Why is film a subcategory of "entertainment" and not "arts and humanities"?

Answer 1

Very good question.

If film were listed under Arts & Humanities, I would certainly be interested in following the category. But not as Entertainment. I could care less about movie stars and most currently "entertaining" movies.

I just scanned that section and found only one question that intrigued me enough that I wanted to respond or to read others' responses.

I like the suggestion that Movies be listed under Entertainment and Film under Arts & Humanities -- though I must admit Film as Art or Film Criticism can be as stuffy as Lit Crit.

But you've snagged my attention. Now I'm gonna seek out Movies and ask a question: "I consider Citizen Kane the great American movie of the 20th century. What other movies would you list along with it as great movies of the century? Do you think of these primarily as entertainment or as art? If you were classifying them for a reference book would you be more likely to discuss them under the heading Theater and Film or Television and Movies?"

I'm gonna ask it under Movies and also somewhere under Arts & Humanities and see what happens.

Thank you.

Answer 2

I have asked the same about music. Actually, I think it would be better if both appeared in both places. Film under Arts and Movies under Entertainment might work. I'm finding it harder to come up with the headings for music.

Answer 3

I think there should be maybe two separate categories listed under the two different topics. That way you could get the film questions (i.e. arts and humanities based questions) filtered from the movie (who loves brad pitt in blah blah blah? movie based questions) questions.

That might work better.

Answer 4

I have seen many films that have had no artistic value and so have you ... It's all relative isn't it ? someones art is anothers blase film and if so not entertaining in value .