Art vs Entertainment

[Anonymous No.818076]

How do you personally differentiate between art and entertainment? Can a story be both of these at once?

Who has the right to decide which of these the story is? The author, the audience?


(I'm also going to post this story of a refrigerator because I enjoyed it, and sharing is nice)

[OP No.818085]

Now, my personal opinion is that art and storytelling are two entirely different things with entirely different goals.

[Anonymous No.818087]

Stop that.

[OP No.818089]

In my mind, storytelling's one goal is to entertain, and it does that through the plot: the actual sequence of events that happens in any given story. Everything else in a story should serve the sole purpose of enhancing the plot. In a movie, this means music and sound effects and lighting and edited and acting. In literature, you basically only have things like descriptions and pacing and dialogue and so forth.

[Anonymous No.818091]

>>818085

moar

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.818096]

the cartoon ends in F- grade pornography, we do not need this shit on here

[Anonymous No.818101]

I get the feeling /d/ would like this.

[OP No.818103]

The goal of art, on the other hand, is usually to induce an emotional or aesthetic response in the viewer. Sometimes it's goal is to expose certain truths about the world and society and human nature. Or, if the art is more inwardly focused, the piece may just be an outlet for the creator to express their feelings and inner drives.

[OP No.818118]

Now, when I say this, usually people get angry and think that I mean that all stories should be shallow and mindless entertainment. I am telling you now that that could not be further from the truth. In order to create a high-quality story, you absolutely need things like themes and well-crafted characters and skillful pacing, and all of those things.

[Anonymous No.818123]

>>818103
that is some seriously ugly art.

[Anonymous No.818128]

I...honestly have no idea OP. This could be an interesting thread.
Art implies more abstract meaning, I believe. It's more about creation than the trip and destination of the plot. It's word-usage and character development that is interesting and eye-opening. Art requires some abstract thought to be perceived too, I believe. Where-as entertainment can be taken in by the masses. (The Godfather VS Avatar)
One thing can definitely both to one person or a multitude, it's subjective.

And between the author and audience...again both. The author can mean this or mean that or nothing at all, but if the audience get's something different it adds a new element to the work. The author's original idea could actually have been something small or insignificant, which in that case were the work seen as something better it could be embarrassing, but if the audience gets a greater meaning, all the more power to them. Author and audience create the overall reaction to the work. They influence eachother in how it's perceived and read.

That's all I got.

[OP No.818129]

However, it seems to be that people equate the word "art" to mean "good". After all, no one walks out of a movie they really hated as says "Wow! Now that was a work of art!". And do not think that should be the case at all. I think they are two entirely different ways of using media, and neither one should have to live up to the standards of the other.

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.818130]

>>818103
>>818118
copy-pasting what you just read in time magazine does not grant you invincibillity

[Anonymous No.818148]

This comic is absent of both a plot and anything that could even resemble plot. Shame on you.

[OP No.818153]

>>818130
You... you really think this is good enough to be in Time Magazine? Please ,you're making me blush...


Now, on the flip-side, I think that people equate to word "entertainment" with bad. When I talk about this with people, they seem to assume I mean that everyone should be creating stories like Twilight or Norbit. And I think that's just insane. I know that things like that make money, but it should NOT be about money. It should be about crafting the best damn story you can. because I firmly believe that if a story is well made (and if it gets at least some minimal exposure), then it WILL find it's audience.

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.818173]

>>818153
>implying time magazine has high quality content

[Arcueid Brunestud !ARCIkc4cG6 No.818165]

What is going on here

[Anonymous No.818179]

>>818173
0/10

[Anonymous No.818189]

Moar moar moar

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.818195]

>>818179
thank you for ranking me so highly. The goal was to get zero, right?

At any rate, this thread is the only meaningful discussion to ever come into /lit/ in a loooooong time. Proceed

[OP No.818197]

>>818148
It's not great but I like the premise. I would have posted Frankenstein by Junji Ito, but it's almost 200 pages long. It's an amazing adaptation, though. I personally think it was better than Mary Shelley's original.

