>All art must be entertaining and sell well
Where does this mindset come from?
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
>All art must be entertaining and sell well
>All art must be entertaining and sell well
Where does this mindset come from?
|
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
You can thank capitalism for this beautiful mindset!
It's been like this for literally thousands of years brainlet. All of the most iconic pieces of art in human history were made on commission
You know that commissions exist outside of capitalism right?
Probably doesn't, anything involving money has to involve capitalism right?
>commissions
>outside capitalism
You mean that the state sends you an order to draw Lenin on a wall?
The point that your moronic delusion of art for the sake of art has never existed. Almost all art was made for money, almost all artists worked specifically for money. Da Vinci painted to pay the bills, his true passions was science and onventing
>Motumbo of the ancient wanabi tribe made clay pots so he could sell them!
>Ugg Thugg made cave paintings as a retirement investment!
You are stupid.
Thugg made cave painting to show woman with big ass and lion head is hot, Ogg bragged about hunting ox with his big spear
Caveman were entertained by fat lion woman and ox hunt story, modern art is like a hunt story without ox and Ogg is instead sad about things and doesn't even get to use his spear, 0/10 not enough dead ox, caveman is not entertained
>Thugg made cave painting to show woman with big ass and lion head is hot
The more things change the more things stay the same
All human action is meaningless because it's just done as a means to survive.
I really mean it when I say you're a moron.
>All of the most iconic pieces of art in human history were made on commission
Commission doesn't have anything to do with capitalism, neither does general trade/bartering. Pretending a shitty piece is worth millions is capitalism.
This seems to be correct. I live in a formerly socialist country and, while there is a lot of low-brow consumer entertainment being made nowadays, in movie discussion you can still occasionally see an echo of a time when art was viewed way differently and when entertainment was not necessarily a virtue within of itself. A mindset where being genuine and introspective is sometimes seen as more important than being entertaining. Where a movie taking the viewer out of their comfort zone is seen as something profound and respectable, rather than "pathetic" because it "failed to entertain the viewer".
Naturally, there are other problems that arise under this landscape, like having to abide by the state's censorship, but I've already said this: most of the time, the state is a more lenient judge than the consumer.
>A mindset where being genuine and introspective is sometimes seen as more important than being entertaining.
Anon... that's still entertainment...
>Attempting to falsely equivocate entertainment with everything because they don't want to lose the argument.
Kek.
It's not our fault that modern-day has pigeon-holed the definitions of words to a degree that you don't even know what "entertainment" actually means anymore, anon.
Now that is some nice projection.
Anon, if you just say
>"PRUHJECSHUN"
without even a hint at an explanation, it just makes you look like you're deflecting valid criticism.
Can you mungs all read
Then shut the frick up
>read my reddit post ma!
Skinner would be severely disappointed in your linguistic failings, young man.
Last word You fricking moron.
>Pigeonholes the definition of entertainment to apply it to literally anything
>Claims I'm doing this
>No totally not projection
the definition of entertainment to apply it to literally anything
First off, that's not even a correct usage for the term "pigeon-hole," given that you're saying I'm making it more broad instead of more specific, but let's just ignore that little hint that you don't understand the English language.
You can listen in, too, tardo
To be entertained by something is to be engaged by it. That's all. All art seeks this in some capacity or another; all art seeks some form of engagement.
>Listen, I am using this specific definition of entertainment, a different one than the one you are using!
We know.
Catch up.
It's not a specific definition, it's the original broad definition. That's why I'm saying you're being influenced by a pigeon-holing of ideas; words have very rigid definitions to you.
>I'm entertaining the idea of going to the movies...
>Entertain the guests, won't you?
This is how the word entertain was originally, broadly used. Engagement.
>I do not understand the concept of a word having multiple definitions that are not interchangeable
>I do not understand the concept of intent behind language or operational definitions
Ok.
Anon, explain how the definitions are different, then. Because entertainment is literally just being engaged by something.
>engaged
I would say "stimulated" instead. All art is entertainment, but not all entertainment is art. Art that doesn't stimulate anyone, can't be called such.
>Explain how they are different
Easy: they're not the same
Entertain
1: provide (someone) with amusement or enjoyment.
2: give attention or consideration to (an idea, suggestion, or feeling).
See how there's two definitions that are independent ideas? They're even numbered for you, and there's two! As in not one! As in not the same!
See, words can have multiple meanings. If I say "that dish is a chocolate bomb," I do not necessarily mean it is an explosive device. Do you get it yet?
Yeah, you're really proving how unrigid your mindset is that you think those two are unrelated concepts, anon.
They are unrelated except in that they are both definitions of "entertain."
Did you know some definitions in English align with totally different words in other languages? And some different English words have both of their definitions encompassed by just one word in other languages!
Gee, it's almost like language exists to communicate ideas, and the ideas are more important than the specific words used to express them! What a concept!
>Gee, it's almost like language exists to communicate ideas
It's not doing it's job, apparently
>They are unrelated except in that they are both definitions of "entertain."
No, in that definition you posted, they are both about somebody's attention being taken; they are engaged by something.
You keep digging this hole deeper by insisting that they are different. You're proving my pigeon-hole comment right.
>No, they are the same!
They are literally numbered for you.
>doesn't argue logic
>"they numbered differently, can't be same!"
Resorting to mindlessness to try and win an argument is never a good sign for whatever you're actually trying to prove right.
They're different concepts and definitions moron. How many ways do we have to spell this out? You're just suffering from a very enraged cognitive dissonance.
Both stem from the same concept. Having guests in your house for fun or business. Having an idea in your mind for fun or business. They aren't different incompatible actions.
>Both stem from the same concept
Even were that the case, by your own admission they are discrete.
But does a technical difference prove your point?
Yes.
Just because you're unwilling to acknowledge the difference doesn't mean there isn't one.
You're losing my attention with these shitposts, if you wee more entertaining I'd probably pay more attention to you and what you have to say.
The fact that the only thing you and other people in this thread can respond with is blind anger shows how much you don't want to listen to it.
>The fact that the only thing you and other people in this thread can respond with is blind anger
>meanwhile ignoring a prior post that isn't a response of blind anger
really bringing out that victim complex, eh?
How are engagement and entertainment the same thing?
refer to
"Engagement" is functionally a synonym for one definition of "entertainment," but not the one you're using
Jesus Christ it's like I'm talking to special needs 4th graders
I AM talking to special needs 4th graders
>most of the time, the state is a more lenient judge than the consumer.
A painter got into trouble because he painted a mountain that doesn't exist anymore.
When people are complaining about Capitalism in this thread, it is basically complaining people don't have infinite freetime and have mortal bodies that need food created by labor.
>infinite free time
>no need to work to meet your basic needs
You gotta admit that it's a pretty damn good end goal. Obviously people would be seething that they haven't reached a state where they've utterly bested the survival rat race.
Shit, our ancestors would kill to live our current, comparatively more comfy lives. And, assuming that future generations create a more utopian and comfier future, we'd kill to live their lives.
We humans want the next best thing.
>You gotta admit that it's a pretty damn good end goal.
The problem is that it isn't reality so people should stop acting like it is. Even if we get a Star Trek level replicator tech, people have limited time to spend. Even if you give people immortality, some people want things earlier than others.
Cringe
It's revolting, really. Art is no longer about expressing oneself, or telling a tale, but making sure you check all the items on a set checklist so that the product becomes more profitable. It's one of the things that disgust me most.
I'm with on this one. The massive, exxagerated growth of capitalism and it's ideals are ruining society. It has it's pros, but when you let profit be the only objective of a society, things tend to go south. There are no more ideals, there are no more standards, everything can change in the blink of an eye if it'll increase the proifits by even the slightest margin.
Worst part is, it's getting worse and worse. People are getting used to that lifestyle, and everything is being shaped in those norms.
Nobody is stopping you from making whatever fricking "art" you want your sour grapes homosexual, they just don't want to pay for your neet lifestyle.
You sound like a talentless hack who's bitter about it.
I'm not involved in creative work, but i did grow watching my favorite pieces of whatever work of fiction i like. It is sad to see people taking something classic and disregarding everything about the original work, just so they can try and max out the profits. They often fail miserably, because they do not understand what made the original work great in the first place, and people notice the product is simply not good.
also eat shit and choke on it ya homosexual, go suck on hollywood's dick, mindless drone. Let's see in a few years when they destroy what you like, too... though in your case, it's probably shit.
>Art is no longer about expressing oneself, or telling a tale, but making sure you check all the items on a set checklist so that the product becomes more profitable. It's one of the things that disgust me most.
Please tell me you've been angry about this for decades instead of some moron who thinks comics and cartoons suddenly become marketed products with target demographics.
No,this could be noticed many years ago, but it's much more evident nowadays.
CN has house rules about characters pedaling products of themselves, they're less marketing driven than shows in the 80s which were meant to launch toy lines. You don't know what you're talking about.
