Entertainment vs. Artistic Expression

B

Bpeas

Their is no question about it, Film is an Art. With that being said, it is an art of the entertainment industry.

Do you gear your films towards one side or the other?

Which do you prefer and why?

And can you say it is achievable to find a median in between?

Now as a fellow filmmaker, I understand these are simple questions with complex answers involving multiple variables. However, I am positive you have had this conversation many a time and it would be very interesting to hear your point of view.
 
Are you saying good art isn't entertaining?
 
That's what I was thinking. Why can't artistic expression be entertaining?

But there is one big variable. Any yahoo who can afford to rent a film camera can make a "film". I mentioned this in another thread that art is subjective. Perhaps the discussion should be more on the differences between niche and mainstream. I plan to focus more on mainstream (what works and what's profitable) until I can afford to take a big risk on a niche project. But even that doesn't always work to one's advantage. Take a look at M. Night Shyamalan and how his films got progressively worse the more control he had over them (my opinion). I was a big fan of his for a long time, and then he dropped The Happening and I was left wondering, "What happened?" Art? Perhaps. You decide. Because that film certainly wasn't entertaining to me.
 
Last edited:
I probably should have reworded the questions a little different. Artistic Expression can be very entertaining.

VPTurner worded it much better. Mainstream vs Niche

However I'm also saying their is a difference between Snakes on a Plane and a Dogma 95 film. (these being the extremes of both sides). Personally I tend to lean more towards the SoaP side. Meaning I will usually choose films specifically made for entertainment over those with a specific artistic direction. The more I study film, the more I pick apart movies technically and typically I'm a mood to be entertained rather than finding reasons why I like or dislike the visual structure of a film.

When I am making a movie, my intent is more geared towards entertainment rather then my own artistic expression. My goal is to entertain people and have them in a better mood then before watching my film. If this is achieved through sacrificing art, then so be it.

An example is The Bands Visit (Bikur Ha-Tizmoret). Technically speaking it uses visual components superbly and can be viewed as a very artistic film. However, I watched this with a group of film students, many of whom believed it lagged in pacing, and even a few fell asleep.

With that being said, The best films, I believe, are the best because they balance both effectively. For instance American Beauty is a prime example.

So what I am asking I guess it both Mainstream vs Niche, where do you stand? And how do you gear you film making and viewing? (Does that better answer the confusion?)
 
In the end your always sacrificing art for entertainment. If you want to survie and keep making films you have to play to your audience and as it stands and has stood for awhile, the masses(your audience) want entertainment not art.

That is not to say that people don't want to see art, and that art films do badly all the time.
 
Last edited:
Films geared towards art for arts sake tread a very thin line for me, 90% of the time it will tip into that awkward territory where it could be seen as being pretentious and I can't salvage my interest.

The entertainment value means more to me. If the artistry of the film is strong enough that it in itself becomes the fascination, that is a valuable thing.
 
Keep in mind, this is all just an opinion of mine. I'm no authority on the subject, so take the things I have to say with a grain of salt.

Good art is a reflection of reality that appeals to emotion. I would not call something that is completely detached from familiarity "art". Even (good) bizzare and abstract art reflects reality in one way or another. Thusly, I believe that art should be deliberate. Creating art is a conscious process. There is no ,"accidentally bleeding on the canvas," and calling it art. Because I make this distinction, what I find entertaining, and what I define as art largerly overlap. Each painting, each film, each story, and each poem should have an idea behind it. A theme. If it doesn't, I will find it shallow. If I find out shallow, I would not consider it entertaining. And depending on how shallow it is, I may not even consider it art.

Furthermore, even IF I deliberately paint a few dark blobs on a canvas with a theme or motif in mind, unless the audience can discern that theme, I would not be a very good artist. In pertinence to films specifically, I would not call all films art, and those that I would, I would also find entertaining. Obviously, narrative films are the easiest to deliver a theme/idea to the audience, but that doesn't mean that purely visual and abstract films do not have themes.
 
to me the ability to entertain people and make them feel better after watching one of my films is my artistic expression..... if someone watches my one of my films or animations and laughs at the parts that i have intended to be funny... thats good writing and directing..... both my way of expressing myself through art.... i like your question though....
 
