose.
Even if they're really amusing cryptic messages.
Now! What was the subject, again?