Who the frick is even talking about CN? I'm talking about media in general.
I'm giving a specific example and giving historical context while you just talk about how you feel.
>Where does this mindset come from?
Capitalism
Fpbp
Please don't say capitalism, just call it "globohomo" please I don't want to side with blue haired dykes just let me blame the israelites and make the problem racial. I don't want to recognize that the system is a race to the bottom while people find new ways to make everyone poorer.
Go back
>entertainment shouldn't have to be entertaining
Well, there's some truth to that.
How am I suppose to know what's entertaining if nothing bad existed?
Entertainment isn't art.
Can art be entertainment?
No. That goes against the entire point of art.
so if i find """"""art""""" entertaining then its no longer art right?
If it's impossible to be entertained by art then why spend leisure time indulging in it?
Self betterment moron
Didn't work for you, you're an idiot.
What art are you talking about, anyway? I'd like some real examples of art that made you a better person, moron. And they better not be entertaining.
Self betterment, learning more about the world, seeing different points of view.
your definition of "art" is arbitrary and pretentious.
Pretentious refers to something trying to impress by affecting greater importance than it has. By definition all entertainment, MCU schlock movies etc are pretentious. Enjoy them, but they aren’t artistically poignant or new. They offer no new examination of culture, film, comics, or humanity.
>Pretentious refers to something trying to impress by affecting greater importance than it has.
Yes, which is exactly what you're doing with the word "art".
Glad we agree.
>He's now having to dodge
My definition of art is poignant. Why is it wrong to have a definition for what art is?
>Why is it wrong to have a definition for what art is?
I never said that. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?
The definition of art is simply much more broad than you're making it out to be. You think there needs to be some sort of "intellectual qualifier" for it to be considered art; that's simply a matter of how you prefer your art.
if you want me to expand on this, what I mean is that art is about infecting another human with human experience he does not possess, not monkey brain stimuli aimed at extorting a reaction out of him. The main property of art is that it is additive and enriching, rather than something that drains and enslaves. The vast majority of art made today is not enriching at all, it's a sugar rush. It does not built into anything.
>what I mean is that art is about infecting another human with human experience he does not possess
See, even this definition is already too pidgeon-holed. There are many abstract paintings that don't serve to give a "new experience," but impart or invoke a "feeling"; a "feeling" which very well may be different for each individual who views it. That feeling doesn't have to be new--in fact, it might be very old and nearly forgotten.
>The main property of art is that it as additive and enriching
Glad you also ignored that caveat.
Why should I have kept reading when you already fricked up and made the definition too narrow?
So you admit that you didn't read the full thing and instead sperged out before even finishing?
No, I admit that I stopped reading after you fricked over the definition by making it too narrow.
Not my fault you missed the point so hard. Next time try reading better instead of sperging .
>missed the point
Anon, you cannot backtrack your way out of making a definition too narrow. Christ, are you really so spineless that you can't own up to a single fricking mistake?
Your mistake wasn't reading the entire post I made.
The thing you said later wasn't even a qualifier for the mistake you made, so reading the whole thing wouldn't have corrected it. You still would have been wrong.
Just let it go.
>>He's now having to dodge
>He says while ignoring posts that disagree with him
Nice bait, but only because the people you're acting like are real. I get the pretentious act riles people up something fierce, but you're showing your hand a little too hard. Do better.
They don't mean the same thing, but art absolutely can and usually is entertainment. Like it or not Shakespear, they're two sides of the same coin. Art is about expressing yourself, entertainment is getting people to listen and effectively understand what you're saying. Keeping someone entertained is an art in itself.
Why would we give a frick what some addict writer says? That's just his opinion, and it's as juvenile and pretentious as yours.
Do you have anything besides adhoms and tantruming like a 2 year old?
You're the one malding and shoving your fingers in your ears while all the other anons try to explain why you're just being an autist.
So you have no point then?
Incorrect.
Inio Asano is a shitdick.
>Inio Asano is a shitdick.
Absolutely, but if you take "Downfall" at face value (i.e. not as the "lol le ironic self-deprecation" that he intended), he's pretty accurate in his criticism of both authors and the publishing industry.
Which is wild, because he's high profile and well respected enough to get away with just doing a "this industry fricking sucks and everyone in it eventually becomes a piece of shit" book straight.
Engagement is entertainment.
This is just another stupid argument over “fun” which gets too narrowly defined as if fun only means stuff that’s cheerful
How are they the same thing?
How is what the same thing? Engagement and entertainment? How are they not? If something is engaging that means it’s interesting. And if stuff is interesting that means it’s entertaining.
Engagement makes you think, reflect and come to conclusions. Entertainment does not do this.
If it is a distraction from your normal life, it then also becomes entertainment. You are describing both. This isn't hard.
Entertainment makes you think as well, because human brain could not be entertained if it's not thinking. Entertainment without engagement is impossible, and engagement is inherently entertaining. Whether you laugh or cry, you are entertained when you're engaged, and you're engaged when you're entertained.
People consider mindless entertainment entertaining, so what you're saying is simply not correct. Whatever pedantry game you have to play to help you sleep at night, isn't going to work.
Your definition of "mindless" is an attempt to separate high art (aka whatever you like) from low-brow art (aka whatever the plebs like). But that's an exercise in futility, in the end you're just arguing about tastes.
You're not very smart. You can only say that about purely physical reaction types of entertainment such as roller coasters. All mentally engaging entertainment also makes you do those things, that's why it's entertaining. Even sports makes you think.
>Mentally engaging
>Sports
You're not very good at arguing, are you?
Ah yes, notice how there is no strategy involved in sports. Physically stronger competitor win 100% of the time. That is why no one ever bets on the outcome of matches.
That's like saying betting on horse races is mentally engaging. It's stimulating, but you don't actually have to think about/deduce much.
LOL, sure if you want to lose your money like a complete moron. Might as well gamble it away on coin-flips. People who (fairly) win betting on horse racing review a shit-ton of stats to do so.
>LOL, sure if you want to lose your money like a complete moron.
Well, we were talking about horse-racing and gambling, after all...
Are you too dumb to understand that if you're not interested in something and think it's a dumb pastime, it doesn't make it so? Any art or pastime can be brain-dead for you if you actively keep yourself from thinking while engaging in it. That doesn't make them all objectively brain-dead.
Hi kids!
This is called "conflation!"
Conflation is where you improperly interchange a word's definition! For example: if someone says "why does art have to be entertaining," using the definition "meant to amuse" and someone else argues back that "the purpose of art is to entertain" using the definition "engage one's interest," well you've found yourself a conflation!
Fricking learn how goddamn languages work instead of making literally pointless arguments you illiterate clowns!
>Hi kids!
Shouldn't fall back on dating techniques anon, they don't work well for internet arguments.
>No, I insist on arguing with someone despite us talking past one another about entirely different things!
That's nice, moron. Could you put a name or trip on so those of us with an IQ above room temp can ignore you?
Your post is interesting and amusing. It entertains me
That was its aim: to entertain, to engage, and to inform.
It meets both definitions of entertainment
But be careful, not all things meet both definitions! While anything that aims to amuse must also aim to engage, anything that engages mustn't necessarily aim to amuse.
But engagement is inherently amusing.
Not at all
Plenty of things provoke engagement with also provoking laughter or mirth.
redditor moment
It's very apparent, the whining about capitalism, the pretentiousness, the smugness. Maybe he heard /qa/ got banned and thought it was safe to come back?
Then pick a better word that can’t be misinterpreted
trash tv and tiktok videos are entertainment, but are they really engaging intellectually?
This. They're trying to categorize entertainment with everything to give their own disposable pulp shit some legitimacy.
Engagement makes you think and reflect. Entertainment does not do this.
>Engagement makes you think and reflect.
When have you ever done either of those things?
>Adhoms because he can't refute the point
Lol
>lol
I can smell your bullshit through the screen. Keep seething.
BASED dfw dabbing over artlets even in his afterlife
This is a good opinion; bullshit games aren't art. It can be both though, like parts of a game or scenes in a movie.
I'm not paying credence to an inspirational quote from a man who offed himself. Spoken like a man who knew nothing of Herodotus.
I found Apocalypse Now to be very entertaining, so would that no longer be art then?
Yep, sorry. The moment one person is entertained by art, that art is no longer art. Sorry, thank capitalism.
>t. OP and that other homosexual you quoted.
Here's a better quote.
I don't get it. Isn't being cynical also something that's "really" human? Otherwise we, human beings, wouldn't ever feel cynical.
These philosophers trying to analyze human feelings don't make a lick of sense.
It's a coping mechanism and a shield. If you cynically dismiss everything, you don't have to express anything genuine because you won't recognize anything genuine. It's human, but not "really" human, as in it's not really genuine.
Also many cynics are kind of dumb and naive, afraid to say "I don't know". They often try to convince you that nothing surprises them.
