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.
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