Art versus Entertainment

Caroline_afifi

New member
Just interested to know peoples thoughts on this subject and how people define the difference between Art and Entertainment? :think:
 

cathy

New member
Good question! I have mused about this a fair amount myself and saw the related question on Bhuz about a year ago--"Do You Think of Oriental Dance as Art or Entertainment?" I would have to say "both" to that and I think there is often a lot of overlap between art and entertainment.

Just speculating here but it seems to me that there is more of an implication of formal principles with art, separate and apart from its entertainment value. Also art is not always entertaining. Some art is very difficult and puts all but those most dedicated to the form off. I'm thinking of say certain modern painters or 12-tone composers, whose work is difficult to fully appreciate without a lot of training. As a result I would call it less entertaining.

Are there Oriental dancers whose work is "difficult"? Well, I would say there are dancers who are more and less complex, more focussed on structure, nuance, and technique and those who are focussed more on flash and showmanship. Nothing wrong with that--it is very fun and entertaining. The "art" dancers may be just as pleasing to the general public--but are they "getting" everything the same way other dancers do?

Maybe it's a partly highbrow/lowbrow thing. Do the people who look on it as "art" tend to eschew showmanship for its own sake? Say, integrating circus tricks or trendy new props or novelty costuming into performance? Do they tend to be more purists? Whereas people who view what they do as entertainment or show biz--do they tend to have a more "whatever pleases the crowd" attitude, and therefore are they more willing to --fuse or confuse? Blur the lines between their form and other forms?

Is the ultimate goal to be all things to all audiences? That is, both a formal purist dancer's dancer AND rousing entertainment for the general public? Would this even be possible?

Also of course the lines get blurred because people refer to things as art that others might not consider suitable for the term ....say "circus arts" or "the art of love."

Hey, and what about "craft?" Where does that fit in?

Cathy
 
Last edited:

karena

New member
Art to me has to involve thought provocation of some sort, and it has to be dynamic and of its time. I am speaking in general terms, not just about bellydance.
 

Caroline_afifi

New member
I know this is a tough one as I have been chewing over this one for a few weeks.
I have to try and produce some form of a statement for the Arab Arts festiva conference, as often the dance element is looked down upon in certain arts quarters.

I have to specifically discuss why Middle Eastern dance is an art form and not just an aspect of cultural entertainment. It is very important for this to be concise and I cant think of a better place than this forum to get these answers.

Thank you both for your contribution.
 

karena

New member
I just did a British Library journal search and came up with nothing.:think: I thought it might be something that has been discussed in that arena. There must be something but the search terms are maybe not that straightforward.

Btw am looking forward to the Arabic Arts Festival.:dance:

To me, there is lots of MED that isn't art, it is just entertainment. Like any other dance form has both sides. But then really it's just coming down to semantics, but then imo everything does in the end. Good luck with it.
 

adiemus

New member
I really dislike this sort of pedantic debate...as if somehow things that are 'Art' are better than things that merely 'entertain'. Note the capital letters!
I would venture to say that this distinction has developed as a result of increasing wealth in a society meaning that there are some people who can pay for others to produce 'Art' that is not entertaining but instead 'provokes'.
Aspects of culture that can't be recorded for posterity (unlike painting, sculpture) seem to be less recognised as 'Art', while things that are also used in every day life such as woven items, pottery, jewellery, these seem to also live under the cloud of 'craft'.
To me it's snobbery - things that are appreciated by fewer people are 'exclusive' and it must therefore be 'Art', things that most people enjoy are nonexclusive, therefore are 'cultural' or 'craft' or lowbrow. ggggrrrr!
Ask a silversmith or a potter or a dancer or a guitar player - any one of these people who have spent time practicing their skills will tell you they work just as hard to produce their work as the 'artist' who paints, draws, or the author who writes 'literature'.
 

Caroline_afifi

New member
Wikepedia Quote
Traditionally the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery, a concept which altered during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[1] Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art. Art is also able to illustrate abstract thought and its expressions can elicit previously hidden emotions in its audience.

This is the best definition I could find. Culturally it has become something of a high brow definition used to exclude certains aspects of entertainment.
 

