Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Art Vs. Entertainment

LEGION

Art Vs. Entertainment
July 23, 2006, 05:24:02 AM
Okay, here we go again:  The age-old question:  "What came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Re: Art Vs. Entertainment
July 23, 2006, 06:13:34 AM
id say the chicken coz otherwise the egg would have no parent to help it survive and the entire speicies would die out, same thing with art vs Entertainment, if there was no Entertainment art would not be popular and so wood not be explored by many and would proberly die out

Re: Art Vs. Entertainment
July 23, 2006, 01:25:04 PM
Quote
id say the chicken coz otherwise the egg would have no parent to help it survive and the entire speicies would die out, same thing with art vs Entertainment, if there was no Entertainment art would not be popular and so wood not be explored by many and would proberly die out



The questions is stupid. Of course the first chicken egg came before the first chicken. Where else should the first chicken have come from? That the egg's parents were no chickens isn't a problem here, that's how it is always in nature.


As for the original question: There is no difference between art and entertainment.

Re: Art Vs. Entertainment
July 23, 2006, 03:19:18 PM
Speciation is generally not a discrete process, the exception being speciation by polyploidy. Even if you had photographs from the entire lineage of chicken's ancestors, it wouldn't be possible to pinpoint 'in the xth generation this is a non-chicken' and 'in the x+1th generation that is a chicken'.

Anyway, eggs came first. Fish used eggs long before modified theropods such as birds came into being.

Re: Art Vs. Entertainment
July 23, 2006, 03:23:36 PM
98698684 is right the egg came first. http://science.howstuffworks.com/question85.htm
When it comes to entertainment v.s. art: it is true that art is a form of entertainment but it is a "high" form of entertainment unlike Jerry Springer which is a "low" form of entertainment.

Re: Art Vs. Entertainment
July 23, 2006, 05:21:16 PM
Quote
That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.

Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.


Sorry, but this is plain wrong. There is no evidence of saltationism in higher vertebrates (once the "hopeful monster" hypothesis used to be taken more seriously).

In higher vertebrates, speciation is a gradual process; you gradually observe higher rates of infertility till it's colapsed in reproductive isolation.

If you did observe a non-chicken give birth to a chicken, that would be strong evidence against our present-time macroevolutionary theories.

Re: Art Vs. Entertainment
July 23, 2006, 08:15:36 PM
Quote
All art is entertainment, but not all entertainment is art.



Agreed.

Art which does not provoke interest in the intended audience, entertains if you will, is not worthy art. In the case of music, if it doesn't actually sound good, it doesn't matter how correct theorectically it is. Look at serialism :)

Nile577

Re: Art Vs. Entertainment
July 23, 2006, 10:26:13 PM
OI! I like serialism immensely. Hail Carter, Messiaen, Boulez, Takemitsu and Berg. "Sounding good" depends on context and is not indicative of quality. Black and Death Metal are not pleasing to the ear but are beautiful in the context of modern society. Same for serialism imo.

LEGION

Re: Art Vs. Entertainment
July 24, 2006, 12:44:52 AM
Well the "egg vs. chicken" was indeed a metaphor...but obviously art came first...how else would one be entertained then?

As for the whole "art vs. entertainment" issue...I thought I would bring this up for a discussion, simply because I believe the two totally co-exist with one another.  Some here would argue that art is more important, I would tend to agree.  But I'm also one who likes to be entertained.

So for starters...what would the band "Gwar" be considered?

Re: Art Vs. Entertainment
July 24, 2006, 01:05:13 AM
Quote
OI! I like serialism immensely. Hail Carter, Messiaen, Boulez, Takemitsu and Berg. "Sounding good" depends on context and is not indicative of quality. Black and Death Metal are not pleasing to the ear but are beautiful in the context of modern society. Same for serialism imo.

Carter never used serial organization and Messiaen only occassionally. ;)

My main beef with serialism is that for all its rigorous derivations, much of it is lost in surface chaos to most ears and many of the post-tonal masterworks succeed in spite of this organizational method.

Here's kind of an interesting semi-related essay:
http://www.kylegann.com/naivete.html

Re: Art Vs. Entertainment
July 24, 2006, 05:37:32 AM
Quote
Carter never used serial organization and Messiaen only occassionally. ;)

My main beef with serialism is that for all its rigorous derivations, much of it is lost in surface chaos to most ears and many of the post-tonal masterworks succeed in spite of this organizational method.

Here's kind of an interesting semi-related essay:
http://www.kylegann.com/naivete.html


The destruction of sonata-from orthodoxy causes a new and no less rigorous orthodoxy of openness, or non-rules-ness. This the paradox that 12 tone music participates in. But we do it violence if we ascribe agency to it, i.e. if we think that it (or the composers who represent it) had some kind of radical free will to choose to affirm this type of music in abstraction from history. (This is, of course, the perennial issue of judgement; of the relation between subject and object, individual and society/history/nature)

The ahistorical evaluation, and its tendency to determine whether an artistic school is 'good' or 'bad', borders on being worthless. It is violent toward the wrong component of society, like blaming teachers for the state of the education system.

Re: Art Vs. Entertainment
July 24, 2006, 09:48:30 AM
Quote
"Sounding good" depends on context and is not indicative of quality. Black and Death Metal are not pleasing to the ear but are beautiful in the context of modern society. Same for serialism imo.



Well, sometimes things that sound unpleansant can; if done context still be beautiful. While I think this is the case with quality metal, I don't with serialism. It just seems random and shitty for the sake of following some reasonably arbitrary rules.


Re: Art Vs. Entertainment
July 25, 2006, 10:54:46 AM
As with the majority of other issues, this is a question relating to the artist's intentions. If serialism is used as an end to the composition (i.e. Schoenberg's later works), then I agree that most of what is expressed is just a desire to appear iconoclastic, comparable to bands like Nirvana and Slipknot.

On the other hand, serialism may be used as means to an end  or as just one of many devices in something much more wholesome/ traditionalist (Alban Berg's neo-romantic Violin Concerto, Messiaen's Turangalila Symphony). Used like this, serialism is not a rigorous intellectual exercise only, but also a method for the composer to keep the audience entertained, their intellect alert at the same time.

Re: Art Vs. Entertainment
July 25, 2006, 11:00:06 AM
Quote
Black and Death Metal are not pleasing to the ear but are beautiful in the context of modern society.


I disagree, since you are considering the phrase 'pleasing to the ear' to be true as regards the large majority of society, i.e. those who have become accustomed to more flowery music and therefore are more sensitive to hard, jarring sounds.

Re: Art Vs. Entertainment
July 25, 2006, 04:09:28 PM
Art has many forms, such as music, paintings, poetry but I think art is much different then entertainment, but can also be used as entertainment.