Youngblood argues that for something to be art, it must create an experience that has not been had, and that to be commercial entertainment means to only recycle things that are expected. We are often fed and embrace commercial entertainment, but that which is “art” is uncomfortable and thus not commercially approachable.
Pierce’s response seems aimed at a world controlled by mainstream media. In today’s entertainment, chaos rules. But we are no longer restricted and many of the people who publicize themselves on YouTube or social networking sites still stick to conventional formulas. The most popular characters utilize the familiar as a way to reach audiences. It is only then that they can really attack and share their “unique ideas”. Maybe this is part of Youngblood’s point. Maybe he doesn’t like the audiences’ acceptance for the mediocre. But in today’s culture more than ever, it is obvious that there is no upper, beyond that of tradition and inspiration, dictating what goes on in the world of entertainment.
Though the author did not attack the idea of “mainstream media” as much as the formula, I don’t necessarily agree that a) art should have such a strict definition, b) that commercial entertainment cannot be art. We are at a phase cultural and artistic freedom. There are many outlets to express and be heard. With that, there are also many voices. A sentiment that may be cliché in one circle, can very likely be eye opening in another. It requires too broad and constricting a definition of the human experience for Youngblood’s definition of “art” to be correct, especially when trying to apply it to entertainment today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It could be argued that commercial entertainment cannot be art inherently because of what's in its title: commercial. Can anything with profit being its chief aim be art? But then, what can be classified as commercial entertainment? Are independent films that don't follow genre conventions art, because they are eye-opening and different, or are they commercial entertainment because they do reach us in commercial cinemas? I ultimately agree -- the terms art and even commercial entertainment are blanket terms that can't really be used to extract any concrete meaning that isn't just a sweeping generalization.
ReplyDeleteYour comment that sentiments can be cliche in certain circles and eye-opening in others also rings true. Culturally, of course, but also over time. The film The Graduate, for example, was a shocking and racy movie at its time, and viewed now, it seems mild and average. The themes are so pervasive in modern day that one could wonder why it is deemed a classic. Likewise, what could be considered art to one generation, could easily just be viewed as another form of entertainment to another.