Are Films Art or Entertainment?

Spielberg is the perfect example. Jaws, Close Encounters, ET. All have mass appeal but are incredibly artful.

The latest by-the-numbers romantic comedy where everyone in production only cares about a paycheck? Not art. At least, not to me.

I follow a guy on Facebook that guests on a podcast I listen to pretty regularly. He is an amazing animator. I follow him because he puts his drawings on his social media all the time, and his stuff is very good. He seems to get a fair amount of work in movies. His movie taste is atrocious in my opinion. He is a very visual viewer but not in the way a lot of people around here are. He loves lots of color, effects, and character design. Not just in animation. Comic book movies are his thing. The action and characters appeal to his sensibilities. The dude is an artist, there is no doubt in my mind. How To Train Your Dragon, Avengers, Transformers. These are cotton candy. They have high appeal to him, medium appeal to me, and no appeal to many mofos. They are indeed cash grabs. I don't think that means they are not art though.

__________________
Letterboxd

As Swan said, it's not the fact that masses love it that ceases to be art.

No, she's making them have better technique so they can have the tools to show their artistic side. Doing art is not only doing what's on your mind. It requires a very complex know-how.

Without the technique there's no art, with only the technique there is no art.

That's true! But as Swan said, without the artistic intent there's no art. If the only reason is practical, for instance making money, the art ceases to exist.

I don't think there needs to be artistic intent. Art can be created accidently. I think perhaps art can be anything that's had some kind of creative process behind it.

__________________

I don't think I've ever seen an artist that got famous because of an unintended brilliance.

I can get on board with the sentiment but I wonder how many movies are actually being made that have no other intention but to make money. I think more often the intent is to both make money and entertain. I don't think writers and directors have intent to make bad movies just because they will make money. If you look at who is making the type of movies you guys are talking about, it tends to be the same people. Which to me says they work with those sensibilities. Which I think is true of almost any artist, even the ones I love.

I will use Kincaid as an example again. The man was a brilliant painter. I can't imagine creating anything close to what he has. Now all his paintings look the same to me. He works in one style and color palette. I don't think he ever ceased to create art though. Do you?

The Room is bigger art than any animation film ever made! Discuss.

You guys aren't even listening to me or neiba, you're saying things that have nothing to do with what we're talking about. Therefore, I am done with this debate.

What's funny is I'm the guy out of us four who loves trashy exploitation cinema, so maybe I'm just a hypocrite who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Okay okay okay. This is my last post regarding this debate, because I want it to end with some sort of mutual respect, because I do love these two buttmunches. I ranted to Daniel via FB about all this and got pretty heated/upset about it. Got to give my bro Daniel props for putting up with me there. Anyway, our conclusion was that even though we could see what the other was saying, it all amounts to just different perceptions of art, and maybe I have higher standards, which isn't better or worse, it just is. Alas, I get what you guys are saying, and I agree that accidents play a huge role in art - that's one of my favorite things about art - but I also still don't believe a movie like The Ugly Truth from 2009 qualifies as real art. That's just my perspective, though. And hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the ugly truth is that The Ugly Truth is art, just bad art.

I'm going to pull an HK. Quoted for truth. With that I'm done too Swansie.

I love exploitation cinema too, which without a doubt is art too!

You did not understand what I was trying to say. It's a waste of my time to talk about it anyway, you are being incredibly arrogant and obviously not willing to understand it.

Tarkovsky said that the word "art" is difficult to define and that's is waste of time to try to formally separate art from entertainment. Hence, it's not productive to try to understand why Samdler's movies are not art, you just get it or not.

Well, movies obviously are art. All movies? I think so...I think that maybe even anything created by a human being could be called art. Now the definition of art? I guess that by this definition all movies are art, because "intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power" maybe comprehends every single movie ever made, because I don't think anyone ever made a movie without wanting to show himself off. So yeah, even if it's Warhol's banana, you know "is this art?", I think he still wanted to make an impression. It's just the human nature. I even saw this British comedy series about two detective loons, where a guy pissed in an aquarium and sells it for 10 000 quid.

I was once told also that if you take anything and uplift it to a high enough level, it becomes art.

And then entertainment, maybe not all movies. Because one could gather an audience consisting of Miss Vicky and show 2001 to her or them. Well, even if it's not her, i know many other people who say it didn't in the slightest hold their attention nor interest nor it gave pleasure to them nor delight. But then again, one could gather an audience who would satisfy. So, if even only one audience suffices, then even 2001 is entertainment.But it's certainly not entertainment to all.

I believe this is what you're talking about, Beatle. Jasper Carrot's brilliant The Detectives. The episode is called Art Attack.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Thanks, HK. Yes, that's it. I couldn't even resist to watch it again. That's what I call art.

I consider one piece of work what it is - I avoid the labels and evaluate how they've affected my senses. Visual (movies, text in a book, etc), Audio (music, and also film, etc), and how much it stimulates my mind and heart. I think a lot of time is spent on trying to classify it, rather than talk about the work itself; a movie, song, writer, photographer, painter, etc.

To me, every piece of work is it's own category. Terms are helpful to communicate, but I rather be specific.

Is the film The Artist artful artistic art or artsie tartsie fartsie martsie? That's the question

However, if you would take an extreme example, like Michael Bay, i don't think his excessive explosions and product placements fits in to the "beauty or emotional power"-part. So I wouldn't really say that every movie ever made is art. I can agree that he has a technical skill of showing off his mess ( ). But when the intent is basically just making money, I just can't regard it as art.

Pretty slick definition though...