<- Click hereHmmmm.... can art be entertainment? If it is, is it then a 'lesser art'? Is the intention to entertain too shallow for a serious artist? Maybe... maybe the word 'serious' is automatically negated by the word, 'entertainment'? Which makes me wonder if I should be entertained by Mozart? Picasso? Tennessee Williams? Fellini?
Here's an image... my image... of a violinist, a woman who is quite gifted. She wields her bow like a fencer's foil. It darts, stabs, dnces, and glides cutting feelings from the air. Her training was serious, so can her performance be entertaining?
Is this image entertaining? The jaws of my camera bite a moment free from the blur of time. And that provides me with an opportunity to express my feelings and thoughts about the frozen instant. So? How much is art, how much is entertainment. Or can it all be entertaining art, or artistic entertaiment?
Particularly when it is an image of an entertainer interpreting art?
Grumble, once again, my head hurts from all of this. Goodnight.
1 comment:
There was a time in my life when I thought Art was something aside of entertainment, a time when I did things because others did them, when I spent money on other people's tastes. Adolesence. Most of us get over it, hopefully in a positive way.
Of course has Art to entertain! Why should I waste my precious time on something that does not even try to entertain? The only trick is, to find Schönberg entertaining :)
Which "Pierrot Lumière" positively is. I originally wanted to juxtapose that with "Gurrelieder", but hearing them just on YouTube, I find them absolutely entertaining as well. Oh my, I should go to bed :)
Post a Comment