I would imagine as an Indie film maker, like VP Turner stated, you have to appeal to the Entertainment masses to make money first, then venture off into your own artistic abilities. If you are a good director or producer, people will take note of your work and would be more willing to view your other work that you categorize as art. For instance, I enjoy the enterainment of mindless movies like National Lampoons comedic value, I also like mindles Action Adventures like the Transporter where there's plenty of eye candy (girls, guns, goons , and great effects), but on the other hand, I also like the more "artsy" movies that don't appeal to the mindless masses, are a little more sopisticated, makes the viewer feel what the "hero" is feeling, and has a touch of realism such as Schindler's List, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, etc. I think you probably have to figure out early on in your career which is your goal, do you want to win awards, or make money? You can't do both all at once in the beginning (rarely happens), but eventually, you can do both. So, as in another Thread people mentioned that you have to start out with what pays the bills, then once you get the experience, money, and recognition you can probably venture into something you really want to do. I have to agree with comment about M. Night Shyamalan's work, I was interested in his early movies, but anymore, they just don't really seem to go anywhere, it is like he lost his artistic abilities and is just now concentrating on income. I personally am interested in Indie movies that do not follow the Horror genre, to me, it seems like an easy way out to make a movie, I mean how many times can we watch a movie about Zombies, Vampires, and Werewolves? Sure they are fun to watch, but it's not an original idea. In my simple little opinion, art in film making is doing something that is unoriginal, or at least putting a twist to an original idea like the lates Vampire movie where he saves his mortal girlfriend. As someone mentioned in another Thread as well, there are only so many topics to cover in film making. What I consider art (and entertaining as well) is new ideas, or something that will make me want to spend the inevitable $30 for a night at a theater versus waiting for it to come out on Netflix. It's all subjective, you just have to find the niche that you are good at and make it profitable until someone is wiling to invest a lot of money in you to allow you to do your own thing. I think it is a fine line between Mainstream and Niche, that's what I find so facinating about Indie films, finding the middle ground without the backing of major studios and expressing your own ideas and art on film, and becoming successful...... now to me, that is an art in itself.
 
Ah, a good question I can rant, er... give my $0.02 about. Yeah, that's it.

IMHO, film is only one of a million different types of artistic expression. It can be entertaining a number of different ways (funny, thrilling, engaging, romantic, intelligent, etc) but then again, it's up to the artist to make his art the way he wants.

Now what I'm about to say will probably end up in a heated debate, but please note that it's *my* opinion ^^

An artist not under contract to make a specific piece of art, ie, doing it because s/he was smacked around by their muse and given some inspiration to simply 'create', really doesn't care what people think about the piece.

Honestly, that's how I am. I made my films to express a message, doing it in a way that works for me. So what's wrong with that? 'F' the critics. I know that there's people out there that detest what I filmed. So what? I enjoy what I do. I don't give a crap what people say about it, I do it because I wanted to do it that way.

Whether or not my art is a certain type of entertainment or artistic expression, the answer is yes on both accounts. It is what you make of it. Take it at face value, with a grain of salt... and so on.

If someone in Hollywood looks at my films and hates it, great. If someone likes it, great. Honestly, I don't give a shit either way. I'm proud of the crappy films that I've released on an unsuspecting world. I know I've made an impression. I have fans (believe it or not)... but for some reason, they're in the Netherlands. :huh:
 
Bpeas said:
Do you gear your films towards one side or the other?

Which do you prefer and why?

And can you say it is achievable to find a median in between?

Now as a fellow filmmaker, I understand these are simple questions with complex answers involving multiple variables. However, I am positive you have had this conversation many a time and it would be very interesting to hear your point of view.
Click to expand...

I don't think these two terms are mutually exclusive, and I (like so many others) prefer BOTH.

To be a truly great film, a work has to incorporate both elements. Films that are simply entertaining are fun to watch but not noteworthy, while films that aren't very entertaining are just painful. If you can balance both (and I think Luc Besson does a fine job of this), then you have entertaining art. And that's what I strive for.

