PureX
Well-known member
Art is often entertaining, but that isn't it's prime function. Entertainment, on the other hand, is supposed to entertain. That is it's prime function. Entertainment is not art, but art is often entertaining, and is often mistaken for 'entertainment'.
"Music" is sound, organized by human beings, for a purpose. That purpose can be art, or it can be entertainment. Or it can be both, or it might be for some other purpose.
No, what I believe is wrong is irrelevent to the question I asked.
No kidding! That's not what I asked.
When a government decides that Jews are not human and that slaughtering them is not murder, does that mean that slaughtering Jews is not murder and is not wrong?
the Sibbie
New member
art[1]
n.
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
(etc.)
Music is still a form of art that can provoke thoughts, feelings, colors or pictures. Now if we consider it displeasing to our ears and it sounds as if it was thrown together by an amature with no talent, it is common for us to say "that is not music." Same with visual art. To many of us, peeing in a jar does not require any talent, therefore it is common to say that such displays "are not art."
Even entertainment is considered to be art.
en·ter·tain·ment
n.
1. The act of entertaining.
2. The art or field of entertaining.
(etc.)
Definitions from dictionary.com
:duh:
snob ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snb)
n.
One who tends to patronize, rebuff, or ignore people regarded as social inferiors and imitate, admire, or seek association with people regarded as social superiors.
One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect.
Why, exactly, do you people always bring Nazis into a discussion? Is it just too easy, or is that all you've got?
Incidently Nazis were just as opposed to the arts as the right wing and many on TOL, and detested fine culture. "Degenerate" art was something the Reich went after immediately.
PureX
Well-known member
In the 1860s, a writer named Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote a novel called "Notes From the Underground". In the opening chapters, he has the main character harranging the reader directly as if he is certain that his readers are a group of dilitantes, and in this diatribe he used the archane presumption that art is the persuit of the "lofty and beautiful".
Even as early as the 1860s, the idea of art as the persuit of the "lofty and beautiful" had been considered naive and backward. And even before that, back through history, art was almost never considered to be a pursuit of the "lofty and beautiful". It was considered to have various purposes, but the display of the "lofty and beautiful" wasn't generally one of them.
For the most part, art has always involved the idealization of reality in some way. Many of these idealizations touch us in such a way that we would describe them as "beautiful" but that has rarely ever been their particular intent.
The intent of art is to open our eyes and minds up to new ways of perceiving and understanding ourselves and the world around us. This is why dictatorial governments immediately move to control art, and why dictatorial religions do, too. Anyone who wants to control how the culture sees itself will want to control that culture's art.
Even as early as the 1860s, the idea of art as the persuit of the "lofty and beautiful" had been considered naive and backward. And even before that, back through history, art was almost never considered to be a pursuit of the "lofty and beautiful". It was considered to have various purposes, but the display of the "lofty and beautiful" wasn't generally one of them.
For the most part, art has always involved the idealization of reality in some way. Many of these idealizations touch us in such a way that we would describe them as "beautiful" but that has rarely ever been their particular intent.
The intent of art is to open our eyes and minds up to new ways of perceiving and understanding ourselves and the world around us. This is why dictatorial governments immediately move to control art, and why dictatorial religions do, too. Anyone who wants to control how the culture sees itself will want to control that culture's art.