Art and/or Entertainment

The Difference Between Art and Entertainment
by Jeff Goins

Art, they say, is in the eye of the beholder. Which is a nice way of saying it’s whatever you want it to be. But I don’t believe that.

Although I don’t have an objective perspective (nobody does), and mine is but one opinion, I believe there is such a thing as good and bad art.

Maybe that’s asking too much, for us to label art “good” or “bad,” or maybe that feels too restrictive. That’s fine, I suppose; I don’t want to impose my artistic standards on someone else, nor would I appreciate having it the other way around.

But what is not okay is calling something “art” when it’s not — when it is, in fact, something else.

Art versus entertainment

My friend Stephen pointed out recently, quoting Makoto Fujimura I think, that the difference between art and entertainment is subtle, but important:

“Entertainment gives you a predictable pleasure… Art leads to transformation.”

If that’s true, then we may have a problem, because what a lot of people call “art” isn’t changing us. At best, it’s entertaining us, dulling our senses and inebriating us to the realities of the world. Which is not the point.

Art is supposed to transform:
•It surprises.
•It wounds.
•It changes.

Entertainment makes us feel good. It doesn’t surprise us; it meets our expectations. And that’s why we like entertainment: it coddles us.

But the problem with entertainment is it leaves us unchanged. And we so desperately need to be changed, whether we realize it or not.

Art, on the other hand, transforms us. How? It wounds us — breaks our hearts, causes us to cry, and reveals our own inadequacies.

Art forces us to make a choice. It does exactly what we don’t expect, and that’s how it changes us. So the question, dear artist, is:

Are you creating predictable work that doesn’t surprise, that doesn’t wound, that doesn’t change anything?

What, then, are you creating? It may be propaganda. It may be advertising. It may even be entertainment. But it’s probably not art.
http://goinswriter.com/art-and-entertainment/

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ART AND ENTERTAINMENT
By Layla Taj
June 29 ,2015

I have been an artist my entire life . Be it a composer, musician , singer, designer , painter and dancer. God has created me in such a way that ideas and creativity run through my blood as water runs through the faucet . Art for me is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power .Entertainment however is the action of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment . Many performers such as oriental dancers claim to be dance artists when in fact the creative skill and imagination of their performance is undetectable . Art is that which makes beauty manifest, and beauty is that which pleases without exciting desire. But there is and can be no explanation of why one thing pleases one man and displeases another, so scientists cannot work out the laws of art . The everyday common man or woman have issues with the distinction as well.
Every work of art causes the receiver to enter into a certain kind of relationship with the artist , some with great effort try to image exactly what the artist is trying to say. If this seems impossible then a somewhat narcissistic trait steps in and the receiver forms an opinion based upon his or her personal life. Just as words transmit thoughts, so art transmits feelings. Art evokes a feeling that one has once experienced, and then transmits that feeling to others through forms and colors, sounds or movements. Art is not always pleasurable for the eye of the beholder but a means of union among people, joining them together in the same feelings. A sculpter might piece together 4 pieces of metal and call it a great creation and a piece of art . Another might see it as a piece of junk only to be appreciated in the junk yard. Art in my opinion entails a personal signature of style and whether people find that signature offensive or beautiful is yet to be seen. But if art is offensive and it catches ones attention and keeps them wanting more and more ,than offensive might enter into entertaining and amusing.

Many performers in the training process take on the identity of their master teachers or their inspirations so much so that they are really only clones or a carbon copy of that which they admire but they are not artists . They are great imitators. They are unable to create their own signature style , yet they perceive themselves as artists . I refer to them them as imposters. My assessment is that " the work of a true artist cannot be imitated by mere dexterity, art is an activity of the soul, constrained to work out of its own wealth, and to bring before the mind's eye a wholly other and far richer content; a unique creation". Some onlookers can be fooled and even impressed but the educated eye or the astute enthusiast knows better. That in my opinion is why not everyone can be a star. This status is only reserved for a select few, the few that create and connect with their audience.