Sure, I've got an agenda - I've got ideas that won't let me sleep at night and I've just got to get them down on paper or up on the big screen so that they'll leave me alone - but I know that if they're good enough then perhaps they'll infest a bunch of other people and I'll make rent and be able to eat while I crank out the next one.

As a writer as well as a filmmaker, I used to detest Stephen King. He churns out pulp, although it IS good pulp. I viewed his work as 'low art' and trash until I started reading his Dark Tower series (possibly some of his more artistic work), and in the foreword contained there I found revelatory wisdom. Loosely paraphrased, he says that you can create art for yourself, or you can create art for other people. One kind of artist is generally miserable and despised, while the other may be despised but will have a nice house and food to eat. A great quote about writing: "Inspiration is for amateurs." - Chuck Close.

In sum, you've got to make a living somehow, so I think one should make your work accessable to the public on some level (if not ALL of them at least some good part of them), but don't sacrifice the essence of your work. If you write poems or songs, write interesting poems or songs that MEAN SOMETHING, not just stupid things that rhyme (Common, I'm talking to you and what "(you) had to did, what (you) had to did, 'cause (you) had to get". If you can make a movie through a vacuum cleaner hose and pack the house, so be it. If you make the same movie and nobody wants to sit through it, maybe you need to do something else.

All said and done, if you're still obsessed with an idea (or it is obsessed with you) then do whatever you have to do to get it out of your system and find harmony, but don't hurt anybody, okay?
 
I view film as a medium, the most versatile medium in existence today.

And I strive to express an artistic vision through an emphasis on the forms of film.

However at the same time, in a realistic sense, all I ever wanted to do was create something that people enjoyed.

So to answer the original question...

At the moment I would lean towards artistic expression, because I have that freedom to do so. But I am very much willing to create a film simply for the sake of entertainment.

Also, I'm really not sure, but I think Jason Reitman does a good job of what Heyokah was mentioning as a balance between art/entertainment. He seems to be choosy about his work, and ultimately creates ones that are unique as well as hugely entertaining i.e. Juno, Thank You For Smoking.
 
EvsFX08 said:
I think you probably have to figure out early on in your career which is your goal, do you want to win awards, or make money? You can't do both all at once in the beginning (rarely happens), but eventually, you can do both.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I think that when you start out, that which brings the 'masses' to you is that which is considered an original voice. Being at the beginning of a filmmaking career allows you the freedom of doing something crazy with the hopes of it being entertaining. Whether anyone finds it entertaining is anyone's guess.


M. Night Shyamalan's work, I was interested in his early movies, but anymore, they just don't really seem to go anywhere, it is like he lost his artistic abilities and is just now concentrating on income. I personally am interested in Indie movies that do not follow the Horror genre, to me, it seems like an easy way out to make a movie, I mean how many times can we watch a movie about Zombies, Vampires, and Werewolves? Sure they are fun to watch, but it's not an original idea......

....In my simple little opinion, art in film making is doing something that is unoriginal, or at least putting a twist to an original idea like the lates Vampire movie where he saves his mortal girlfriend. As someone mentioned in another Thread as well, there are only so many topics to cover in film making.
Click to expand...

...I don't know. M. Night's "The Village" didn't suck. But to have a twist just for the sake of having one isn't enough for a film anymore because people see it coming even if they don't know from where. Eh, I think he just needs to get another really good idea/vehicle and he'll be okay. I still have to see "The Happening"

Now about the Zombies, Vampires and Werewolves: I kind of agree. If you can't give it an original twist, there's no point. "Shaun of the Dead" and "28 Days Later" are the Zombie twist and I loved those--and I hate zombie movies. But it has to have a fresh take on the subject. (never seen zombies run that fast!) So listen up, newbies, we don't really need another lost-in-the-scary-woods-Blair-Witch rehash. Do something different or at least give it a fresh spin.

What I consider art (and entertaining as well) is new ideas, or something that will make me want to spend the inevitable $30 for a night at a theater versus waiting for it to come out on Netflix. It's all subjective, you just have to find the niche that you are good at and make it profitable until someone is wiling to invest a lot of money in you to allow you to do your own thing. I think it is a fine line between Mainstream and Niche, that's what I find so facinating about Indie films, finding the middle ground without the backing of major studios and expressing your own ideas and art on film, and becoming successful...... now to me, that is an art in itself.
Click to expand...