And that brings me to another thing I'd like to talk about. Premise. Concept. The initial seed for a story. Whatever you want to call it. I think that there are some gross myths about these "premises". Firstly, a good premise DOES NOT equal a good story. If you haven't noticed yet, I'm nerdy and I like anime. No surprise there. But take Sci-Fi Harry, it's an obscure anime that is just terrible. However, it has a neat premise. It's about an anxious teenager who gains telekinetic powers, but every time he uses them someone near him dies. I personally think that there's a lot of room to construct a solid story using that premise. But, of course, it does not. It ended up being absolute garbage.

[OP No.818229]

And on the flip-side, a bad-sounding premise does NOT automatically make the story bad. As another nerdy anime example, Gunslinger Girl not only has an embarrassingly cliched title, it is also about adolescent girls who are used as government assassins. Wow, now if I've ever heard a story that sounded terrible, that would be it. But the weird thing is that it's not bad. The show uses the girls' relationships with their handlers to delve into ideas of power and control an manipulation. The girls and their organization are not heroic at all, they are basically a death squad that mainly kills opposition politicians. The point is that the premise is only the starting point. It's up to you to decide HOW you tell the story.

[OP No.818237]

Now, backtracking a little bit... what function do stories serve? What obligations do you have as a storyteller? Well, my personal feeling is that you only have one obligation: to entertain. To tell the best-crafted stories you can. You should not try to be a teacher or a philosopher or a politician or a parent. And you should not try to be an artist.

[Death !GUInzpTIME No.818242]

>>818237
WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON IN THIS.

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.818245]

I see a slight hole in your thinking. You are making the mistake that art cannot be story, cannot be entertainment. The primary error stems from the belief that aesthetics and emotion conflict fundamentally with entertainment.

Yet, this is almost assuredly not true. If emotion is the fundamental thing that makes up drama, and drama is the event that provides entertainment then it must follow that Art can indeed be entertaining.

Prehaps the more simple way of stating it is that art is often a selfish as opposed to generous thing, where the creator is making somthing for the benefit of self just as much for the benefit of others

[Anonymous No.818247]

>>818237
Agreed, entertainment comes first and foremost or it becomes boring and trite, no one would read it. But if you have a clever metaphor then toss it in. Artistry shouldn't be forced for art's sake.

[Anonymous No.818253]

>>818245
I noticed that too, I feel you're slipping from your original statement OP. Leave out the anime and argue your point.

[Carlos !penisASZp2 No.818254]

OP is just looking for an excuse to post transformation porn

[OP No.818255]

Understand that different kinds of media do different things. In a movie, things are more concrete. You have control over the flow of time and what the viewer sees and hears. In a book, you cannot linger on a shot of a flower for exactly twelve seconds. But that's not a bad thing either, because some people prefer to be more poetic or vague in their storytelling. The point is that each medium has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and as a storyteller, you need to decide which is best for you, and which you feel most comfortable with. I will never be convinced that any single medium is the best for storytelling, because that's not true. They each are capable of different things, and they are all capable of telling a well-crafted story.

[OP No.818272]

This is the end of the comic.

>>818245
Ah, but what I'm really trying to communicate (poorly) is that it's about what the focus of your piece is. If that focus is on entertainment, then in my mind it is storytelling, and everything else in the story should support that in some way. If your focus is on inducing an emotional response, or some other kind of artistic goal, then everything should support that goal. If that makes sense.

[OP No.818275]

This is the end of the comic. Sorry. I forgot the image in the last post.

>>818245
Ah, but what I'm really trying to communicate (poorly) is that it's about what the focus of your piece is. If that focus is on entertainment, then in my mind it is storytelling, and everything else in the story should support that in some way. If your focus is on inducing an emotional response, or some other kind of artistic goal, then everything should support that goal. If that makes sense.

[Carlos !penisASZp2 No.818281]

>>818272
the fuck did I just read?

[Anonymous No.818282]

>>818255
Yes, different mediums are better for different stories, agreed. Which is why I hate the fad of books to movies lately because most of them don't belong as movies.
And as for your long, thoughtful shit-art movie shots? Look at Gus Van Sant. He does that shit all the time.

