Quote:
Originally Posted by oscillate
I'd disagree. Art can be entertainment. It's all subjective, right?
A lot of people are clearly very entertained by Taylor Swift. Obviously music you like that you consider art is hopefully entertaining, otherwise you're some sort of masochist.
It seems like, for the purpose of this thread, we have to define art and entertainment, which in itself is a discussion.
So, art, hopefully, is entertaining. Good art, at least. But entertainment is not always art. You could argue that anything - even reality TV shows - is a form of art. You wouldn't be wrong.
But, in the case of music, we could use the general definition that art differs from entertainment in that it has longevity - an album's ability to be timeless. Bowie or the Beatles created art. Does it have a lasting cultural impact? I don't know that the Backstreet Boys fit that criteria.
Thoughts?
I agree with you. What constitutes "we" anymore? The "we" as it is still referred to in the media would be the traditional music industry, media, etc. Does the Billboard Top 40 represent modern mainstream music? In terms of sales, I suppose it does, seeing as they allegedly incorporate streaming data now. Sales/streams still indicate people are listening, correct?
|
For me all art is entertainment.
To define what art is would be one hell of a venture though.
But I really don't think longetivity and "timelessness" has anything to do with it. People tend to use the word "art" when they mean "high art", whatever they see as such. I don't use the word that way. For me The Backstreet Boys' music is as much art as Mozart's is.