Art is entertainment now?
Entertainment is entertainment.
Art is art.
I've never seen why movies and video games should be considered anything other than art. The people who make them are considered artists.
Not every movie maker is an artist.I've never seen why movies and video games should be considered anything other than art. The people who make them are considered artists.
Context.Context?
We are all artists in some ways. Entertainers in others.
Art is entertainment now?
Entertainment is entertainment.
Art is art.
Where do we find a spectacle like that? Have you seen Ingmar Bergman movies? Antonioni? Godard? Fellini? Pasolini? Visconti? Kubrick? Hitchcock?It's kind of disingenuous to suggest they have nothing to do with each other. The best art is entertaining and the best entertainment is artful.
Where do we find a spectacle like that? Have you seen Ingmar Bergman movies? Antonioni? Godard? Fellini? Pasolini? Visconti? Kubrick? Hitchcock?
When you write for the screen do you see how the camera moves?
The dialogue must follow the camera. The camera must not follow the dialogue.
Why do the craftsmen, the artists know this? Why the entertainers do not?
Cinema is not theatre.
Only "cultured" people distinguish between arts and entertainment. And we all know that "cultured" people are just insecure snobs who want to feel superior. The only difference between artists and entertainers is that entertainers make money while they're still alive. Basically the distinction between the two is a small-minded case of fighting for the underdog.
Art is to find the cord.Look at the directors you've listed as artists. Are "La Dolce Vita", "Breathless", "Dr. Strangelove", "Vertigo" and countless other works by these artists not among the greatest entertainments of our time? Art and entertainment are inextricably linked, and each is at its best when they overlap. Don't limit these guys by locking them in the "artist" box. After all, who makes a movie hoping that nobody enjoys it?
Yes.Only "cultured" people distinguish between arts and entertainment. And we all know that "cultured" people are just insecure snobs who want to feel superior. The only difference between artists and entertainers is that entertainers make money while they're still alive. Basically the distinction between the two is a small-minded case of fighting for the underdog.
Cinema is still a very new form of art, video games even newer, and so neither have become fully accepted as such, or at least not in the way theater is.
Theater, on the other hand, has been around since Ancient Greece. To the Ancient Greeks, theater was little more than entertainment -- a chance to unwind. Only with time was it considered an art.
The same thing happened with knight's armor, which was of practical use in its day, but is now displayed in art museums.
I have calculated three basic artforms:
In the end, all creations of man will be high art.
- High Art is art of the past.
- Entertainment is art of the present.
- Technology is art of the future.
Look upon all the walls in freshmen dorms. They scream with posters from Van Gogh, Monet, and Matisse.
These masses choose these images again and again and take nothing away from the force of the original paintings.
Art is to find the cord.
Entertainment is to discord.
Entertainment is for the masses.
Art is for the patriacate.
Art elevates the spirit.
Entertainment is an escape.
Distraction is death.
The college kids, eh?Look upon all the walls in freshmen dorms. They scream with posters from Van Gogh, Monet, and Matisse.
These masses choose these images again and again and take nothing away from the force of the original paintings.