Art and entertainment are both things that are perceived. Good art and good entertainment both produce a satisfying experience for the beholder. What is the difference?
2006-06-27 19:59:13 · 17 answers · asked by Justin 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Performing Arts
Everyone has raised some interesting points but I still haven't found an answer which really explains it.
Some of you have characterized art requiring a creative process but so does entertainment. Also some have said art is expression but entertainment can also be expression. Just think of comedians who express their views in often hilarious ways which offer real social commentary just like art might.
Entertainment has been associated with enjoyment. If there is no enjoyment, there is no entertainment. However, not all forms of entertainment are enjoyed by everyone just like not all forms of art are enjoyed by everyone. Even entertainment within the same genre can be both liked and disliked by different people.
The most common theme I see in your answers is that art is for thinking and entertainment is for enjoyment. I don't think this holds up because the same thought processes that make art stimulating also makes entertainment stimulating.
2006-06-28 01:16:20 · update #1
Not all art is entertaining, and not all entertainment is artistic.
2006-06-27 20:05:15 · answer #1 · answered by Michael A 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Art can be studied, but Entertainment can be studied as well. You can even have a passion or a talent for Entertainment,
as in Art.
The big difference between the two is purpose.
In Art, whether it is Painting, Sculpture, Music, Theatre, or even Film (not to mention the many other Art forms in the world), it is created for the individual that created it. Sometimes Art is created during a learning process, sometimes as an expression of feeling, and other times, just to prove it can be done.
In Entertainment, which includes pretty much all of the performing arts in addition to Sports and Television, it is created expressly for the enjoyment of others. No matter what form it takes, it is defined as Entertainment when it is enjoyed in one way or another by other people.
So I guess the difference is really in who is enjoying it.
If only the creator and maybe a select few others are enjoying it, then it is Art. If it is enjoyed by many, it is Entertainment.
And if it is enjoyed by many and the creator with his select few others, it is Arts Entertainment.
2006-06-28 05:19:13 · answer #2 · answered by Superadam 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Really, I think that 'art' is something that a vast majority of people in either the upper-class community, or the educated say: "That is art!" Sort of like Marcel DuChamp's (spell?) ready made originals. He bought 12 rakes, signed them and sold them to people as art. It's what the vast majority of people consider art, or what a large enough of a select group considers art that makes it art in general. Of course, this is extremely flawed. Then again, how could we ALL agree on what is art and what isn't?
I say that the arbitrary difference in a groups opinion shouldn't matter, and if you want to, you can call it art. Your own definition of what is important to you and what influences you is more important to what is 'art' than any someone could come up with here. Art is ultimately a personal thing. As for a difference between art and entertainment, it's the same: you're going to have to figure out wether you want to call it art or entertainment. My idea of entertainment, is to listen to or watch some opera, or some classical music. Sure, by conventional standards it is 'art' that I'm listening to. But I like it, and it entertains me, so I call it entertainment.
2006-06-29 01:07:52 · answer #3 · answered by musikgeek 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
William Schuman, the great American Pulitzer Prize winning composer, educator (Head of the Juilliard School of Music) and administrator (Head of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts) once provided a distinction which I find meaningful. When asked if popular music could be art, he replied by stating that there is a difference between popular and classical music. In popular music, the goal of the creator is that the music be popular and its success is measured by how popular (or entertaining) it is. For art music, the goal is to satisfy the creative expression of the composer. Its success can be measured in how well the final product satisfies the creative expression of the composer. While the composer of art music might hope for the audience to appreciate his or her work, that is not the goal.
While such a notion has changed in the history of Western Civilization, the great danger in my mind is to suggest that art must entertain and therefore be judged by its economic viability.
2006-06-28 09:00:13 · answer #4 · answered by Karl M 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no distinction. Good art and entertainment? Every word in that question is subjective except "and". I love Beethoven, Bela Fleck, Led Zeppelin, and Ani Difranco. You may love Schoenberg and Eminem. We both think that our selections are good art and entertaining. But then I say "I respect Schoenberg, I just don't find his music enjoyable to listen to" And you say the same about Ani.
Good art was not always meant to appeal to the masses. There are and always have been artistic snobs who feel that the common people cannot appreciate their work.
It is a complex question that has no definite answer, but it got me thinking...thank you.
2006-06-28 10:11:06 · answer #5 · answered by Leela13 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No real difference. They're different side of the same coin. Good art can entertain, it should. In the beginning art was made for pleasure, it's only academics and critics that made the distinction in the last century and that was to earn a living,
2006-06-28 05:33:46 · answer #6 · answered by Martin K 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Art is a skill that one has. Entertainment is the feel so the art one perfect result to entertain when one shares the art..eg gymnastic this is an art of perfection on enjoys (entertained) by watching ie sharing the art.
2006-06-28 04:37:24 · answer #7 · answered by absalom a 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
though art can be entertaining, and entertainment art... i think the big difference is passion.
with art, it's usually a painstaking process to get a vision out... such as with writing a song, painting a painting or writing a poem... but with entertainment... it's just the way it's presented...
but ultimately.. i've have to say it's in the eye of the beholder.
2006-06-28 03:22:30 · answer #8 · answered by tngeprced@sbcglobal.net 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Michael * answer is just circular logic, makes no sense in answering your question.
From the Merriam-Webster website, art is defined as the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced
Entertainment, on the other hand, I think is just a past time to keep the viewer (or listener or reader) occupied.
2006-06-28 03:36:47 · answer #9 · answered by Carl S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In art, WE are responsible to imagine the action or movement prior to and after the moment in time of the painting or sculptures creation. It is a mental picture of movement or action that we are responsible to create.
In entertainment, those actions are played out before us while we sit back and judge those actions. To be entertained by someone or something is subjective to the viewer.
2006-06-28 04:01:29 · answer #10 · answered by Gillydoodle 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Entertainment is defined by who it reaches, regardless of what it is or what it's perceived quality is.
Art is defined by what it is, regardless of whether it reaches anyone.
Art can be entertainment, and entertainment can be art.
"Low-quality" is not generally consistent with art while it only affects entertainment to the extent that it affects what the entertainment reaches.
2006-06-28 16:28:55 · answer #11 · answered by DR 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