Art vs Entertainment: The Business of Selling Your Soul

[TheMattcoley]

I do agree with the maker of the video. Art is a process of self-discovery. The Artist does not strive to appeal to the vast majority of people. Famous painters did not amount a large sum of money during their careers, but they continued to paint because that defined them. Vincent Van Gogh did not decide to paint a flower or a church or the sky because he thought that is what people want. Entertainers on the other hand stress the importance of appealing to a mass audience.

[PowerPoint91]

interesting and i think its true

[samanthatre]

So, I can understand your labeling of the two, art and entertainment. But unfortunately, what I'm receiving from your video, is that the two are separate things. What I'm not getting is that the two CAN be combined. In fact, regularly in a great scenario, the two ARE combined. I believe in the combination of these two aspects, we can achieve... possibly... anything. You can attain rewards in ALL forms. Why would one want to disassociate the two?

[BrandNeilWorld]

Why are you setting up a binary between the two? I think that it is important to see that art and entertainment are both forms of communication. Entertainment is extremely important and art doesn't have to be some solitary pursuit. I haven't made any money on my art. I got my BFA knowing that it wasn't going to make rich but I consider my work to be entertaining and see nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't be interested in art if no one but myself ever saw it. I love to share my work.

[nickw023]

Is television art? In a literal sense, the television itself, was created to convey a message to its viewers through use of auditory and visual means of communication. In this case, i feel the television itself is an art form. But the minute it becomes sold, or when you have to purchase certain channels, does that take away from the artistic value of the television itself? Just food for thought...

[nickw023]

I feel like art, in broad terms, is primarily anything that is the "artists" way of conveying a message to it's audience or viewer. The whole point of making art for arts sake it to allow the artist the freedom to express their thoughts from their mind/body/soul to convey a certain message. There should be less emphasis on the monetary value of art before the spectrum shifts to entertainment.

[aparadiseproduction]

art is simply making something to sell.

entertaining is an expression of ones soul.

[star2phresh]

love it i totally understand everything you said

[dericka0069]

Agree 100%. Personally I'm so F-ing sick of entertainment especially when there are so many talented artist out there who's vision will never see the light of day because the industry is so controlled from within.

[rottenenglish]

Great topic

[INTUBITION]

Would a Bach sonata have any less of his soul in it after it was sold? Of course not. But it would TO YOU If you're so bent on having to define it as a -before and after it is for sale- kind of thing... (which according to you it would transform the work from "Art" to "Entertainment...")

The work in itself never changed... what makes it change (in your mind) is the way you choose to perceive it based on your beliefs. (I'm referring to your stated beliefs from paragraph 4 in the info box)

[INTUBITION]

Would a Bach sonata have any less of his soul in it after it was sold? Of course not. But it would TO YOU If you're so bent on having to define it as a -before and after it is for sale- kind of thing (which according to you it would transform the work from "Art" to "Entertainment")

The work in itself never changed, what makes it change (for you in your own mind) is the way you choose to perceive it through your beliefs. (The beliefs you stated from paragraph 4 on in the info box)

[brandonshred1]

I can relate to this. The music industry is the best example. Ideally, an talented musician/band who is making music should be able to make their music and people who enjoy it will pay money for their music and performances. This creates an industry: people pay money for goods and services. But now the industry is corrupt. Marketing and sales have become a factor. Producers will only "invest" in bands they think will sell. This has driven the true original artists underground.

[brandonshred1]

Commercial music is usually the most generic, unoriginal, and soulless. The industry wants to market sell whatever is in style. Anything that is new and original is a business risk. On top of that, you have bands that are in it for things other than the music. They want girls, fame, money, etc. They play whatever is in style simply to get these things. And they are the ones who are marketed. Heck they don't even need to have any musical skill with todays technology.

[NorCalCorsello]

Well stated. This would be a good topic for a vlog. You should make one!

[Cr3ativity]

I sell my art primarily because I need money for future materials and because I have to pay for university. I would not call it "selling your soul" because art is a language, from my point of view. So, basically art is like a piece of paper with words on them and a price tag. I would much rather share and create more art then keep it at home and prohibit the world from seeing what I do best. Hey, but that's me. Make sure to visit eBay if you do not believe me...

[NorCalCorsello]

The "selling your soul" was just an attempt at a play on words, as I said "art is an expression of the soul" and "entertainment is art for sale" hence, soul for sale. I don't mean to indicate that there is anything wrong with selling one's art. I was attempting to boil the two concepts down to their "purest" from to identify the real distinction between the two. In reality, any art or entertainment will fall on a spectrum somewhere between!

[kenrg]

Art can't be for sale? I get your point, but in a practical sense, I do think there can be an overlap between the two (art and entertainment). And starving businessman... actually, I have heard that a bit lately ;^)

And thanks for the shout out!

[OhCurt]

OMG, I had to pause at 1:31 because that is SO SPOT ON - YES!

...okay, time to resume watching...

No, I don't think you're off the mark here at all. And like you said, the lines are still blurred as to what and/or who falls into which category at any given time.

[helilienthal]

Although I enjoy the idea that I could be paid one day for my works. I wrote my first novel in 2005. i am currently near completion of my second. i have not published my first novel or any of my poetry or even the two novella's I have written. I write them for myself and my friends/loved ones. However, recently I have entertained the possibility of shopping for a publisher someday. i suppose as a way to get my art out. There is a lot of gray area here sir. Running out of space. You get my point.

[helilienthal]

Yes although I like the idea, I'm not sure if I am ready to let strangers peer into my mind. It's sticky. It's sticky like old JuJu Beans mixed with cherry coke on the theater floor.

[NorCalCorsello]

Hank, you're absolutely right about there being a lot of gray area. My idea here was to "boil down" art and entertainment to "pure" forms to determine the true distinction between them. We do not live in a world of "pure" anything. Hence, all art and entertainment exists on some spectrum in between the two, but by understanding the distinction, one can possibly have a better perspective on what the true motivation is. As for your book, if you do shop for a publisher... re-write it!

[kokema1]

I think art is to be shared. Art unto itself and not shared - if it is transformative, is a loss. Many artistic expressions can be inspiring to others emotionally and intellectually. How many times have you seen an artistic piece that inspired you, opened your mind . . . your heart? Maybe it even posed a solution to a problem you were trying to solve. Furthermore, if someone purchases the art piece to place in a museum where masses can be inspired as well then ... I think you get my point.

[NorCalCorsello]

(Sorry for the slow response) I definitely agree that art is to be shared. I was really trying to boil art and entertainment down to their purest forms to determine the distinction between them, and money seemed to be the key distinguishing factor. In reality I believe both art and entertainment don't normally exist in their purest forms, but rather on some spectrum between the too.