Not necessarilyâ€¦

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

Of those 3 things I'd agree that great art is meaningfulâ€”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 eternalâ€”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 entertainmentâ€”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

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Is "Titanic" great art, too? And that Terminator film of Cameron's? nt - tinear 08:05:29 01/07/10 (38)

"Titanic" was a wet fart, though "Terminator" was imaginative. ~t - mpathus 01:30:05 01/11/10 (0)

Yes. They are. - grantv 12:28:59 01/08/10 (0)

At least we know where Cameron got the idea for blue people n - DWPC 10:19:33 01/08/10 (0)

Is 'Great Art' entertaining? Do 'Great Artists' make 'Great Art' for the public or other artists? [nt] - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 09:37:39 01/08/10 (1)

Neither. Artists make art for themselves. nt - tinear 12:41:39 01/08/10 (0)

RE: Is it not a waste of time, talking with people who would say there are no differences- - patrickU 06:39:04 01/08/10 (0)

The ship sank real good. - Harmonia 18:10:25 01/07/10 (9)

If "Titanic" had been in 3-D, some here would compare it to "Hamlet." nt - tinear 21:16:03 01/07/10 (6)

if it had been 16 mm, from Brazil, and obscure, others would praise its humanity (NT) - tunenut 07:36:45 01/08/10 (3)

Not really. Which particular film do you have in mind, if any - tinear 09:13:10 01/09/10 (1)

none - tunenut 13:14:17 01/09/10 (0)

RE: if it had been 16 mm, from Brazil, and obscure, others would praise its humanity (NT) - Wendell Narrod 07:41:02 01/08/10 (0)

RE: If "Titanic" had been in 3-D, some here would compare it to "Hamlet." nt - Wendell Narrod 04:10:59 01/08/10 (0)

tinear, if you keep this up folks might even start comparing YOU to Hamlet. ;O) - Audiophilander 23:41:01 01/07/10 (0)

Shot in Cameron's gold bath tub. * - mr grits 21:00:46 01/07/10 (1)

Best thing about the production of Titanic was... - Harmonia 14:38:43 01/08/10 (0)

Certainly not but, it was entertaining. - Wendell Narrod 15:35:21 01/07/10 (1)

RE: Certainly not but, it was entertaining. - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 09:33:22 01/08/10 (0)

RE: I Just had a 10 minutes " Titanic " view- - patrickU 12:19:19 01/07/10 (0)

Let's put it this way: Cameron's films don't disappoint the fans. - Audiophilander 10:05:51 01/07/10 (18)

Your point is taken but . . . - Daryl Zero 18:25:35 01/07/10 (8)

RE: Your point is taken but . . . - patrickU 06:41:09 01/08/10 (0)

"PT Barnum had that explanation. " - Wendell Narrod 18:29:39 01/07/10 (6)

I think your forgetting . . . - Daryl Zero 19:25:19 01/07/10 (5)

RE: I think your forgetting . . . - Wendell Narrod 04:02:22 01/08/10 (4)

Well, you tell me . . - Daryl Zero 05:47:58 01/08/10 (3)

RE: Well, you tell me . . - Wendell Narrod 05:57:39 01/08/10 (2)

So, what's your argument? - Daryl Zero 06:56:57 01/08/10 (1)

RE: So, what's your argument? - Wendell Narrod 06:58:59 01/08/10 (0)

You seem unwilling or unable to see the difference between cartooning and painting. - tinear 10:50:10 01/07/10 (8)

No, "insidious" is being a second rate armchair critic determined to insult the tastes ... - Audiophilander 23:13:38 01/07/10 (2)

I've seen your paintings. Like I said, you don't know the difference between - tinear 21:13:11 01/10/10 (1)

We've seen your posts here; to say your art appreciation skills are somewhat lacking would be an understatement. (nt) - Audiophilander 23:19:36 01/14/10 (0)

Not necessarilyâ€¦ - David Aiken 22:33:52 01/07/10 (1)

Well stated POV. - Audiophilander 23:35:24 01/07/10 (0)

RE: You are wasting your time. nt - patrickU 12:20:23 01/07/10 (2)

What is it that everyone likes giving but no one likes to receive? - tinear 14:01:27 01/07/10 (1)

RE: What is it that everyone likes giving but no one likes to receive? - patrickU 01:14:58 01/08/10 (0)

Follow Ups

Not necessarilyâ€¦ - David Aiken 22:33:52 01/07/10 (1)

Well stated POV. - Audiophilander 23:35:24 01/07/10 (0)

Not necessarilyâ€¦

Post a Message!