Are you seriously going to try and pull some smug insufferable “everything is art” bullshit here?
No, I’m more saying that “art” has no useful or stable definition especially as you are trying to use the word, to contrast “just entertainment” from “real art.” I don’t believe a line can be meaningfully drawn between those because lots of creative works have found themselves on both sides of that line depending on when they are in time.
Using Shakespeare as an example, he and his actors thought they were making plays that would be enjoyed by the few hundred or maybe few thousand people who would show up to the Globe theatre during the few weeks they were performing a particular play, and then never again. They weren’t setting out to make immortal classics for the ages and none of them lived to see that take place. When did Shakespeare’s plays become “real art?”
I don’t think JRR Tolkien intended people to take The Hobbit as seriously as they do today.
George Lucas didn’t think he was making a century-defining masterpiece on the set of Star Wars.
There is nothing preventing a future where massively anachronistic misinterpretations of the shooting scripts for eight episodes of Two And A Half Men become required reading for all teenagers 200 years from now as time transcending, culture defining classics.
On the other hand, what brilliant works are forgotten because they failed to find an audience in their time, or they became a meme and burned out?
The only honest criteria you could present to me for what makes “real art” different from “just entertainment” is the court of public opinion, which is subject to change over time. I live in a world where huge budget movies are based on stories and characters that originated in pulp magazines and penny dreadfuls.
I’m not interested in trying to draw a line between “this is just entertainment, feel free to view this in whatever abridged format you like” and “This is real art, so I demand you undergo whatever effort is necessary to experience it in what I consider to be the original and correct format, I don’t care what your priorities are or how much time and effort you can budget to this project.” I don’t see a functional difference between an individual reading a version of a classic book that has been abridged by AI and watching the relevant episode of Wishbone. There’s someone alive today who only knows The Tempest or Cyrano De Bergerac as the version with a Jack Russell terrier in it. Who are you to say “No that’s not good enough”?
As long as the original works continue to be available I have no problem with any method of abridging them, and I don’t believe any work is above consuming in abridged format for whatever reason especially on accessibility grounds.
No, I’m more saying that “art” has no useful or stable definition especially as you are trying to use the word, to contrast “just entertainment” from “real art.” I don’t believe a line can be meaningfully drawn between those because lots of creative works have found themselves on both sides of that line depending on when they are in time.
Using Shakespeare as an example, he and his actors thought they were making plays that would be enjoyed by the few hundred or maybe few thousand people who would show up to the Globe theatre during the few weeks they were performing a particular play, and then never again. They weren’t setting out to make immortal classics for the ages and none of them lived to see that take place. When did Shakespeare’s plays become “real art?”
I don’t think JRR Tolkien intended people to take The Hobbit as seriously as they do today.
George Lucas didn’t think he was making a century-defining masterpiece on the set of Star Wars.
There is nothing preventing a future where massively anachronistic misinterpretations of the shooting scripts for eight episodes of Two And A Half Men become required reading for all teenagers 200 years from now as time transcending, culture defining classics.
On the other hand, what brilliant works are forgotten because they failed to find an audience in their time, or they became a meme and burned out?
The only honest criteria you could present to me for what makes “real art” different from “just entertainment” is the court of public opinion, which is subject to change over time. I live in a world where huge budget movies are based on stories and characters that originated in pulp magazines and penny dreadfuls.
I’m not interested in trying to draw a line between “this is just entertainment, feel free to view this in whatever abridged format you like” and “This is real art, so I demand you undergo whatever effort is necessary to experience it in what I consider to be the original and correct format, I don’t care what your priorities are or how much time and effort you can budget to this project.” I don’t see a functional difference between an individual reading a version of a classic book that has been abridged by AI and watching the relevant episode of Wishbone. There’s someone alive today who only knows The Tempest or Cyrano De Bergerac as the version with a Jack Russell terrier in it. Who are you to say “No that’s not good enough”?
As long as the original works continue to be available I have no problem with any method of abridging them, and I don’t believe any work is above consuming in abridged format for whatever reason especially on accessibility grounds.
Yeah yeah
How about for an encore you tell us how The Godfather is overrated and Sharknado 3 is actually a good film.
You know what both of those films are? Exactly what their creators set out to make.
two things Lemmy users don’t understand: art and nuance.