Theatre as Art or Entertainment?- Page 2

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/6/06 at 1:14am

Well, I agree with you about the (fairly) objective problems, because those are, unlike the different ending, not commercially driven. They're just things that suck. Things like lightening the plot and making the ending happier are all about pleasing audiences and creating something that'll sell because it's pretty feel-good.

[ByMySide25]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 1:50am

From wikipedia.com:
Art is an application of human creativity that has some form of appreciative value, usually on the basis of aesthetic value or emotional impact. Much about art is controversial, including what specific cases can be considered such.

You could always argue that art by its nature is entertaining. It is supposed to captivate its viewer(s).

[allofmylife]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 2:08am

Like sex and passion. If it's not both, you're doing it wrong.

[Mistress_Spouzic]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 2:15am

it needs to be both to be successful. no one wants to see a theatre piece that isnt entertaining, even the darkest most thought provoking pieces require comic relief. And a majority of the lighter fare still have messages, even if that message is as basic as 'dont judge a book by its cover'

[avab802]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 11:54am

What is the definition of entertainment? To me, entertainment is not just the happy, feel-good, fluffy shows/films/books. I enjoy the happy fluff, but I also enjoy things that are darker. So does something need to be happy fluff to qualify as entertainment? Or does entertainment just mean something that is enjoyable or desirable to watch, for whatever reason? If that is the case (which I think it is), then "entertainment" is just as difficult to define as "art." I think there can be as many different types of entertainment as there are audience members to consume it; what I find entertaining may not be entertaining to the person sitting next to me.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 2:34pm

I see theatre as an entertaining art form. I agree with avab802's statements.

[roquat]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 5:04pm

"If art isn't entertainment, what is it? Punishment?"

--Pauline Kael

Posted: 12/7/06 at 6:21pm

i dont think i ever "just want to be entertained"
...if theres not something to think about, or some kind of insight, then my mind wanders. i WANT enrichment. if im not learning something, or being inspired, its just too passive for me, & i would rather be somewhere creating something myself.

...not to say i want everything dry & serious!!!

i think the REAL ART is presenting ideas & insights in way that IS entertaining!

[umgeoboy]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 6:24pm

I think just like the movie industry there is room for the light fluffy purely entertainment musicals/plays as well as the deep meanifully artisitically driven musicals/plays. Without the light and fluffy (movies, musicals, plays, books, etc etc)that bring in the masses the artistic could not get produced.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 6:26pm

Theatre, like EVEY medium, is meant to, and should, offer both...

[Lizzya9]

Posted: 12/7/06 at 6:27pm

I think it's both. It's art for the performer and entertainment for the audience.