It's like how when you see a commercial that express something that genuinely connects with you, you'll never admit it. You'll even reflexively push against it, no matter how genuine or true the message. As an adult you know the motive is to get you to buy something through getting you to feel something, so no matter how well worded, familiar, or nostalgic you won't let it make you feel anything but annoyed. You don't want to admit that seeing that 50 something hugging their elderly parent reminds you of the time your losing with the precious few people who genuinely care about you or maybe you genuinely care for. Of course that's the feeling; they're selling life insurance. But that's still the feeling and this is still the time you're losing. To be dumb, soft, vulnerable enough to let something that shallow effect you is to be really human.
Who cares? entertainment is better than art
good art is entertaining by default
good entertainment isn't even good by default
art is for homosexuals
Why do you talk like a punchable homosexual? If it's good entertainment it's good, otherwise it wouldn't be good entertainment. It sounds like you just have shit taste.
moron.
Ye kinda make sense
>music is not art
>the david is not art
Art ≠ entertainment
Brainlets who hate being challenged and left out of their comfort zone. You are why Michael Bay movies exist.
>inb4 Michael Bay movies aren't even bad
Bay movies are bad and sure we're at fault, but entertaining movies should exist
I don't wanna watch boring arthouse movies where people chant and yell in colorless picture with weird editing
You know there's a large zone between Michael bay and self flagellating art house right?
spbp. i like how this is something people have to waste energy arguing over kek
should it be entertaining as in interesting or "entertaining" as in some moron marketer speak
because they defiantly mean 2 different things
Society, unironically.
Entertainment doesn't have to be entertaining to sell. It just has to reach enough eyes to where they'll come back for more.
The reason so much entertainment is shit nowadays is purely because it has become too big of an industry to fail. Entertainment used to be optional, now it is mandatory to the point where you're required to participate in it to live a relatively normal life via social media and the internet.
This goes from smartphones which are a requirement that also connect you to consumable entertainment, to blockbuster movies you're expected to watch to connect to your fellow man. All of it has become so ingrained as to be impossible to topple, thus meaning entertainment is actually secondary to its purpose.
I legitimately don't think you understand what entertaining means.
this thread is nothing but an issue with semantics
"entertaining" means a lot of different things to different people since its a subjective term
to some people a story that has a sad ending isn't entertaining and shouldn't be made
Bingo. Which is my point here:
What people find entertaining is heavily influenced and most of it lives or dies based on trends. But trends can't tell any single person what they like. What sells the most cannot tell any random person what they should find entertaining.
Most stuff made wouldn't be entertaining to most people if it weren't for a vast network of marketing and business ensuring its success by simply saturating people with it. .
people on the other side seem to think wanting to not be "entertaining" means they specifically want to make stupid art house shit
This is rarely the case, capable artists want to make good stories, and capable artists should be allowed to create and not be held back on "whats entertaining" for "general audiences"
Remember the cult classic "The Thing" it was critically panned because apparently it wasn't "entertaining"
It was critically panned because the people reviewing it didn't find it entertaining, and it's considered a classic because modern audiences do think it was entertaining. Being entertaining is not an objective qualifier you autistic moron, it's entirely subjective and wildly different from person to person.
thats the fricking problem moron
the people reviewing it thought it wasn't "entertaining" and were so stuck in their ways that they thought XYZ is what makes something entertaining. Those reviewers influenced people to not give the movie a chance.
and the worst thing that could happen is that it could have also influenced movie producers to not make more movies like it
It took years before The Thing could find it's audience all because people were obsessed with their idea of "entertaining"
Entertaining doesn't mean if you like it, it means what will "sell"
John Carpenter at the very least could move on to make more films
But I wonder how many upstart directors and writers couldn't get their careers going because they didn't want to make what the studio considered "entertaining"
It seems these days creators are given even less artistic freedom and can only make "entertaining" stuff
Entertaining doesn't mean if it appeals to you, it means if its marketable
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=entertaining+definition
its already been established that the argument in this thread is based on an issue of semantics
it is possible for words to mean something else when given a certain context. Its clear that OP doesn't mean the literal definition of "entertaining". Notice how every time I'm saying "entertaining" i'm putting it in quotes. You gotta stop being a fricking autistic shithead you ESL Black person
Black person you're literally just moving goalposts. It was a moronic question asked by a moron and being kept alive by morons who think they have a point because they're "arguing semantics". Art needs to be entertaining IF the artist's goal is to profit from their art. Art needs to be profitable IF the artist wants to be able to survive without alternative income. That's it, that's the whole conversation.
Your point is stupid and you're stupid for thinking it's a point worth making, because what little you're saying that holds any merit is such basic shit that a toddler can extrapolate it intuitively so stating it over and over again like you've said something insightful is fricking moronic.
You're the one who's too dense to understand basic semantics.
You're literally incapable of joining the argument if you don't even understand that.
I even make it easy for your dumbass by using quotation marks.
But if you actually only care about profitable art over good art then why are you even on this board
It has absolutely nothing to do with what I care about. I don't give a frick if art is profitable if I'm not the one making it, the question was where does the idea come from and the answer is from people wanting to make art for a living. What more is there to discuss? It's not my fault nobody wants to buy your 8 hour walking simulator you made in unity to symbolize your struggle with wanting to chop your penis off.
How much money have you donated to Ninja to say your name today?
I don't understand whatever zoomer reference you're trying to make, but your inverted penis is still not a vegana.
>Ackshually I'm not moronic because I'm using the word wrong on purpose
So the problem wasn't that the movie needed to be entertaining (since that was literally the goal of the film) it's that the movie was unsuccessful because reviewers are morons.
I don't understand what point you think you're making Pedro
A well-written story is entertaining by default
A story doesn't need to try to be "entertaining"
If it tries to be "entertaining" it's already failing because its a less bold story. When it tries to be "entertaining" its being forced to be palatable by moronic audiences. That's the fricking problem when things are forced to be "entertaining". If you think general audiences are any smarter now then you're a moron. People are even less open to new stories these days.
Entertaining doesn't mean if it appeals to you, it means if its marketable
This post is a fricking joke. How the frick you got to the conclusion that "entertaining = trend chasing"? The reception of the emoji movie proves you wrong
>Entertainment used to be optional, now it is mandatory to the point where you're required to participate in it to live a relatively normal life via social media and the internet.
False
Art is about joining the minds of the populace to a concept you'd like to convey to them. It must appeal to at least *Some* subset of people, otherwise, it has no value. An Artist is a Salesman of the idea.
Or some way to launder money or huff their own farts.
>An Artist is a Salesman of the idea.
A good salesman doesn't b***h about how hard it is to make money. A good salesman closes the deal!
Look here Grant Cardone. Closing the deal nowadays is all "Overcoming Objections" or doing a great presentation. It's all about that NEPQ now
>Neuro
>Empathic
>Persuasive
>Questioning
>t. solar "Independent Consultant"
I sell it for the independence aspect. To be honest, Nuclear is infinitely better, but Leftygays make it impossible.
>>All art must be entertaining
With Black folk like you in charge we'd never have gotten Pathalogic 1 or 2.
Pathologic IS entertaining; its reputation was overblown by inept journalists dazzled by the first wonky transalation. It involves a lot of trial and error but thats hardly unique for a PC game of its era.
it is excreted from my supple moobs
If it isn't entertaining then why the frick do you want me to pay for it?
I don't know, where does it come from? I have never heard anyone say that about art.
I heard them say similar stuff about low brow shit like comic books and cartoons though.
Do you really think
>Art should be entertaining
is some sort of bad message? All art attempts to entertain in some way or another.
Define entertaining. I would say that art needs to be engaging.
By a coordination of these two definitions, I'd say all art aims to be entertaining in one way or another.
that's the same fricking thing you pretentious moron
I would say you need to be killing yourself, but you're still here.
>No argument
>Still alive
Art doesn't have to be entertaining but products do and they need to sell well to be paid for.
Art doesn't have to be entertaining.
But if you want people to watch and care about it it should be.
i am triggered only because the OP's image macro botches the joke. "product" should be singular in both instances.
What even is it an image of?
(You)
A guy getting emotional about the trailer for the first Star Wars sequel movie when it first dropped coupled with a completely out of context quote from a Red Letter Media sketch.
People have used it in this weirdo anti-consumerist context to imply that enjoying ANYTHING mainstream is the same as mindless consumption.
It's browbeating against mainstream consumerism that usually comes from culture warriors and anti-libs since mainstream products lean left.
It's manchild shit
Sir, you're posting on a board about comic books and cartoons. Don't think you get to have moral superiority over a Star Wars fan back before Disney ruined that whole franchise.
>totally normal behavior
Nobody claimed normal behavior
You're grasping at straws
I've seen men have the same reaction when their town's college football team gets to go to the State playoffs. If you like something enough, you spaz out with happiness when something big enough happens.
