Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by David Aiken (A) on January 07, 2010 at 22:33:52

In Reply to: RE: You seem unwilling or unable to see the difference between cartooning and painting. posted by tinear on January 07, 2010 at 10:50:10

"Great art is entertaining, eternal, and meaningful."

Of those 3 things I'd agree that great art is meaningful—it has to be or it communicates nothing and great art certainly does communicate something to us. As to the other two, let's take the easy one first:

Great art isn't eternal—nothing is eternal. We've got some art from Homer's period including his epic poems but a lot of the painting and sculpture is destroyed and we have no idea what was lost. Do you really expect people to believe that only the not great artworks were lost and all of the great ones were saved? Sorry but it doesn't happen like that. Greatness does not guarantee that art will be preserved and great art can be destroyed as easily as trash. We're lucky that some of Bach's manuscripts were found being used as wrapping paper by a butcher but some had been used and those works were lost. Those lost manuscripts were destroyed as easily as the previous days newspapers and their artistic value was incalculably greater. Sadly, very sadly, great art can be destroyed and lost just as easily as much lesser art and even trash and if that happens and we have no record of it you certainly can't claim that it was eternal.

Now to the harder one, great art is entertaining. Not always. There are works of music I don't listen to for entertainment—some requiem masses and similar music comes to mind. They communicate deeply and they leave me feeling sorrow, sometimes even harrowed. I listen to them for their powerful communication of some emotions but while they touch me deeply, I don't think I'd say that what they do is "entertain" me, not based on the usual way the word "entertain" is used. Art can do other things to and for us besides entertaining us, and it doesn't necessarily have to entertain us. Certainly it sometimes does but works of art don't necessarily have to be entertaining and great art doesn't have to be be entertaining either.

On the other hand, there are a lot of films and music around which definitely aren't great art, which don't communicate anything profound, but which leave us with a smile on our face or laughing in the aisles, something that much great art doesn't do. What these lesser films and music do is entertain us and while they may not be as deserving of longevity as great art, they sometimes outlive great art and there's absolutely nothing wrong with a film or music which is nothing more than genuinely entertaining. Producing something that entertains may not be as hard to do as producing great art but it isn't easy either, and things which simply entertain should be appreciated also.

There are an awful lot of films which aren't great art, are simply entertaining, and are definitely worth seeing for what they offer and a lot of the time what they offer is what I want rather than great art. Great art is like rich food, it leaves me full and needs time and space for digestion. I listen to music each day but I don't listen to great music each day simply because I'd be intellectually and emotionally overloaded if I did. I can listen to enjoyable music every day but I don't want to listen to great music more than once every week or two, simply because I need to give it space and, strangely, as I get older I seem to need to give great art more space. That may well be in part because I often seem to find more in it than I did when I was younger.

As for Avatar, no comment from me. I haven't seen it though I probably will go and do so sometime in the future. I'm definitely not expecting it to be great art but I do expect it to be entertaining and enjoyable.


David Aiken