I think the idea of Art being VS Entertainment is kind of a strange idea. If "The Bands Visit" didn't work, then it doesn't matter what it was artisticly. Eon Flux was beautiful artisticly, but it didn't work either. Ultimately the film has to work. There's no art in Snakes On A Plane, but you don't make that film to be artistic. What are the snakes gonna do? Slither artisticly? :P

I don't think you go into filmmaking to make a film that isn't entertaining. That is part of the the point of making the film, you want it to be enjoyed. Otherwise you're some guy in a black beret, smoking french cigarrettes in a corner somewhere moaning about how society doesn't understand your art. The point is to do something that comes from your heart and soul and express it in a way that it speaks to the hearts and souls of the people who see it as well. That is the Art The problem is that this doesn't always happen. The double edged sword of Art is that you can do whatever you want, but nobody has to like it. The trick is to present the artistic idea in an entertaining way.

I guess I am trying to say that you can make a film to be entertainment without it being artistic. Like Snakes On A Plane. But an artistic film, has to be entertaining or else it will fall flat. Like "The Bands Visit".

SIDEBAR:
I wonder what the Troma guys pull down per year. Since Troma hasn't had a hit since "The Toxic Avenger", I would be willing to say that maybe Art isn't what they are going for and from the looks of things, neither is money. If anyone is true to their vision, those guys are. What about Ewe Boll? (sp)

-- spinner :cool:
 
"I think the idea of art kills creativity"
"I tend to get very suspicious of anything that thinks it's art while it's being created."
-Douglas Adams

Both from an interview with the Onion A.V. club conducted by Keith Phipps, 1998
copied here from THE SALMON OF DOUBT pp 155 & 160

I agree with him that you can't create art... that worth is determined by the audience after the work is released. What you can do is make a statement with a piece of work and hope the audience hears what you intended to say. All of this points to the interactive nature of film. It is a communication media, without the receiver, it's just a tree falling in the forest. If you don't consider the audience as part of the film, you are ignoring the most fundamental part of filmmaking... the eyeballs that will take in (or not take in) the work once it's been completed and released for consumption.

However any of us feels about entertainment vs. artistic integrity, the fact is that the audience will ultimately determine whether or not the work is worth their time and consideration once it's released. I had the good fortune to attend the viewing of the digital filmmaking class's projects at the local college last year and noted that, although quite technically inferior to even my oldest pieces, there were pieces presented that connected with the audience at that showing (myself included) much better than anything I've released in terms of communicating the message they intended to get across. They were uncluttered and vibrant examples of cinema at its most fundamental.
 
knightly said:
"I think the idea of art kills creativity"
"I tend to get very suspicious of anything that thinks it's art while it's being created."
-Douglas Adams
. . .
I agree with him that you can't create art... that worth is determined by the audience after the work is released. What you can do is make a statement with a piece of work and hope the audience hears what you intended to say. All of this points to the interactive nature of film. It is a communication media, without the receiver, it's just a tree falling in the forest.
. . .
the fact is that the audience will ultimately determine whether or not the work is worth their time and consideration once it's released.
Click to expand...

I disagree with Douglas Adams. I would argue that many great artists in history create influential works with a conscious connection to their audience. Great artists "think they are making art" because the "content" (whether it exists or not) within their art is directed in such way that anticipates the reactions of the audience. In order to do this, their art is based on an understanding of the holistic social mindset of a particular audience.

In my honest opinion. A truly great artistic concept is a reaction or counter-reaction to the social status quo. Therefore, in this perspective, I believe that the audience does not grant a piece of work its artistic value. I believe the value of all art is intrinsic if that art in itself is a true representation of a creative individual. Essentially, the entertainment value boils down to the number of communities within societies that can relate to the artistic message.

In addition to this great art also has a retrospective quality that reveals a similar intimate connection with the history of the art. Great paintings are made with a sense of influence from previous art movements. In the same way, in my opinion, many--but not all--great films are made with a conscious connection to the history of films that came before it. In conclusion I would say that you can be suspicious of art that "thinks it's art while it's being created," but I think great art is fully aware that it is art in its creation.