>Where does this mindset come from?
Common sense.
Why would you waste your time and money on something you don't find entertaining?
>muh art
It's just a comic book/cartoon moron, chill out.
I wouldn't say that all art needs to be entertaining and sell well.
I would say that all art you expect to be paid for needs to be entertaining. If you expect to be paid a lot then it should also sell well.
Artists need to be able to pay for things so they often try to produce art that people will buy.
>make personal, meaningful work
>doesn't sell at all
>publishers write you off for a loss
>cookie-cutter, palatable stuff is more easily understood and gets gang8rkpbusters
>left with no money, prospects and no audience
Her I wonder
Comics will break your soul
Wow, I'm so entertained by this billion-dollar industry!
I find this so entertaining!
...that IS entertaining.
your attempts at "gotcha" are also entertaining.
>If we like your product we will give you money, if we don't, we give you nothing.
>You can call what you made "art" all you want, but if nobody wants it, it doesn't matter.
Simple as.
This makes the a(u)tist SEETHE.
>Literwlly only one person replying.
I hate this image, I wish you a please drop your hot coffee on your bare feet after stepping on a lego tomorrow morning.
He's right you know.
I don't pay for anything ever.
Good for you anon, you beat the game.
Now get out of here and stop telling everyone how cool you are for beating the game
Again, a uniquely Cinemaphile reply.
Look how entertaining this food product is!
that is some quality artwork. plus, as soulless as it is, advertising is definitely an artform of its own.
But are you entertained? If not, it must be a failure.
By the metric of what the art of advertising is for, then, yeah, you're right--it'd be failure for every person it doesn't entertain.
The kid with the newspaper hat is a good touch. It does indeed entertain me yes.
Im entertained by the lack of a father in that picture
Capitalism
When your life and livelihood is solely dependent on green paper all things become about and for green paper.
You can't eat satisfying art.
The very foundations of our society put more value on something that makes money over something that doesn't. This is true for every aspect of our lives.
it is not an interesting conversation if all we're doing in wallowing in the "what is art" question. everything is art. art is bullshit. we all already know this. this is all you ever see at a modern art gallery, is this "art is bullshit" theme over and over and over, i'm sick of it.
whether art "should be" entertaining depends on what you are wanting to do with it. if you want to comfort people in tough times, keep it entertaining. if you want to give a spicier experience to a smaller group of "intellectuals" and/or degenerates, then you do not have to make it "entertaining" in the colloquial sense. just engaging. depends on how hard they want to be dommed.
"do no harm" is relevant maybe. if you're just placating sheep with another corporate product teaching them that billionaires earned their money through meritocracy and nothing is wrong, then this might count as harm. but every piece of art has the potential to do harm in subtle ways like this, so "do no harm" would mean "make no art" i guess. "minimize harm"? "if you can sneak in a message that strengthens humanity for the future then it's good enough"?
i don't care one way or another as long as it's fappable
>i don't care one way or another as long as it's fappable
A king among kings.
It still falls in the self important bullshit mindset, where every artist thinks their audience are mentally 3-year-olds, and they are experiencing THEIR art alone, in a vacuum, and it is the most important thing they'll ever see. That's not even true for fricking 3-year olds, they can still change the channel from BoohBah to Oobie if one's more boring than the other.
YOUR art is in a sea of thousands of others, why the frick should I or the rest of the audience give a shit about what you say? Oh you made it entertaining? Then I guess I'll listen.
It's that simple, but midwit artists get so fricking mad when they fail to find an audience due to their own incompetence, they retreat under the shield of it being "art" so it doesn't have to be "entertaining" to hide from their own failures. It's fricking pathetic.
See
You are moronic
>There is more art than ever
lol wat
>for the first time in human history "art" can be a trade one can sustain oneself on.
Haha, holy shit
Read a history book you fricking idiot
>lol wat
There is more art than ever being produced and made publicly available. That's undeniable. Pretty much most people can write a book nowadays and get it published.
>YOUR art is in a sea of thousands of others, why the frick should I or the rest of the audience give a shit about what you say?
I mean, you're free to be a perpetually obtuse butthole who doesn't get invested into anything, doesn't believe in anything and lives in a state of constant hollow cynical dismissisal because he thinks it makes him look smart. I don't think this will make you happier but that's your choice.
Nice strawman, describing the media landscape isn't cynicism. My point is, you're competing for attention with your art, whether you like that fact or not. Don't hate the players, hate the game. Or more accurately, don't blame everyone but yourself when you fail at the game.
>It's that simple, but midwit artists get so fricking mad when they fail to find an audience due to their own incompetence, they retreat under the shield of it being "art" so it doesn't have to be "entertaining" to hide from their own failures. It's fricking pathetic.
This is such a moronic take. Do you not know the concept of target audiences? Do you genuinely believe every single arthouse movie is called arthouse because was made with mainstream audiences in mind and failed to garner their attention? Not everything is made for you to consoom with a bucket of popcorn, NPC.
>Do you genuinely believe every single arthouse movie is called arthouse because was made with mainstream audiences in mind and failed to garner their attention?
No I applaud arthouse films for adapting to the environment and finding their audience. But when people say other types of art are "lesser" just because they're more popular? That's just cope.
Every controversy in the past 5 years that wasn't directly related to someone being cancelled was entirely because these self important homosexuals don't understand what a target audience or niche is in the first place.
stuff designed to be profitable is how you get shit like The Avengers video game
Every game that has ever been made by a commercial game studio was designed to be profitable you fricking moron.
Designed to be profitable does not mean the same thing as designed by dumbfrick israelites who think they can print infinite money by shitting out an incomplete game branded with popular characters.
Oh so apparently there could be a balance now
Literally what the frick are you on about you schizo
you're the idiot who thinks something not "entertaining" means that its gotta be some art house troony bullshit
if everything tried to be entertaining we wouldn't have gotten movies like The Thing
>The Thing wasn't supposed to be entertaining
According to whom? moronic people?
Yes, just because you think your taste is good and even if it actually is good. morons are what makes most of consumers and they don't like what you like.
As far as the people who were reviewing the thing were concerned it was a bad movie for not having a love interest of all things. It having a bad ending isn't entertaining to them. WE know better now, but lowest common denominator audiences don't/
little shit like that is the kind of morons good creators are faced with when making films.
Edgar Wright had to quit Ant-Man because his vision didn't line up with Disney/Marvel
>Yes
>Proceeds to write a thesis about some shit nobody asked
Holy speedreading ESL morons Batman, he agreed with the guy he's replying to then argues with him about why he's wrong
>there's an agreement
>still b***hes like there's still an argument
You're the moron who thinks a piece of media failing to find an audience means the creator did not intend for it to be entertaining. Just because Hitler failed to exterminate the israelites doesn't mean he wasn't trying you braindead homosexual.
Creators make what's entertaining for them.
But they shouldn't be concerned in making whats entertaining for general audiences.
No artist wants to make boring art, they obviously all want to make entertaining art. But their idea of entertaining usually clashes with what a lot of critics and producers want. Anything can find it's niche today but can it?
>But they shouldn't be concerned in making whats entertaining for general audiences.
They don't have to be, unless they want general audiences to give them money
Maybe general audiences should be more open-minded and not listen to whatever borg controls public opinion
Maybe you should get a fricking job homosexual
maybe lick the cum off your lips before you speak
Cope
>He's literally incapable of understanding the concept that it's a creator's job to appeal to their intended audience if they want that audience to pay them
Keep voting Bernie anon, I'm sure he won't just roll over and take it in the ass for whoever they screw him over for next time
so John Carpenter should have caved into what critics wanted
John Carpenter should have done whatever the frick he wanted, which is exactly what he's done his entire career, I don't know why you're so obsessed with what critics thought of a movie made by a man more successful than you'll ever be in your life, he's doing fine anon.
So you're switching sides?
Seek help Ezra, leave those poor Hawaiians alone
>critics
Don't make movies for artgay critics in their ivory towers. Make them to entertain an audience.
the critics of The Thing weren't artgays, they literally thought the Thing was bad because it made them feel bad and it didn't have a forced love interest
they were morons who wanted the most lowest common denominator film
Yeah, don't make things for critics. That's what I said. They're usually wrong. You make entertainment for the audience.
It is a fact that, if a movie has high ratings by the critics, and low ratings by the audience, it absolutely sucks ass. It's true in 100% of the cases, there is no way around it.
back then, what critics wanted was what audiences wanted
No, critics "back then" followed more rigid and professional standards. Now there is no standard for critics and they're more "populist".
And nobody have a shit about Van Gogh's paintings while he was alive. Society's tastes change with time, that's life. Carpenter was ahead of his time, that has frick all to do with whether or not art should or should not be entertaining. Outside of moronic schizos there's not a single person alive who would say the goal of art is not to be entertaining, whether the artist succeeds or not is an entirely separate matter.
