Skip to main content

Entertainment? Art? Whatever....

I frequently get into discussions about random subjects with a co-worker, because its an easy and convieniant way to put off doing more work (or pretending to do more work, as the case may be). Today, for some reason, we were discussing theater, and he asked me which local theater venues were the best, in my opinion. I replied that that really depended on what your idea of good theater was, because there are definitely different schools of thought on that point.

He said good theater is entertaining theater. That's all. Same for film, books, TV, etc. Entertaining = good. No other qualities required. I don't want to make fun of my coworker or criticize his viewpoint. He's a great guy. His view on what makes good art is held by millions of other people. When I suggested that perhaps good art involved a bit more than simple entertainment, he suggested that I was a snob who had lived too long in an artsy bubble. Which is a valid point.

I encounter this point of view very often, it seems. Convincing people that entertaining art is not necessarily good, or that good art is not necessarily entertaining, has been an uphill battle. Well, really, its all a matter of opinion anyway. But the real problem here is, I think, that there a various kind of “entertainment” causing a communication barrier. When people say that all they want from art is entertainment, I immediately assume they mean “passive” entertainment – that is, that which require little or no mental energy to watch, which places one into what I call the “stupid coma” where the entertainment is passed into and quickly out of the brain with little effect. Its wrong for me to assume thats what people mean when they say they want “entertainment,” and its also wrong for me to assume that this sort of “passive” entertainment is necessarily a bad thing. But I do.

But when I say that I want art to do more than just entertain, I think that sometimes people assume that I want everything I watch to have some sort of grand, deep, moral significance, to teach some kind of profound lesson or truth. That is certainly not true; indeed, some of the worst art out there, in my opinion, is that which tries to do exactly this and fails utterly. What I'm talking about is a concept I've had trouble defining and can only refer to by the word “substance.” Does this art, this entertainment, have substance? I'm not sure what I mean by that. I only know that “The Simpsons” and “Seinfield” (despite being "about nothing") have it, and “Friends” and “American Idol” do not. Substance is not necessarily something big or profound. It doesn't have to be some kind of moral or lesson. It's more to do with something smart or clever, witty or well-crafted in the work. Sometimes this results in a powerful moral message. Sometimes it provides comedy that's funnier and funnier the more you think about it. Almost always it involves active participation of the audience, it increases mental activity instead of decreasing it. Some would say the whole point of entertainment is to relax, and that relaxing means not thinking. I can accept that. Sometimes, a good action flick where you can just sort of turn off is fun. I love James Bond movies. But it troubles me when thats the only kind of art people want to have anything to do with.

I guess I just see there being so much more. But I have an emotional stake in this. I'm going to spend my life in the “entertainment” business, and it seems less frivilous if I convince myself that there's more to all of this than just razzle dazzle. Anyway, these are the kind of debates I constantly struggle with, leading many to believe, rightly, that I need a life. Just my two cents, anyway.

Comments

Unknown said…
I agree with you 100%, Matt. I have nothing else to add. Just know that you're not the only "snob" out there.

Popular posts from this blog

The Only Thing We Have to Fear...

It's October, which means not only do I get to start dipping into my nifty fall wardrobe but also that Halloween is upon us. I think its great that we devote specific holidays to various basic emotions of the human psyche. Halloween = fear, Valentine's day = love, Thanksgiving = gratitude, St. Patrick's Day = envy, and Christmas = greed. We're just missing wrath, lust, pride, sloth, gluttony, and inadequecy. Clearly, more holidays are necessary. But that's a subject for another day. We don't want to give Halloween less than its due. Because seriously, how cool is Halloween? Its way off the scale on the cool-o-meter. When else can you see even the most pious and sensible people indulging in a little of the supernatural and occult by dressing up their children as vampires, witches, or ghosts? Well, that's how it was back in my day anyway (which was soooooo long ago), but today kids dress up as Jedi, princesses, Harry Potter, or Spiderman. They are totally miss

I like Superman, but I love Clark Kent...

I like Superman, but I love Clark Kent. Though, despite the elaborate disguise Consisting of a single pair of bent, Simple specs, they're not two different guys But only one, still I said what I meant: I like Superman, but I love Clark Kent. I like Superman, but I love Clark Kent I guess because one of them's more like me And does not always get what he wants And struggles with our vulnerability. And does not by his perfection command The adoration of every woman and man But sits in the back, with nothing to say Just hoping that Lois Lane looks his way. She doesn't - her eyes are glued to the sky. Wake up, Lois! Can't you see the guy Waiting to love you with all of his might? He may not leap buildings, he may not fly, He may not see through you with x-ray eyes, He might need YOUR help, if that's alright, From time to time, when his mortal heart cries. He combs his hair neatly and fights through the crowd, Decides what to say, and rehearses out loud, He summons his

God Bless Us, Every One

Call me a Scrooge, but I've found that the last couple of years Christmas just hasn't carried the same sense of wonder and excitement it once did. When I was a kid, I was ready to pee my pants every day in December just thinking about the twenty-fifth, which crept closer so slowly that the month was always filled with blissfully tortuous anticipation. The sense of suspense, the agony of not knowing what the fantastically wrapped boxes contained, was only heightened by the lights, the music, the snow, and everything you knew meant it was Christmas time. Back then, my heart's desires cost about twenty bucks and, tragically, seemed both completely unobtainable and the key to my whole life's happiness. This was the season, then, when miracles of a very practical kind could happen; objects only admired on the shelf, or at a friend's, or in some abstract sense of obsession could literally become my own and wind up, eventually, in pieces somewhere in my closet. I like to c