Caroline_afifi

New member
I have just had another thought I wanted to share about these forums and what I enjoy about them.
I have only been on these boards since march this year. I was doing some research and a friend kept saying 'well on bhuz this was said..and on Orientaldancer.net they said that...' so I thought I would take a look and see what kind of things people are discussing.
I was impressed by the level of discussion as I had always judged it differently without actually knowing much about it.
There is a freedom here to explore and express and sometimes it is uncomfortable but most learning often is.

When I teach a workshop or present a seminar etc. I find that people very rarely disagree or argue with anything I say, they jsut ask a few questions.
In hindsight it is quite worrying because it means people dont challenge teachers enough. Just like school, the teacher has the last say and anyone who pushes it maybe seen as a trouble causer and one to watch. Speaking out in a group can be scary.
I am not saying it is like this all the time and I dont teach weekly classes so I dont know. I have a few friends whom I trust their knowledge to have a good debate with but here i can get to talk to a great deal of people and get a much wider perspective.
It was years before I was able to contradict or disagree with my teacher without feeling l was not going to be expelled from class. We are great friends now and we have a bond and trust.


Perhaps this is what is meant by stardom? dont question me or criticsize me cos i am a SUPERSTAR.
B******* to that! I hate hierarchy.
once a rebel always a rebel.
 

Suheir

New member
IWhen I teach a workshop or present a seminar etc. I find that people very rarely disagree or argue with anything I say, they jsut ask a few questions.
In hindsight it is quite worrying because it means people dont challenge teachers enough. Just like school, the teacher has the last say and anyone who pushes it maybe seen as a trouble causer and one to watch. Speaking out in a group can be scary.
You are right, Caroline, people *don't* challenge teachers enough. Indeed, some teachers conduct their classes in such a way as to discourage any questions, obviously a sign of teachers whose knowledge is lacking. I love asking questions, but, as you say, a lot of the time people seem too scared to say anything to teachers. I've had people say to me after workshops when I've asked the teacher a question "I wanted to ask that but I didn't like to!" Why? Why are so many students so reluctant to say what they want to?

One thing that really bugs me is when workshop teachers roll their heads all the way round to the back in their warm-ups - we all know that we shouldn't do that, it could be dangerous, but I see our "experienced" and "respected" teachers in the workshops following along and doing it. I'm not going to say to the workshop teacher "You shouldn't be teaching that" but I sure as hell am not going to do it myself! It seems that students are all too ready to go along with whatever teacher says or does, no matter how dangerous or ridiculous, despite their common sense telling them otherwise.
 

gisela

Super Moderator
I don't believe in labeling a whole genre as art or entertainment. IMO we have or learn some tools or different languages like dance, writing, music etc and it's what we choose to do with that that decides if it's art or not, and of course it varies from person to person. F ex I do ceramics. When I make a bowl which is meant to be used and has no other history in it other than it's a bowl and you use it for eating something, then I'm in NO WAY ever going to say that's art. The next second I can swith to making a sculpture in which I try to express something and create a mood in the viewer. The I have NO PROBLEM calling it art. Same person, same material, same process, same education, different purpose.

It would be the same way of thinking in bellydance for me. I just have to translate it into ceramics to understand my own point:) haha

I don't feel the snobbery. I think Art is the most wonderful thing ever and I am sad that some people are afraid of it.
 
Last edited:

jenc

New member
What about Bernard Leach and Lucy? Rie. Beautifully functional pottery. Not that anyone would dare use it at that price?
 

gisela

Super Moderator
I would consider that craft. These are very undefined terms though there have been attempts at defining them academically. It comes out highly individual though. It is also in the semantics. Of course it's an art to master those skills but that doesn't make it fine arts. I don't necessarily see a quality difference.
 

karena

New member
I have heard in the past that the art/craft distinction is rooted in the relative importance on male/female activity. The former was male dominated, the latter for the female. Therefore one was more respected that the other.

I don't think art is better than entertainment. There is alot of self-serving, egotistic art. And I too wish people wouldn't be scared of art, there's alot on emperor's new clothes surrounding it. I don't want to be provoked or see new ground broken all the time. And I don't think money is the driver. There are lots of romantic landscapes etc churned out now that sell. To me they are not art (had they been produced during the romantic movement maybe they would had have been), but there are lots of people plugging away doing non commerical stuff and getting nothing back. There are the big winners, who get bought up by Saatchi and Saatchi but they are a tiny minority.