His art wasn't entertaining to the people who controlled public opinion and therefore it wasn't entertaining
Also van gogh is hack. you only like him now because the people who controlled public opinion now say he's good because they're still making money off a dad scitzo's art.
You literally can't even fathom the idea that public opinion on art is not controlled by some singular malevolent hivemind, huh?
That publisher thought your novel about grooming young boys wouldn't sell well and now you're mad
you're not even capable of understanding that entertaining is subjective
also the van gogh shit is real. the art market is money laundering scheme
Black person literally everyone telling you you're moronic is trying to tell you it's subjective but you keep insisting that because dumbfricks back in the 80s didn't like The Thing it means the elite movie reviewer cabal colluded to make him a failure and therefore artists shouldn't try to make entertaining art
i have not said anything in the slightest you scitzo. Me saying that reviewers had shit opinions and still do means I think there's a Cabal of reviewers out there? How does that make sense?
its no wonder why you like Van Gogh, you're just like him. You're a failure who should kill himself
>Maybe general audiences should be more open-minded and not listen to whatever borg controls public opinion
And?
Just stop anon, you are trying to reason with the unreasonable. He thought he was correct and you were wrong before you even thought about replying.
and what am i wrong about?
Choosing not to have a nice day every day
Reddit
You have literally and repeatedly argued that the only reason general audiences did not respond well to The Thing on release was because they were told not to by reviewers. Take your fricking meds please I'm begging you
Because thats what happened idiot?
The Thing was a box office bomb, people choose not to watch the movie because reviewers said it was a bad movie
People only discovered it was good long after it was out of theatres
There doesnt need to be a israelite or similar boogeyman behind the scenes for a consensus to exist. Humans are influenciable by nature, you cant get rid of popularity.
>they obviously all want to make entertaining art
Not anymore. Now it's about hamfisting shallow political opinions and trying to get validation from weird strangers on a website via an upward facing arrow.
>on a website via an upward facing arrow.
You're experiencing teenage angst. Artists were given more creative freedom and you got cynical over the personal things they genuinely want to do and genuinely have fun with.
Artists got more freedom so they all just happen to be insufferable twitter c**ts that make unwatchable garbage?
Frick artists then, let them go back to starving.
Yes, they happen to have fun with left leaning content because you define shit like gay couple left leaning instead of just something happens and something people like. You can't rationalize them doing that on their own so you imagine it's just for social media points.
I don't care about gay couple. I just hate how gay is a characters entire personality now. That's the whole show, sitting around talking about how their farts smell like cum.
That's one thing too. it's once again the problem of the checklists, people just throw diversity without even stopping to think about how the character fits the universe it's bein inserted into. There is no problem in a character beign gay, but when the entire character is just being gay, and you notice it was just thrown in the story, it becomes instantly unlikeable.
>but when the entire character is just being gay, and you notice it was just thrown in the story, it becomes instantly unlikeable
Who are you talking about?
Phastos from Eternals, for example.
Being sad about nuking Japan is more his personality than being a gay father and a husband. And that was by design, his family can he edited out. You're fricking stupid.
Really? it sure didn't seem like it. Half the time he was on screen was just showing his family. Eat shit and die.
You didn't see the movie.
I did, unfortunately. I'm telling the impression i had from watching it.
In any case, sorry for the 'eat shit and die' thing. I really shouldn't be stressing over this shit with strangers from the internet. Go enjoy whatever you want, and best of luck.
>I just hate how gay is a characters entire personality now.
Are you trolling? Which gay characters are you talking about?
I'm being a little facetious, but don't pretend shows like Q-force aren't a thing.
I don't give a shit if you make "Duke Nukem, but gay" a show. I'm fine with Duke Nukem, getting upset about his character being shallow doesn't make sense in context. Q-Force is fine.
>Q-Force is fine.
What do you like about the show?
How often it's just "Duke Nukem, but gay". Like I said, I'm fine with Duke Nukem.
I didn't ask about that. I asked what you liked about Q-force, you said it was "fine". A simple question, why don't you answer?
I've been answering: I'm saying that it's often like Duke Nukem but gay. I like Duke Nukem, I like shallow irreverence played for laughs. What's there to like about Duke Nukem as a character? He's fun.
Then you're just agreeing with me that all this corpo-driven forced shit is just dumb shallow "lol gay". I mean, the genre for the show you are talking about is literally listed as lgbt, not action, or comedy, or thriller. It's just sad homosexual stereotypes depicted as a person and losers like yourself eat it up, but I'M somehow in the wrong. It's garbage. You like garbage. Okay great, but why does EVERYTHING have to be garbage now?
If Duke Nukem was "corpo-driven forced shit" than yeah. You're struggling to make your point here because.
>Okay great, but why does EVERYTHING have to be garbage now?
You're expressing a feeling facetiously rather than finding anything genuine to be upset about. If you don't like Duke Nukem, don't play it. If you don't like Q-Force it's barely noticeable on it's own platform. You have plenty of options for gay media.
Speaking of, gay as a genre is like any other interest descriptor. It's like when a Christian movie is self described as Christian you don't get people saying "omg faith as a genre" because there is plenty of other substance to criticize. You don't want to recognize the substance and dimensions of gay characters, you just want to talk about how they make you feel.
they are two incomparable things, it is a stupid argument.
Yeah one is straight pandering and therefore based. The other is gay pandering and therefore cringe.
>pander to suckered
That's the vibe you can't shake when it comes to gay media. Feminists feel the same way about Duke Nukem, so I understand where that comes from though I don't agree with it.
>unlike the garbage you profess to consume so delightfully.
I just said it's fine. I know Duke Nukem is garbage by most standards too, but it can still be fun. You're being ridiculous.
No, there isn't other options. Not in any meaningful way. All the streaming services are doing the same forced shit. Now you've gone from telling me I'm wrong about that to suggesting I watch something else. Also, now you're comparing your "gay" genre to the "Christian" one and I have to say that's the most on point you've been. Both are painful ideologically driven trash made to pander to suckers, but even the Hail Jesus version of Duke Nukem could get a second season, unlike the garbage you profess to consume so delightfully.
>It's garbage. You like garbage
>why does EVERYTHING have to be garbage now
If you really have experienced "everything" and you still aren't satisfied, then either pay someone to make the specific art you want or make it yourself.
There is also the third option of "whine on the internet and call other people stupid for liking things" but that doesn't actually accomplish anything.
>you can never complain about something that I like
>that doesn't accomplish anything
Why not? That's all you turds do and it seems to work out in your favor. Someone told a joke you find a little offensive? Get him fired from his job! They don't have zi/zer representation in every show? Send threats!
Shove it wokescold, I don't like your corporations forced agenda and I'll post about it if I want. You don't like it? Pick something else in the catalogue, at least you get options.
Meds
Now
Every video game was designed to be profitable. That's how we got Fallout and FF7
based
Let's get real here the only bastard that would get pissy about people not consuming his art because it isn't entertaining is the one that has a disgusting message no one can relate to or is just plain bad so instead of improving his skills or his message he passes judgement on the uneducated masses only wanting bread and circus over his highly innovative and intellectual piece of "art", wich probably is some commie shit, a "the world sucks" narcissistic nihilism piece of commentary on society or blatant fetish stuff he expects normies to pay for in order to feel validated for being a degenerate
Sometime you just suck and that's OK, sometimes I think cave paintings were done by furries or degenerates given the amount of animal people or humans behind or on top of deer or someone that thought that the boar was extra fat and he wanted everyone to know he killed the fatest boar, people are simple sometimes you just want to see a moron kill a fat boar and that's the most human thing possible
You ain't far off. Those who can't make good or entertaining art tend to disparage their non-audience's tastes, cast them off as plebs.
They ought to chill the frick out and learn to stop being salty.
>when kids are so fricking brainwashed that they interpret someone asking why art has to be a profitable commodity as someone upset that their art is not more popular
Capitalism killed art
And yet, there is more art than ever because for the first time in human history "art" can be a trade one can sustain oneself on.
>There is more art than ever
Debatable
>Because of capitalism
No, that has nothing to do with there being "more art." The credit for that (of it's true at all) goes to a larger population.
The idea that art requires capitalism is so hilariously backwards that it's barely worth chastising you over. Do you seriously believe there would be no art under a mixed system?
Ever wonder why back in the past it was mostly children of the wealthy and affluent that seemed to be great artists? It wasn't a proper profession.
How many full-time "artists", in our modern sense, exist now compared to then? You know I'm right, it just goes against your narrative.
>"In the past..."
There are many many eras of art history in many parts of the world, and "only rich kids did it!" is not true of any of them.
The idea that art only recently became a career is insanely ignorant to the point I have to assume you've never even been in the same fricking building as a history class.
>How many full-time artists were there before capitalism?
What a gob-smackingly stupid question.
>It goes against your narrative!