Entertainment on the other hand is a form of activity that holds the attention and interest of an audience, or gives pleasure and delight . It grabs our attention and keeps us wanting more. The experience of being entertained has come to be strongly associated with amusement, so that one common understanding of the idea is fun and laughter. A shining personality or a charismatic character is always present when we are entertained. A clown can entertain us . A baby taking it's first steps can entertain us as well. I found that when I perform entertainment is full force during the audience participation segment of my show. It's when I invite guests up to dance with me. The uncoordinated way the honored guest dancing with me portrays to their friends is extremely entertaining and many break out in laughter. They are amused and entertained to their full capacity .No introspective thinking is required.

To sum this up, during the beginning stages of my show my audience is feeling many emotions, some which leave them mesmerized and spellbound . Am I provoking them to think and feel in such a way that it transforms them ? Perhaps ..yes .They are observing and they are not laughing . Then there are moments where I incorporate both art and entertainment and others which are purely entertaining and so my conclusion is that there is a definite distinction. Some threads of similarities might be noticeable . But there is definitely a thread separating the two no matter how thin that thread might be. As a star Egyptian dance artist I always present both art and entertainment in my showcases...it just comes naturally .I find that art earns me their respect and entertainment earns me their love.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/difference-between-art-entertainment-layla-taj

Tao Te Soul
Way - Life - Soul. Thoughts on Writing From an Idiot Who Knows Nothing
Thursday, May 24, 2012

Art vs Entertainment: What's the difference? Opposing Viewpoints

I usually enjoy Jeff Goins' blog, and link to it fairly often in this space, but nobody's perfect. He made a post on Monday, May 21, on a debate that I've always found unbearably pretensious: The Difference Between Art and Entertainment. So, what's the difference?

There isn't one.

There is no difference between art and entertainment - all art is entertainment. All of it.

Now, there is a difference between entertainment and art, and it's the same difference between a rectangle and a square, respectively. Not all rectangles are squares; all squares are rectangles. Not all entertainment is art: kicking a dog on the side of the road might produce a visceral tinge of excitement to some, but it's hardly an artistic endeavor. The most serious, life-changing works of art in the world, on the other hand, elicit an emotional response that we deliberately seek. In other words, consuming that art is an action designed to bring us some form of pleasure, even if it's through a veneer of pain and sadness.

Goins' take on the difference: "Entertainment makes us feel good. [...] Art, on the other hand, transforms us." As though art does not make us feel good. And entertainment (defined as thing that "makes us feel good) doesn't transform us? Try reading Great Expectations sometime. Or Chicken Soup for the Soul. Or hell, read Goins' You Are a Writer. Do any of these books not "make us feel good?" Which of them has never transformed anything?

Let's look at two recent TV shows: Breaking Bad, a drama about a dying, drug dealing chemist, and The Office, a satire of a typical modern workplace. Critically acclaimed, both (at least, in the first four seasons). Different. Innovative. Unpredictable. These adjectives can be applied to either. It's no hard guess as to which fits Goins' definitions of art and entertainment.

But why would The Office be less "art"? Because it has the temerity to be fun - or heaven forbid, entertaining? It's an innovative show that challenged the nature of its genre on TV, paving the way for some great successors - Modern Family, Chuck, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and others. Or is it in fact art, because enough critics have deemed it "good" that it can be classified as such by such moral authorities as Jeff Goins?

The debate between art and entertainment is, and has always been, a thinly-veiled excuse for the pretentious critics and scholars to establish their own credibility. Make us fell good? Petty entertainment. But make us feel utterly miserable, and we have discovered the saving grace of modern society. It's the method with which the over-educated, self-appointed elites make themselves feel superior going against mainstream tendencies. You want to make bad art? It's really easy. Just make sure it isn't entertaining.

http://taotesoul.blogspot.com/2012/05/art-vs-entertainment-what-difference.html#.V6HyS2f2bRY

Several visitors to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art this week were fooled into thinking a pair of glasses set on the floor by a 17-year-old prankster was a postmodern masterpiece.

“Upon first arrival we were quite impressed with the artwork and paintings presented in the huge facility,” TJ Khayatan told BuzzFeed. “However, some of the ‘art’ wasn’t very surprising to some of us.”

“We stumbled upon a stuffed animal on a gray blanket and questioned if this was really impressive to some of the nearby people.”


To test out the theory that people will stare at, and try and artistically interpret, anything if it’s in a gallery setting, Khayatan set a pair of glasses down and walked away.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/a-pair-of-glasses-were-left-on-the-floor-at-museum-and-everyone-mistook-it-for-art-a7049551.html