[OP No.818287]

>>818128
I think that that's what most people define it as, too. The Godfather / Avatar dichotomy. But I would personally say that The Godfather is a great example of storytelling, not art. Of course the irony is that the audience can never really know for sure what a piece of media is. Only the creator him or herself can ever truly know what they intended the focus to be.

[Anonymous No.818292]

No, I think if a book is a book and should be entertaining for more than just artistic merit. But if merit trails with it, than that is also great. Again going back to Avatar, it was entertaining, sure. Artistic? No. It didn't do a damn thing that hasn't been done a million other times in other movies. Now, Godfather. Entertaining? Yes. Artistic? Hell yes. It widens its audience and leaves it open to a more interesting interpretation. Sure, one could look more into Avatar if they wanted but its a shallow puddle in comparison to the depth of better films.
I understand we're talking in /lit/ but movies seem to be easier to compare with, as you used anime.

[OP No.818303]

>>818282
Well I think that there's a good way and a bad way to do adaptations. Completely direct adaptations are just pointless to me. Because it will never be the same. I think that if you are adapting a story you have an obligation to change things from the original: 1.) to flow better in the new medium, 2.) to fix bad parts in the original. Sometimes that can mean changing a lot of things, and sometimes it can only mean a few basic changes. But that's what I personally think...

As for Gus Van Sant, I personally think he's a great artist... as long as frustration and annoyance count as emotional responses, haha.

[Anonymous No.818305]

>>818287
But intentions could be changed or misinterpreted by the audience. Let's take A Clockwork Orange for example. Burgess used it to cut his teeth in linguistics for the most part and didn't care much for it. Other people LOVED it and for more than just the language he created. Is it art or entertainment? What if the audience believes it to be art while the author dubs it as shit (again, Burgess)?

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.818320]

>>818272
Hmm, I see. But what I am saying is that is it not also possible on the rare occasion that the plot produces an artistic response of emotion and is therefore both art and story?

If you stare at a painting on the wall for thirty seconds, does thatnot also mean the viewer is entertained - that the viewer observes it and is finds something meaningful enough to continue looking?

If a piece of art is not entertaining, it would never reach the gallery. It would have no meaning to the viewer. Yet can we really say that something like the triumph of death is not entertaining to view?

therefore, I would say your reasoning is a little flawed in application. Prehaps we simply label a specifc category of entertaining work as art?

[OP No.818327]

>>818292
Unlike most of the people I've talk with (and this might not go over too well on this board), I do not think that there is anything particularly sacred about books. I really do think that all media can produce quality stories and art. Now, I do think that books are capable of doing very unique things, and in some ways lend themselves more towards the art side of things. After all, they are already cerebral, symbolic. The little symbols on the page mean absolutely nothing in and of themselves, and it is up to the reader to break them apart and interpret it for themselves. If that makes any sense.

[OP No.818332]

>>818305
>>818292
Those are some great points, and I really do not have an answer. If the creator intends for his piece to be one thing, but the audience sees it a different way, then who is right? I'm really torn, and I don't know. Haha, sorry.

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.818336]

>>818327
if the viewer is able to imagine something a hundred times more vivid and inclusive than the image of a film, is it in any way inferior?

symbolic interactionist- we choose what has meaning

[Anonymous No.818343]

>>818320
Exactly. I think they can definitely have both. It's subjective. Art to one person may not be art to another. If one sentence brings about immense feeling, the whole book could suck, but if that one sentence means an immense reaction to one reader, it could be considered art. I don't see how they can't be one in the same.
>>818327
Again, agreed. Books are just another form of media, honestly.

[OP No.818357]

>>818320
I'm beginning to suspect that that is the case. The more I think on it, the more I come up with examples of pieces that walk the line right between trying to entertain, and trying to... enlighten? For lack of a better term...

And in some ways, this may be a moot point because I haven't been saying these things for the benefit of the audience. I'm talking to other storytellers here, expressing my views. And the basic idea is that I think that it is important to plan out and know exactly what you want your piece's relationship with the audience to be. And to me, that means knowing whether you're here to entertain or induce an aesthetic response. But like you point out, those two things are more closely linked than I sometimes want to admit.

