First of all, this post deals with semantics, and whenever semantics are involved, we all go, “well that’s not what MY definition of [thing] is!” So, in order for me to better be able to communicate with you, please try to figure out what I really mean by the words that I’ve chosen to represent what I wish to convey.
My definition of Art: A dramatized intellectually practical idea.
Art not only can be entertaining, but it fails to be good Art when it is NOT entertaining. However, Entertainment by itself isn’t innately Art. Likewise, the odd/specific way you entertain yourself or others isn’t innately Art either, (so no more of that bullshit, “He’s an ARTIST” when referring to the creative way someone literally masturbates.)
Entertainment can be its own important thing, where the goal is reducing stress during a break period, or after a hard days work. When Art is involved, however, Entertainment becomes a tool in Art’s tool box (a tool that should always, 100%, be employed). Much of what people today would label as Entertainment often pretends that it is Art (that it is intellectually practical to you, and therefore worth your time) by shoehorning a tiny character arc (or otherwise) into a corner of an otherwise completely unrelated and often nonsensical work. *looks at Damon Lindelof as he types this* It’s actually become a unspoken tradition of the entertainment industry, however, so I can see why things are the way they are.
But I hate the way things in the Entertainment industry are, so let’s continue.
As a tool at Art’s disposal, Entertainment is a list of devices that attract observers to the Art, and maintain the observers focus until the idea can be completely and cleanly conceived.
My definition of Dramatize: when you take an idea and you show it in its human condition savvy environment; in other words, when you simulate how it affects we humans (and therefore why it’s both intellectual and practical).
For example, a dramatized idea about greed (let’s say, “Money isn’t everything”) might be a painting of King Midas in his court, on his throne, surrounded by gold objects, caressing his daughters cheek lovingly. The imaged is “taken” a second after he touches her, so we can also see both how she’s beginning to clearly turn to gold, and his horrified response to this on his face.
I warn you, a few alterations to this example painting involving the hand locations of other characters (etc) may change what the observers PERCEIVE the idea to mean, in this case, “keep your hands to yourself.” Therefore, Artists need to make sure they are always first and foremost CLEAR.
The second most important thing is to “render” the idea as believable as possible — for you are trying to convince the observers that this idea is applicable to them, and no observer is willing to care about an idea that seems based on faulty reasonings, or shit tier evidence.
I’d like to suggestion, through all of this, then, that a painter who paints a historical battle, especially an over-the-top rendition of its reality, is no better than Michael Bay making Transformer films. Yeah. That’s right. I said it.
Caveat: there are recognizable problems with all these ideas, I realise. This is just where I am with them at the moment.