And I ask questions. Loads of them. I often have to stop myself when the rest of the group start to sigh ;). But, I won't belittle a teacher through them. So I won't keep on digging if I don't get the answer I want. Or if I think they are wrong, I don't point it out in front of a class. To me, that is inappropriate. We are all just people with views. I go away, do my own research and form my own opinions. But then to me, everything is just an opinion anyway; I don't get hung up on the whole 'fact' thing - there aren't any.

And you'll be pleased to hear no-one has asked me to roll my head back since about 1985. Must be a southern thing ;):lol:
 

Caroline_afifi

New member
My other little ranting post should have been in the thread related to Neon's article really. It was a litle out of place here sorry.

I am not trying to start a debate as such and get pedantic.

This is a real issue in order to defend the dance as a form of Art, which of course I can do, but others here often say things better than I mean and offer something very profound.
I cant go into details but another country who is the Arab captal of Culture for this year (did you know there was one?) sent an ambassador to meet us and she was not impressed with dance as part of the programme. I would like to give more but just cant at this moment in time, sorry.

The other thing, the Arts Council of England very rarely give any money to groups/artists who do not have 'enough' Middle Eastern people participating.
 

karena

New member
There is something I read recently about the struggle to get dance accepted as on par with the other arts. I really can't remember where I read it. It might have been here, it might I have even been you Caroline. I am racking my brains... But that will have been dance in the West I think. It may not translate to the East.

And did you know there are 2 European capitals of culture. I'm sure you did, but I only found that out recently.
 

Caroline_afifi

New member
Ballet is seen as a 'high art' or 'fine Art' etc. perhaps this title is to do with suffering? the class of the audience? who knows?
I think the title is riddle with class bias but art is moving and we have the likes of Banksy (graffiti artist) on the high ranks now and that is great.

In the UK, we have a trend in 'working class' art and museums etc. it is of course something that people have fought for and rightly so, but colloquial accents and dialects are also known for good selling and money making too.

Traditional arts are pretty much accepted etc. the problem is the fact that most people whom practice this dance world wide are not from the Middle East and I come up against this time and time again.

I have explained the cultural and religous contexts of course and I am not personally prepared to have a dancer of Arab Heritage who is a bad dancer over the likes of someone else from elsewhere is a fine practitioner from the field. Arts councils are more likely to fund the former as opposed to the latter.
So art in some places is connected to peoples and culture from which it is born.

It is hugely complex, especially when you have to discuss the image. Did you know anything that sparkles is not art?

Look at the clothes people wear when they attempt to elevate the status of this dance etc. look at the divisions which have arisen even within the dance community itself. I am interested in the AM CAB situation and especially on hearing that it was a label given to a certain aspect of the dance in an attempt to put it down. If this was the case then why do people use it?
Is it like gay people calling themself queer?

I would love to know what the rest of the world is like in relation to this subject.
 

deelybopper

New member
Wow! Saw this thread yesterday, went away to ponder, and look at all the replies! I've been wanting to write an article on this very subject for a long time, but every time I start I get so overwhelmed by my head;) I don't seem to be able to get anywhere (hope that makes sense!)

I don't know if I can add anything to what's already been said. I, personally, have trouble distinguishing art from entertainment, mainly because I don't see a huge amount of distinction in the process that the performer/artist has to go through.

Warning: rambling ahead;)

I sometimes (in my more cynical moments;)) think there's a tendency to label anything that's visually slick, symmetrical, 'traditional' in presentations, done by conventionally attractive people and enjoyed by the majority of people 'entertainment'. Anything that is 'difficult' or requires a lifetime in higher education to understand, occurs in small, specialist venues, only enjoyed by a minority, 'art'. So, the end-product (whether art or entertainment) is a combination of the artist's intention, reception by an audience and the context in which it is presented. I think it is the latter two that tend to have most influence over whether something is labelled 'art' or not. And I think the key to whether something is labelled 'entertainment' or not is how popular it is (more popular=more entertainment-like). And somehow these distinctions have filtered into society generally and in an unspoken way, and it's not always easy to articulate your discomfort with the distinction...