Based on your posts I don't think you rightly know what my "narrative" is.
>That's undeniable
Only by virtue of increased world population
>Anyone can write a book...
Jesus Christ. You really can't separate "art" from modern commercial art, can you? The idea that "art" encompasses more than comics is just not present in your head, is it?
>You really can't separate "art" from modern commercial art, can you?
NTA, but "non-commercial art" is a bit of an oxymoron. Art was always commercial, every great masterpiece was done on someone's order (or to be sold to someone).
>Every piece of art ever made is commercial and was sold
We both know that was a very stupid thing to say.
Making non-commercial art under capitalism is heavily disincentivized but it still happens.
But hey, at least you're not the moron claiming art can only thrive under capitalism because it's his only frame of reference
>Keeps bringing up Capitalism
Rent free
>Stop bringing up capitalism
>In this semantic argument about all art being commercial under capitalism
You're an idiot
I see you've given up on even trying to make an argument
I really recommend those history books.
>Making non-commercial art under capitalism is heavily disincentivized but it still happens.
It always happened under all types of government, but it's exceedingly fricking rare. The artist has to fricking eat too, and art is what puts food on his table. And capitalism has nothing to do with it, it's the same story under Soviet socialism (except in that case, the government was paying).
>Artists have to eat so they have to sell!
>Capitalism has nothing to do with it!
I...what the frick?
How do you not see the connection between capital generation being required to eat and artists needing to make works that sell?
Now I have to ask, under what system does the artist NOT have to eat?
Fricking incredible
Read it again. Slowly.
You're really bad at written arguments.
No, I assure you, you're just very stupid.
If you want to argue politics, at least gain a decent grasp on basic economics, lad. I'm sure you love the stereotype of a hungry artist working for the greater idea or whatever, but it has never been real. Art and money exist hand in hand, Da Vinci sold his works just like smut artists sell theirs on Patreon nowadays. From the historical point of view, the difference between the two is actually pretty negligible. I'm sure you want art to be all pure, but it's just not.
That sure is a whole lot of naked presumption!
In a well designed mixed system (ie not modern capitalism) artists would not have to sell their art to survive. They would be able to do so, but it would be to supplement their existence not to enable it. In this way art that is not strictly commercial, or even just art that has too small and audience or too large a cost in time or resources, can be made.
>That sure is a whole lot of naked presumption
You can just google it.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/renaissance/leonardo-da-vinci-art-patrons-supporters-ludovico-sforza-isabella-deste-borgias/
>artists would not have to sell their art to survive
Well, how would they make money then?
>Presuming the presumption was about da Vinci and not the mountain of straw you used to build an effigy of me
Did everyone ITT eat paint chips as a kid?
>How would artists make money in a system that provides base needs and still allows the sale of goods?
By selling art you complete fricking moron. The difference here is that producing art that doesn't sell doesn't mean you starve on the street.
>By selling art you complete fricking moron. The difference here is that producing art that doesn't sell doesn't mean you starve on the street.
So... you just invented unemployment benefits?
Have you seriously never heard of UBI proposals? Or do you actually think people can live on unemployment?
What the frick are you kids being taught in schools
I was correct then, gotcha. Well, we're all welcome to dream of free money.
>haha, you fool, there's no other way to live but under someone's boot! Their delicious yummy boot!
If you don't like living under someone's boot, you're free to go full Kaczynski anytime. That's the only option you have, but I heard cabins innawoods are nice this time of year.
/qa/ lost.
It's fine anon, I'm sure all that money printing Biden's been doing non stop will have no negative consequences at all either. Economics is simple, just give people more and more money, forever!
Fricking redditors man.
>take money from workers and give it people who don't work
no thanks
>proposing a massive government plan to solve all the problems, requiring the government to be the ones who decide who gets paid exactly what, despite no plan for the inevitable corruption, payment system planning, or implementation
>calls other people bootlickers for calling him moronic
Stick to philosophy 101 kid.
>haha, you fool, there's no other way to live but under someone's boot!
Pretty much
Unless you are a survivor for Krypton which is unlikely
At least you don't seem happy about it
Cope
We're not talking about your fantasy economic utopia anon. Don't care about "would"s, care about "Can"s "Will"s, "Has"s, and "Is"s.
>We're not talking about your ideal economic scenario in this discussion about your ideal economic scenario relating to art!
There you go, making it all about yourself again. That's a warning sign for narcissism anon, you really should be careful.
>art can only thrive under capitalism
That's pretty true. Even if there's art under socialism, it either doesn't proliferate because you need money to arrange expositions or it's art commissioned by the state, of which there can only be a budgeted amount and it must adhere to certain rules. Not exactly "thriving".
>A mixed system? Impossible! Either the poor starve or there's no such thing as money! No in-between!
Don't put word in my mouth, you disingenuous piece of shit. There can be no such thing as pure socialism or pure capitalism due to human nature. If you attempt to create them through authoritarian measures, you will fail as well, just in a different way. We ALL live in mixed systems.
>Don't put words in my mouth, you disingenuous piece of shit.
I didn't, your post implied the only alternative to capitalism is pure socialism. Don't say dumb shit if you don't want to get called out.
>I'm an autist, so whenever someone says socialism is flawed or capitalism is good, I just assume they are 100% for laissez-faire capitalism
OK, got it. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?
Anon you literally said art can only thrive under capitalism because it needs money to be distributed.
Don't blame me for your ridiculously poor choice of words.
Oh, is THAT what I said? Because I though I said this
so which one is it? I agree with art thriving the best under capitalism but don't agree with
>Throwing a full-on tantrum because you said something stupid
>Throwing in a new qualifier to pretend you didn't make a mistake
It's time to stop posting.
I said one thing. You put words in my mouth. I protested against you doing that. At which point you said I disagree with my original statement. You are literally moronic or a disingenuous shitposter.
>At which point you said I disagree with my original statement
Ahh, I see the problem here
I was joking when I called you illiterate, but it seems I was actually spot on.
I could try again to show you that you did in fact imply that the only alternative to capitalism was pure socialism by implying no other system would have the concept of money, but at this point you're way too dug in to ever admit you fricked up and said something stupid.
So you are moronic. What I said was exactly what I meant and all I meant: capitalism is the system in which art thrives the most. Everything else was imagined in your inflamed schizo mind.
>expecting these idiots who think popularity and mass appeal means it's no longer art to understand history
kek
>back in the past it was mostly children of the wealthy and affluent
Still is anon.
Poor people don't have access to the disposable income for art supplies, or the luxury time to fart around creating art. If you do a cursory look into popular artists you'll see many cases of rich parentage, or it being a generational trade. This is why so many online artists resort to drawing tiddy. Coombux always triumphs, no matter how poorly drawn.
>No, that has nothing to do with there being "more art." The credit for that (of it's true at all) goes to a larger population.
I get it. Capitalism = anything bad that happens. Therefore, anything good that happens because of capitalism isn't because of capitalism.
Life's fun when you get to arbitrarily decide things like that.
I genuinely hate leftists so much
Nothing debatable about it. There's never been even 1/10 as many humans alive on Earth as there are in the 21st century throughout our entire time on this planet.
is more art than ever
>Debatable
There's 5000 new video games every year
there seems to be a misunderstanding here
You know there's a middle ground between pretentious "two deep 4 u" stories and bland marketable shlock that comes with a happy meal
No one has ever made something not entertaining on purpose. And those who did were coping.
>Y-YOU PLEBS DON'T UNDERSTAND I-IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE INTERESTING
First of all, art being entertaining and selling well is the same thing in a capitalist system. So writing both is pleonastic. And second is capitalism: your craft should sell for it to make sense for you to engage in it in this system. For art to pursue another purpose in this system, it should be either funded by philanthropy or done for free by the artist.
Th real solution is to just stay in the middle. Not aim for pure self-expression that would not be interesting to others, but also not aim purely for profit, by creating something mildly entertaining for everyone, instead of really entertaining for a certain considerable group. That's what I'm hoping for as cinema becomes so mass-targeted: for someone smart to start creating more precisely-targeted movies and steal the market away from big studios piece b piece.
Comics? Cartoons?
This discussion is more on the topic of comics and cartoons than 90% of this board's threads.
It really fricking isn’t
Define the sensation of being entertained
>Where does this mindset come from?
This is art that doesn't entertain.
It becomes a circle of pseudointellectuals and frauds fellating themselves so that they can fake depth and gain status in their squad of bullshitters.
>This is art that doesn't entertain.
And you know this, how? Abstract art tends to entertain as well as any other paintings.
>Abstract art tends to entertain as well as any other paintings.
THIS is GOOD Abstract art.
A snooty bastard smelling poop on the wall and attaching it to the French Revolution is bullshit.
It's still entertaining, anon. What you consider "good" or "bad" doesn't keep people from being entertained by it.
The real question is whether it's bad for art to require effort for consumption. The answer is "no".
