Entertainment as junk food and art as a vegetable is a fascinating juxtaposition. It also implies that art should be the bulk of our cultural intake with entertainment as an occasional treat, and I'm wondering what that looks like and when the last point in history is that the scales tipped in that direction (if ever?).
Arguably, a lot of what was considered entertainment a few centuries ago (e.g. Shakespeare, Beethoven) is considered art now. Is it because we're so far removed from the context of those creations that we are forced to consider their intended expressions? Or is it just that whatever the cultural equivalence of "natural selection" is means that it's these more substantial pieces that have survived the centuries and that other, "more sugary" forms of entertainment just couldn't stick to our historical ribs and fell by the wayside over the years?
This will have me distracted for most of this weekend. Thanks a lot. ;-P
Always happy to inflict a mind parasite to a friend.
While there are limits to the metaphor, I'd say that the most salted and pickled of work first must connect to the audience through emotion (the entertainment,) to be considered at all, then must have something substantial to back it up (the artistic merit,) to survive.
Walter Kerr avers (as you did) that every person we think of as a "great" artist was first an entertaining one, and all the meaning we ascribe to pieces may never have been intended in the first place.
The entertaining but not artistic is consumed and soon forgotten, while the artistic show that offers no entertainment is left to spoil on the counter.
Entertainment as junk food and art as a vegetable is a fascinating juxtaposition. It also implies that art should be the bulk of our cultural intake with entertainment as an occasional treat, and I'm wondering what that looks like and when the last point in history is that the scales tipped in that direction (if ever?).
Arguably, a lot of what was considered entertainment a few centuries ago (e.g. Shakespeare, Beethoven) is considered art now. Is it because we're so far removed from the context of those creations that we are forced to consider their intended expressions? Or is it just that whatever the cultural equivalence of "natural selection" is means that it's these more substantial pieces that have survived the centuries and that other, "more sugary" forms of entertainment just couldn't stick to our historical ribs and fell by the wayside over the years?
This will have me distracted for most of this weekend. Thanks a lot. ;-P
Always happy to inflict a mind parasite to a friend.
While there are limits to the metaphor, I'd say that the most salted and pickled of work first must connect to the audience through emotion (the entertainment,) to be considered at all, then must have something substantial to back it up (the artistic merit,) to survive.
Walter Kerr avers (as you did) that every person we think of as a "great" artist was first an entertaining one, and all the meaning we ascribe to pieces may never have been intended in the first place.
The entertaining but not artistic is consumed and soon forgotten, while the artistic show that offers no entertainment is left to spoil on the counter.
Thanks for writing this. It felt really good to read, and struck some truth nuggets in the mine of my brain.