This is--of course--if you're making art :)
 
Last edited:
Mr. Adams point (as he explains it and as I paraphrase here) was that all of the great artists were craftsmen (and women) first who exercised their crafts expertly, thereby creating art in the process.

He also states that all of the work he's seen that starts with someone creating art, ends up coming off as pretentious and that causes a disconnect with the audience which specifically makes the work end up not being what its creator most wanted to be from its inception.

Reading this interview in THE SALMON OF DOUBT (a posthumous compendium of various writings and his unfinished next "Dirk Gently" novel :( ) put it's finger on the problems I've had with many experimental films... while really enjoying watching others. Invariably, the ones I have enjoyed have been made with the express intent of experimenting with the filmic format. The ones I haven't enjoyed have been made with the intent of being works of art... and all have failed to exemplify art to me.
 
I don't want to seem argumentative. But I have to make this point.

Van Gogh was a painter who began with a conception that is now known as a part of the larger post impressionistic movement. In my opinion he is not an expert in his craft. His paintings considerably fall short in technical skills. During these times many mainstream artists possessed skills that resemble those of the neoclassical eras, however, in conception they lacked artistic vision. Their work would appeal to the masses and sell easily. I would compare them to a modern day Thomas Kinkade. Today you still see this schism in the art community between the commercial artist and the artist who creates art for art's sake.

I understand what you are saying, and to a certain degree I agree with you. Many times paintings/films that attempt to be "artsy" come off as pretentious. But at the moment I feel partial to even the most pretentious artworks, because I enjoy seeing the effort :D

And to what you have said about experimenting with "filmic format." To me, this is a very abstract artistic expression. It embodies the sentiments of Modern Art, in that it emphasizes the Forms of film (which are vast and endless), as opposed to content. This ideal is expressed in the article "Against Interpretation" by Susan Sontag.
 
Last edited:
The intent should never be to "create art". The intent is to express yourself. That's why anyone who "tries" to create art comes off as pretentious. If you think its art, you always stand the risk of being very wrong in the eyes of some people.

My example is Tyree Guyton of Detroit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyree_Guyton

His website: http://www.tyreeguyton.com/content/work.html

No, I don't know the guy, but he is a good example. The city of Detroit has been fighting with this guy on and off for forever saying he should - paraphrasing - clean up this mess.

The audience will decide what is and isn't art. Which can be scary when you consider that what you have done and how far you go will be decided upon by people who don't know you or what you are attempting to do. They aren't always right or wrong. They don't always understand what you are doing.

Some of the most interesting films I have seen have been at film festivals and they were catagorized as 'experimental'. I think this is a good outlet and a great idea for filmmakers.

....then there's always the 'cool' factor. You might not know what it is, but it was kinda cool.

-- spinner :cool:

EDIT: well, maybe not how far you go, but whether or not people like it is out of your hands.
 
Last edited:
I see what you're saying Spinner and Knightly.

And the more I read your posts, the more I realize that we're talking around the same thing.

I guess I've been thinking this whole time that the decision to create film comes with an inevitable risk--a risk that is tested by the people. And I think I'm taking that risk... I really don't know yet. I still have a lot to learn/experience, and I grasp desperately to what knowledge I have. xD


BTW, Tyree Guyton's art frightens me and supposedly the city of Detroit. I think that means it's working :)

EDIT: Rereading it again, I want to say that, to me, art = expressing yourself. Thus the intention to make art manifests all these desires to express yourself.
 
Last edited:
I've always felt that being creative is an act unto itself. We are compelled as a human race to create things. When we do so masterfully, we have made art...

merriam-webster.com said:
2art
Pronunciation:
\ˈärt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars — more at arm
Date:
13th century
1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a: a branch of learning: (1): one of the humanities (2)plural : liberal arts barchaic : learning , scholarship
3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects ; also : works so produced b (1): fine arts (2): one of the fine arts (3): a graphic art
5 aarchaic : a skillful plan b: the quality or state of being artful
6: decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
Click to expand...

Art is something we pursue and hope to catch. Its pursuit is an addiction that we just can't shake. It is elusive, but amazing when we get it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top