One of the great joys of writing and speaking about art is that there are an infinitesimal number of words at our disposal to describe the visual, thematic, and emotional aspects of individual artworks. In the last week alone, I had used words like “heartbreaking” for a Nan Goldin photograph, “planetary” for a Patrick Heron abstract painting, “amorous” for an 18th Century French miniature statue, among a litany of other examples. Art compels us to delve into the recesses of our minds to explore what it is that resonates from this engagement: pleasure, curiosity, disgust, bewilderment, humor, awakening, etc. However, there is a certain word that completely vexes me whenever I find it associated with art, be it in characterizing a work or in describing the experience of looking at art: entertainment (and any of its variations).
I would like to make it perfectly clear that this opinion essay is not intended to demonize entertainment. This is not a “War on Entertainment.” There is nothing inherently wrong with the term! In fact, entertainment itself has a plenitude of benefits that stimulate our emotions and improve our sense of wellbeing through activities as varied as intramural sports, amusement parks, fancy dress parties, public spectacles, food festivals, and much more. My issue with the term “entertainment” is that it carries a wholly different set of meanings that are incompatible with any sort of discussion on art.
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the official definition of “entertainment” is: “amusement or diversion provided especially by performers; something diverting or engaging such as a public performance or a usually light comic or adventure novel.” Additionally, the synonyms follow a similar trajectory: “amusement”, “diversion”, “distraction”, and “recreation”.
Contrastingly, let us take a look at the Merriam-Webster definition of “art”: “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects”. While I find this official definition a little too limited, there is a very clear distinction on Merriam-Webster between the lightness of entertainment and the visually and technically complex nature of art.
But why do I feel the need to devote an entire essay on this topic? Why am I drawing a line between art and entertainment? It all boils down to public perception and improper use of terminology. As part of my daily ritual, I read through articles of interest in my favorite arts & culture publications: The Guardian, The Conversation, The Art Newspaper, Burlington Magazine, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Sydney Morning Herald, etc. Excluding publications that are entirely about the visual arts, I have been frustrated by certain major news outlets that have erroneously conflated art with entertainment.
On Saturday the 23rd, I went on The Washington Post and was flummoxed by the placement of the following articles side-by-side: “First the megadealers conquered the art world. Next up, museums.” So far, perfectly acceptable. However, this was immediately followed by: “‘Expend4bles’: New cast members, more explosions and a nonsensical plot.” A review on a popular film is not the issue, and I would be the first to note that popular culture itself can have a unique kind of artistic merit that would rival even the most outwardly cerebral works. But this is not the case here. The first article addresses the state of museums, galleries, and art dealers today, whereas the latter is a sensational breakdown of the latest action film. If I were not affiliated with art in any capacity and had encountered these two articles, my mind would draw this conclusion: Art = Entertainment. I could cite many more examples, but this one alone suffices.
Entertainment is an amenity that provides a temporary relief, a positive distraction or form of escapism, an adrenaline rush, and the list goes on. Art, on the other hand, requires a vastly different approach and much mental activity. It necessitates focus, concentration, introspection, reflection, and openness. Art is not about casting a quick glance at as many works as possible before hurrying off to the next destination. Nor is it about seeking a diversion or spectacle that passively amuses us in the moment as one would expect from watching the action film cited above. Art is an intimate experience that involves close looking at an object because of a quality or qualities that beckons our attention. The reasons for this are manifold: technical virtuosity, emotional resonance, controversial subject matter, unusual styles, etc. From there, we are compelled to think and ask questions: What does this remind me of? Is this how people dressed in the 15th Century? Why are those women’s faces all jagged like smashed pottery? What do I feel? Just what is it that I am looking at?
Entertainment typically produces the same kind of response among visitors, and these can easily be predicted. Riding on a rollercoaster elicits screams and funhouses yield laughter. What about looking at art? This is exceedingly more difficult to summarize as there is no universal, one-size-fits-all explanation. Put another way, if you were to approach different individuals at a museum who looked at the exact same artwork and inquired about their experiences, you can expect a multitude of responses that are markedly distinct. Even more unusually, one may be surprised by certain reactions more than others. I have seen people weep over still life paintings of fruit on a table and have read about individuals who fumed over abstract paintings to the point where it caused them to commit acts of vandalism. These do not add up to the definition of entertainment. I will wager that the average person would never describe a deeply moving experience before an artwork as “entertaining”, nor would they perceive an enlightening revelation on the infinite potential of the human imagination as merely “recreation”.
Whether you choose it or not, encounters with works of art wind up in our memories for time immemorial and these come with a permanent emotional connection. Entertainment can also remain in our minds, but it feels more like a record of a past event. I will compare two childhood memories to elucidate this point. I can clearly recall the generalities of a fun day at the amusement park during Summer Break when I was 7 years old. However, I continually relive an incredible experience that happened at 5 years old. A short documentary on the French Impressionist Claude Monet was shown to our Kindergarten class and I will never forget the astonishment and sense of wonder that came over me upon seeing Monet’s representation of nature. I did not yet have any adequate understanding of what it meant to be visually literate, but I know his feathery brushstrokes and delicately cool color schemes evoked an overwhelming emotional reaction that contributed to my love for art (his Japanese Footbridge was especially influential in this regard).
I would like to briefly return to the Merriam-Webster examples to reinforce the limitations of what entertainment entails and the boundlessness of art. The definition of “entertainment” feels satisfactory and complete, with no ambiguity or point of contention. My issue with the definition of “art” is that it feels like there is so much missing! Art itself is intrinsically subjective, and so too, is the term. After all, tomes of essays and books have been written on what constitutes art and even the average introductory Art History courses begin the first lecture with the question: “What is art?” The function of art itself has been the subject of much debate. Beauty? Historical record? Political critique? Religiosity? Essentially, there is far more conceptual baggage that comes with communicating about art than there is to enjoying an entertaining event.
The usage of “Art & Entertainment” frequently appears in the context of the mass media, and that needs to change because of its immense visibility. All of those who are passionate about or even mildly curious about art should not have to navigate through Hollywood gossip or the “buzz” on a brand new dining attraction to read about the latest exhibitions, niche topics on particular artists and movements, or an art-centric current event. News outlets that have erred in this way need to either follow the “Arts & Culture” approach (as demonstrated by Al Jazeera and The Guardian) or simply “Art/Arts” (as seen on CNN and BBC). My opinion on the “Art does not equal Entertainment” issue is not a new concept either, for this has been discussed at length by leading cultural figures over the years. Philippe de Montebello, the former Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art (1977 – 2008), and Stephen Jay Gould, the late paleontologist & historian of science affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History, have both written extensively on the need to disassociate “entertainment” from the context of museums (both art museums and non-art museums). To reiterate, entertainment is not a vice, but a healthy social activity. Art is a cultural construct where an individual’s imaginative capacities are visualized into an object as a form of expression whose meaning either remains fixed or evolves over time and is subject to extensive interpretation (and even my custom-written summary does not do justice to defining art!). Always remember: Entertainment is fleeting, but Art is forever.