Anyway - back to bellydance/Arabic dance/Middle Eastern dance. Yes...it is a form of cultural entertainment. But that doesn't exclude it from being art. Flamenco and Bharata Natyam are forms of cultural entertainment that are now considered 'art' in the UK dance world. I think this is because a) flamenco is European, b) Bharata Natyam is a codified dance. Middle Eastern dance is neither. I think the people at ACE are still overly influenced by Orientalist views of what dance in the Middle East might be. I also think they aren't impressed by the fact that the majority of practitioners appear not to be Middle Eastern in origin. I have had some contact with ACE, and I can tell you, they pretty much consider this dance to be ENTERTAINMENT. One of the other things that I think spooks the powers that be about our dance is that is most often presented 'up close' - this is threatening to people who prefer their art 'out there' on a stage. (Must go and take me anti-cynicism pill after this post;))

Part of me wants to ask - why should we justify what we are doing as art? Why should we even be in that position - let's just reject the question and get on with doing what we do. On the other hand, sometimes it would be great to be able to make that justification...so here's some more thoughts about how we might be able to link Middle Eastern dance to art:

- Some forms / developments / variations of Middle Eastern dance carry no narrative, but are abstract explorations of pattern, shape and movement. Like those forms of Islamic art/architecture that use geometric patterns (think ceiling of Alhambra)

- Some forms / developments / variations of Middle Eastern dance do carry narrative (when a dancer captures and presents the emotional content of a song through their dance) - this is what a lot of established art forms, e.g., ballet, novels, films, also do.

- Wearable art - many dancers also become a canvas for their own or others, wearable art, whilst dancing (ok, tenuous I know;))

- Improvised dance performances (e.g., in restaurants) are SITE SPECIFIC ART - the dancer responds to the musicians/music, the nature and makeup of the audience, the audience's understanding of the material presented, the physical layout of the venue, within their dance vocabulary and at that particular time and place.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm running out of steam, hope that helped;)
 

deelybopper

New member
We were posting at the same time!

The problem is the fact that most people whom practice this dance world wide are not from the Middle East and I come up against this time and time again...<sniiip>...Arts councils are more likely to fund the former as opposed to the latter.
So art in some places is connected to peoples and culture from which it is born.
So true - especially with regard to ACE.

Did you know anything that sparkles is not art?
Unless it's Damian Hirst's diamond encrusted skull of course:lol: On the other hand, anything that sparkles against a dancer's body is of course the realm of entertainment. Clearly not art.;)

And, yes, I think it's very much a class issue (looks for revolutionary smiley ;) )
 

Suheir

New member
I'm possibly in a minority in believing that *all* entertainment is art. Even the trashiest TV programme requires set designers, wardrobe, director. Circus clowns design their own make-up and costumes. The blandest pop music still requires a creator, even if that creator was a computer program!

What is art? The messy blobs a two-year-old makes with paint are art. The way you arrange your dinner on the plate is art. Many craftspeople are determined that the functional objects they produce are also aesthetically pleasing. The arrangement of the web page you're looking at is art!
 

Caroline_afifi

New member
I'm possibly in a minority in believing that *all* entertainment is art. Even the trashiest TV programme requires set designers, wardrobe, director. Circus clowns design their own make-up and costumes. The blandest pop music still requires a creator, even if that creator was a computer program!

What is art? The messy blobs a two-year-old makes with paint are art. The way you arrange your dinner on the plate is art. Many craftspeople are determined that the functional objects they produce are also aesthetically pleasing. The arrangement of the web page you're looking at is art!

My sentiments exactly.

Hi DeelyBopper!

Your post was great and I can see you have are experiencing the same mental merry-go-round as me!
The reason for battling this issue for me is to have an aspect of belly dance which is not just commercially driven. Yes we still buy tickets for shows etc. but to produce quality like any other art we need financial support. I have til now funded everything out of my pocket for the love of it. I only applied for ACE once as an individual to be told not enough Middle Eastern people were in it. it was a 60/40 ratio.

As the Arab Arts Festival we get funding for all aspects of the programme.
It is a bit like the football debate sport or Business? the supporters view it as a sport but it is definately organised as a business.
The bellydance dollar/pound must be worth Billions worldwide and this was going to be one of my projects to investigate although it actually seems impossible.

I believe art should not be exclusive but you need a healthy disposable income to be able to afford lessons, tickets,training, festivals, costumes, music etc etc.

Validating the dance as an art should give us financial help to make it more accessible and make arts for all.

I saw a lovely talented little dancer last week. I was told her mum was not able to afford for her to go to workshops or buy nice costumes. I can understand that but it is sad.
 
Top