But then it becomes a question of whether the effort/understanding needed to gain entertainment from a piece is genuine or contrived.
> good art
Art can be good. If it doesn't communicate what it wants to communicate than it's bad. Simple as.
>If it doesn't communicate what it wants to communicate than it's bad. Simple as.
What a plebeian take. What if it communicates what it wants to one person, but doesn't to another, because of personal differences between these two people?
Then it's communicating what it wants. Simple As.
No, that'd be the person getting what the want out of it; the exact opposite of what you're saying makes good art.
Nice words in my mouth, never said "the person getting what the want out of it". I made it very simple for you but you still didn't get it, I don't what to say anon. Guess my post is like a car, the second it hits a roadblock, it completely falls apart. That's what you're saying good art is, right?
>Guess my post is like a car, the second it hits a roadblock, it completely falls apart. That's what you're saying good art is, right?
If by "roadblock" you mean "worldview and cultural context completely different from the one the author is aiming at", then yeah, I suppose so. For a crude example, a person isn't going to appreciate allusions to War and Peace if they never read it. Does that mean you should never make allusions to cultural context people might not be familiar with?
That definition doesn't seem right.
Why should art have to communicate in a successful way? And in what way should it successfully communicate?
What if the art doesn't want to communicate at all?
Or what if the art can only effectively communicate to a specific audience at a specific place and time, and is now incomprehensible to the rest of the world?
>doesn't entertain
>leads to self-fellatio
You disprove your own point in the same post.
> entertain
Generally, not to people lying to themselves to fit in with a clique or launder money.
>engaging in cloak and dagger tactics to infiltrate a group isn't fun
>making money isn't fun
What are you talking about?
I enjoy the pic of your post, i like the texture and shapes, the different colours of it. Done, it entertained me.
If abstract paintings didn't entertain or engage anyone, then literally no one would've bothered getting off their asses to go to their local museum. The museum would've then stopped showing abstract art, and the entire genre would've died out generations ago.
>engaging in any nuanced conversation on this site.
That is where you first fricked up anon.
okay i had started to write a blogpost about this and then deleted it. since you weird idiots keep wondering about art and its relation to capitalism - of course it's related and of course it isn't related.
discussing the merits of art in the first place is a post hoc rationalization because making "art" is a behavior we would already be engaged in. art is inherently useless, yet we can't help ourselves, we are compelled to waste our energy on it. it doesn't matter if there's an external incentive or not, doesn't matter if we've been taught or not. we're gonna go out of our way to add patterns or colors or some kind of adornment to our pottery and tools and houses and bodies and shit. because it's pretty or because it gets our rocks off or whatever. we're gonna do it.
the difference is, what resources are available to us. what tools, time, education. this is the capitalism shit. sure we're all making art all the time because we're stupid. but whether we can make it at scale, whether we have access to the resources to get the audience to stay alive doing it, i.e. whether it kills us to make the shit we wanna make or not. that's the capitalism part.
sociopaths at the top have realized it's a lot easier and more lucrative to own the art than to be the one that has to make it. they aren't the ones sleeping under their desks to draw sakuga, they aren't stuck working food service after the one-hit wonder cash dried up. they are exploiting the human need to make. supercharging "artists" with notification addiction, picking the cream off the top, pushing them to burnout, and moving onto the next set to burn through more. we all know this. it's pretty fricked, but also feels inevitable at this population scale.
maybe im wrong, the frick do i know.
what a waste of blogposting energy, no wonder i deleted this earlier
>art is inherently useless
you're trying too hard to sound smart. it isn't inherently useless, it's just practically useless. art has uses, just not practical ones.
im afraid birdsite has rotted your brain.
it's kind of part of the definition isn't it. art is at its core anti-utilitarian. it's inherent. i was hoping to avoid the weird pedantry where people try (and fail) to be armchair lawyers arguing semantics in order to avoid the main argument.
also im a frickin idiot, im tryna emphasize that here. because if im an idiot then its an even greater insult if i demonstrate that there are people even dumber than me.
i get it though, the utility of art is just a tangent i didn't want to get pulled down. got enough tangents as it is. just trying to simplify art into the dumb bullshit trash that it is and make fun of us for liking it.
I read your post and agree, anon.
Everyone else ITT will be way too fricking stupid and angry to process any of it
Why delete the blogpost? If it's relevant to the subject of the thread, why not share your experience and perspective?
That's literally what the site is for.
>English language is so bad that the argument is centered purely around semantics
さすが
more like, people are so fricking moronic these days that they can only abide by the most rigid definitions of words.
>launder money
Golden Age comics were made for that purpose, and they entertained the FRICK out of many people. You won't stop shifting the goalpost, though, will you?
>I would say "stimulated" instead.
Why? You're still being entertained.
>All art is entertainment, but not all entertainment is art
I agree.
>Art that doesn't stimulate anyone
I think it would be difficult, if not downright impossible, to find a piece of art that doesn't provide some stimulation.
Starving artists desirous to alleviate, however much they may, the conditional.
I found it funny OP makes this thread when the new Thor film is underperforming and getting panned.
I find it funny that Cinemaphile isn't seething about that one scene that is the epitome of modern double-standards between depictions of men and women.
Thor failed to be entertaining
>Thor film is underperforming
false
Artgays are the bane of every medium and hobby. Just look at what happened with video games.
Just look at this thread for proof. You're right anon, they're so fricking annoying.
without art gays there wouldn't be any video games
if anything profit gays are whats ruining games now
I hope you enjoy your microtransactions and BRAND NAME content
>without art gays there wouldn't be any video games
artgays are literally disposable
Art is whatever the frick I say like or deem acceptable. The rest is feces.
Anyone who says arent cant or shouldnt be entertaining is a brainlet that only seeks comfort in getting something you dont
Lowlifes, basically
this why the term "mid" exist, to bully shit art, bullying works
All art is a product. You're moronic if you think otherwise.
The Sistine Chapel wasn't a free job done for the love of God. It wasn't kept for the love of God either. It's a product to get followers.
Except the Sistine Chapel was commissioned to serve God, not to make money, so your argument is moronic. The Sistine Chapel didn't deal with marketing execs using test audiences to formulate maximum profits. Art predates money you moronic gorilla Black person, and it definitely was not invented in Renaissance Italy, or on commission.
You sound like some coping agent or industry hack.
>Except the Sistine Chapel was commissioned to serve God, not to make money
Except it still made all parties money. Never free.
>The Sistine Chapel didn't deal with
They did, but a different scale, it was 500 years ago.
>Art predates money
Ok, but only because we used to barter before money. We were still exchanging stuff for other stuff.
>You sound like some coping agent or industry hack
Neither. I hate the idea that artists are creating this pure form, devoid of the actual ways that all art is produced. Even if the artist gives the art away for free, the materials still costed something. There's a minimum amount that needs to be invested for art to even happen.
Even our cave paintings were done by the richest people of their time. If you're not well fed and have a moderate amount of safety and leisure, you're not going to be spending your time thinking about drawing pictures in sand or in trees or on cave walls. You'll spend your time thinking about finding and eating food.
Getting caught up in the marketing hype of "The Artist" is ironically your biggest mistake.
>Where does this mindset come from?
It comes from rape
people keep focusing on the "all entertainment should be entertaining" meme but as far as sell well;
Capitalism.
I was a consoomer once. Then the gaps between quality became so far, I couldn't even hop on the next product if I wanted. Rather, I'm not consuming backwards and get shit I missed, or watch shows and play games again. You know... the ones I forgot because I consumed the next product.
Bump
The problem isn't "all art must be entertaining and sell well". The issue is when corpos want to cash in on the next latest trends, making all subsequent media into boring shlock that can never deviate from the norm. It's always been an issue.
This thread is moronic.
Also this post is art btw.
You're a masterful artist, anon. Teach me your ways.
>All art must be unprofitable .
Where does this mindset come from?
It's bascially sour grapes.
>art needs to follow whatever dipshit marketer memes this week to be successful or of value
People have no artistic values or ability to articulate their aesthetic preferences, so debates about artistic legitimacy are boiled down to the only 'objective' criteria it has - mass appeal.
>artistic legitimacy are boiled down to the only 'objective' criteria it has - mass appeal
That's a cope from pretentious people to explain why the thing they like doesn't get more following
sure but you can still have things that are able to capture a niche or be an artist's vision brought to life
you sound like all you want are capeshit movies
>sure but you can still have things that are able to capture a niche or be an artist's vision brought to life
That literally still happens, but you are too much of a moronic Black person to notice.
name 10 successful movies that were made to be original this year
>Where does this mindset come from?
Probably from people who want their entertainment to be entertaining and creators who want to earn a living you braindead cum guzzling zoomer moron
why aren't american comics like manga where most of the stories are original
Because anything original is inevitably called "problematic" by moronic checkmarks on a site that was literally designed for the mentally infirm, so companies are no longer willing to fund anything original because they want a known quantity they can control fully.