[Anonymous No.818363]

>>818357
Entertainment should always be the vessel art travels in, otherwise you'll never get the attention you may deserve for your idea.

[OP No.818369]

>>818336
I think in a way a description can be closer to the truth than actually seeing something for yourself, if that's what you mean. As an example, I've been reading Scorch Atlas recently, and the way Butler uses descriptions, the words are not technically accurate at all. But the sounds and the things that come to your mind are more accurate than reality, even. Haha, strange thing to say...

[OP No.818374]

>>818363
I don't personally abide by that idea, but I can certainly see why someone would think that, and how they could back it with evidence.

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.818390]

>>818357
hmm, I am in agreement. But of course if you fto nor maintain an audience relationship in order to create art, is it even art?

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.818393]

>>818390
*do not maintain

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.818397]

At any rate, I would like to note that there are multiple ways in which one can be entertained. It is impossible to say that the same person who observes with the same intensity both a picture by Emily Carr and the film Mad Max are going to be experiencing the same thing.

Emotional states are numerous, yet some can be said to be valued prehaps a little higher by society than others. Art Galleries can be said to be specific constructs of society to enshrine certain forms of entertainment as opposed to others- to encourage specific emotional responses selectively.

therefore, the contradiction that something that is entertaining can be not considered art even though it must be emotionally interesting and therefore have the same characteristics as art is resolved.

Therefore, one could say that

[OP No.818424]

>>818397
Yes, I cannot stress that enough. Many people assume when I use the term entertainment, that I mean one specific thing, but the fact is that everyone has their own personal tastes. Having said that, I do think that there are measurable ways to explain whether a story is well-done or not. I've certainly read and watched many stories that I hated, but that I logically know were well crafted. If that makes sense.

Anyways, as for the other things you say: I have to go back to saying that for me, this discussion is more about the creator's intention and less about how the audience interprets it. If you take anything away from this, it's mostly my way of saying that as a storyteller or as an artist, you need to know precisely what you are aiming for with your creation, and make every other aspect of the piece support that goal.

[OP No.818438]

>>818390
I would say that all media forms some kind of relationship, even "tools", a form of media we haven't talked about yet (by which I mean propaganda, educational, instructional, etc). It's all about what that relationship is. And, in fact, it's that relationship (in my opinion) that decides what that media is. Not be beat a dead horse, but if you are aiming for an entertainment-based relationship, then it would be storytelling, not art. And so forth.

[OP No.818460]

I'm off to bed soon. Hope you enjoyed the thread, and sorry for the weird tangent in the middle.

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.818463]

>>818424
Ah, I can agree with that wholeheartedly.

Reminds me of the books on film I used to read...

of course, the central point may still be multiple points, no? It always irritates me when an author generalizes and says that an artist must only say ONE THING in their work

>>818438
So wait, then what exactly are you saying would comprise an artistic relationship?

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.818469]

>>818460
It was a nice thing to have, actually.
/lit/ is usually an immature shit-hole that never talks about anything important

this, on the other hand was actually an interesting discussion

[Anonymous No.818473]

>>818469
Agreed. Nice thread, OP. /lit/ is generally not so bad, though. On the whole I think it's tame and I like it. Sometimes, though, the trolls are released. This IS still 4chan. But that's what makes it more interesting

[OP No.818480]

>>818463
I'm not an artist, and to be honest it doesn't much interest me, so it's tough for me to talk about the relationship. But from what I understand, it seems to be divided into two categories: inwardly-focused, and outwardly-focused. Inwardly-focused art seems to focus on introspection and confronting parts of the artist's own personality and mind. This kind is weird, and doesn't really seem to need an audience. Outwardly-focused art seems to be about either inducing an immediate, specific response in the audience (usually an aesthetic or an emotional response), or trying to communicate universal truths about mankind or... something along those lines.

But seriously now, bedtime. Night night!

[None !Z2TJL3ARmg No.818489]

>>818480
adios.

maybe we'll get more of these threads in the future?