The Japanese don't give a shit about Twitter so they put whatever the frick they want in their media and rake in the dough on titty figures and hentai.
Allow me to interject
Original ideas terrify marketers because they cannot wrap their head around audience reception of an idea they've never heard of before. Marketers run the world when it comes to anything that's above 'indie' in American entertainment. When you pitch a new idea, it goes to a marketer. When you describe a new concept, it first has to be vetted by marketing. Marketers marketers marketers layers and layers of people vetting ideas to analyze and scientifically determine which would have the statistically biggest hold and worth the most investment.
But creativity isn't a science, and what most people like is certifiably random. Analyzing trends only results in dull gray everywhere and trend-chasing, which has utterly killed the comic book industry before most of this board was even born. Some may blame it on the idea of society changing or social justice, but it was dead loooooong before then. The signs were present in the mid silver age of corporate marketing simply becoming more important than telling good stories.
Manga, on the other hand, is almost completely creator driven. Most manga artists and creators are still people doing it out of their single bedroom apartment. That may change someday depending on where money flows, but it's not hard to see why it has picked up in popularity.
Prove me wrong. Most people cannot tell you what they personally find entertaining in anything, the vast majority of entertainment stems from spending social time with friends. Kicking each other in the balls can count as entertainment by that metric, and any drunk college student can attest to that.
>But creativity isn't a science, and what most people like is certifiably random.
Woah now, slpw down, creativity is a hard fricking thing to analyze, but it isn't 100% pure, randomv haos. Most people, for some odd reason, tend to like similar things consistently. Otherwise trends wouldn't exist at all.
Obviously that's not to say that everyone likes the same thing all the time. There's always individual tastes. We've got a word for things that are felt/enjoyed by all humans, "universal." And it ain't a synonym for "trend."
We could get into the argument of nature vs nurture and how much our parents, our Society, and our genetics play into our tastes and wants in real life when it comes to entertainment, but I rather not do that because it's a hairy subject. But generally, it's not a scientific endeavor to find things people find entertaining because much of it is manipulated by marketing. It's an exercise in finding which buttons to push, and if that results in entertainment isn't a science in itself.
>Remember the cult classic "The Thing" it was critically panned because apparently it wasn't "entertaining"
One of my favorite movies.
This is another example of what I'm saying, as well. Much of the critical panning was because it was considered 'distasteful' for John Carpenter's extremely good special effects. It was not what most marketers would have greenlit audiences to see at the time, despite it being an excellent movie. So critics trashed it.
Originality doesn't sell.
I pitch two comics
>An action comic based on the exploits of an ancient hero brought back to life in modern times fighting the remnants of the evils he had to put down featuring lots of mythology and historical references to places and people
>A new Thor comic
I just described the same comic. If I were to ask for money to make Norse Hammer Bro 1 or Thor 2, everyone would tell me to make Thor 2.
From a banana tapped to a wall.
We're on Cinemaphile, a board about comics and cartoons. Why do people keep bringing up the fine arts as an explanation as to why a lot of comics and cartoons are supposedly now shitty?
In what fricking universe are comic artists and animators taking inspiration from the fine arts in 2022?
The one where they think shit and piss cussing sex jokes are worthy of being considered mature.
Yu-Gi-Oh rules
One cannot create Art, art is contextual. You can create a masterpiece that belongs in the loove but if no one sees it it is not art at the same time a simple conversation can be art in the right context.
>the loove
oh no
The moment when those works who claim to be art first starts asking money so they can fund more of their shit
>ITT morons who think entertaining means "mindless junk with no substance that stimulates dopamine production" pretend to have deep enlightened views on the worth of art
Entertaining literally just means a thing that the viewer liked experiencing you fricking morons, if something is not entertaining it means the viewer did not enjoy it and this logically they will not want more of it. Feel free to make as much "art" that isn't entertaining as you want and die destitute in a gutter, but shut the frick up about it.
>ITT morons who think entertaining means "mindless junk with no substance that stimulates dopamine production" pretend to have deep enlightened views on the worth of art
That's not what we're doing at all, but thanks for your driveby shitpost that doesn't read a single thing anyone posted, pseud.
We're literally addressing that with mentioning "The Thing": Here's an entertaining movie, that people were convinced not to watch or think of as being entertaining purely through peer pressure.
You're the moron who is incapable of understanding semantics and context
You might actually have autism
The context is that your IQ is dangerously close to the number of women who've voluntarily had sexual contact with you. The OP asked where the idea that art needs to be entertaining comes from, and your contribution to that is "movie did bad cause reviews bad but people like it"
>Entertaining doesn't mean if it appeals to you, it means if its marketable
This sentence was written with the same thought process as the people who post "some women have penises"
have you ever had a conversation with a real person in your life
ywnbaw
I think it's more the idea that normalgays define themselves with what they watch. So if someone says something is shit they take it on a personal level rather than just mere annoyance that some random stranger has shit taste.
Of course entertainment means so much it means literally nothing at the same time. I don't mean the shitty postmodern "everything is subjective" either. But there's a difference between sugar and a baked potato for example.
> inb4 food analogy
Food is one of the only experiences that everyone has. You cook your own food right?
Fanboys aren't normalgays. Oh my god what is going on
Yes, normalgays can be fanboys. Don't be stupid.
No they can't, they have more than media to define themselves by, that's why they're normal.
You ever see a grown man shirtless in a public place, covered in paint and wearing a cheese hat? That's considered "normal".
You aren't just wrong, you're clearly stupid.
>You ever see a grown man shirtless in a public place, covered in paint and wearing a cheese hat? That's considered "normal".
No its not?
I've seen geeks cosplay, I don't think that qualifies as defining yourself as anyone but a fan who likes to dress up. You have to be socially moronic to think that people are completely as you see them for one moment. A fanboy is someone who is consumed by media culture to the point of getting genuinely angry over anime opinions, console wars, and, yes, sports team rivalries (though the politics of real human athletes partaking in real competition goes beyond consumer tastes and choices). Fanboys aren't normies.
Talk to more people, normal people, most of them fanboy SOMETHING. You're mixing up consoomer and fanboy. Being a fanboy predates your lame "geek" culture shit.
I talk to plenty of normal people.
>I think it's more the idea that normalgays define themselves with what they watch.
Is clearly a mistake, a cynical Cinemaphile take that, if it were true, there would have been mass normie Game of Thrones suicides. Instead there's a collective shrug as people find more things to enjoy together.
Maybe that's it: You think that normies enjoying shows together is them "defining" themselves with what they watch. Is that you rationalizing normies have different tastes than you? Where is this coming from?
As that anon making the original post(the other replies weren't me) normalgays wasn't the best word for it I'll admit. I do think that there's a large portion of people who do legitimately think that way, maybe some buzzword website or journos or idpol or whatever. If there's already a separate word for those gays I would absolutely like to know.
I wonder if this poor frick realized his reaction was going to be used so much when he posted that video of his. If there was a moment where he doubted if he should really post himself crying over a trailer.
with the rising alt right and nationalism, all art should be revolutionary towards to global culture and not individual culture fascist aesthetics peddled by users at /misc/ /ic/ and Cinemaphile
>Why does capitalism exist?
Because communism keeps failing morons, good thread.
You can be critical of capitalism just fine. You can regulate it plenty and still call it capitalism.
Regulating capitalism is never going to remove profit incentive, because that's literally the point of capitalism, and until you remove profit incentive the answer to OP's question will still be the same you gender confused tankie
If art is the price of freedom, I'm glad it's a thing of the past.
Jesus Christ you homosexuals just move to China already I'm sure they'll let you make all the art you want and support 100% of your needs no questions asked.
>Cinemaphile - Comics & Cartoons
Stella's ass is so fricking fat.
the only people who disagree make shit art
>Popularity equals quality
>"Entertainment" value which is entirely subjective to a target audience has to be made entirely for one audience made by marketing executives.
Only on Cinemaphile
Cope
While the needing to sell well part is definitely plaguing the art industry I would say if something is truly good then that alone will make it entertaining.
Black person,homosexual,troony,etc.
Show me a good piece of art that isn't entertaining
Not Cinemaphile
It's a good piece of art
Yes,but not Cinemaphile
It's of western origin
Yes,but is not Cinemaphile - Comics & Cartoons
All paintings are a form of comics.
are you sure?
Sure. Whatever you say, moron.
I've busted a nut to this painting. If that's not a form of entertainment, then I don't know what is.
>I've busted a nut to this painting. If that's not a form of entertainment, then I don't know what is.
Beat me to it.
This meme is now a parody of itself. No one who uses it even knows what it was originally about.
>No one who uses it even knows what it was originally about
anti-shill?
WHEN WILL YOU DIE!?
>500 replies
So, after much discussion did anyone here found out what ‘art’ even is ?