High Art vs Entertainment

The following is from a discussion about Legend of Earthsea

They haven't realized that going with the status quo will always result in mediocrity.

What gave you the impression that Sci-Fi (or any other non-subscription TV channel) is interested in anything other than mass-appeal, lowest-common-denominator mediocrity? High concept doesn't attract masses of viewers, and masses of viewers are required to keep those ad revenues up.

Free TV isn't about art. It's an advertising conduit, and nothing more.

This actually has a lot to do about the drama that we perform.

A huge difference between what we do on Sundays or for any special performance is this idea of a profit. We may charge money for the special performances, but only to cover the costs of production. A lot of times the sets or props or spotlight/mic rentals are really expensive. With out some sort of fee, these costs would most likely come out of pocket. The admission also subsidises events and other things for the kids.

But profit isn't what I'm talking about.

What was interesting about the comment is this idea of high art vs the audience. Without looking for profit, we have the unique opportunity of doing things just because. Even with things like broadway or any other form of theatre, they are looking for some sort of profit to make it worth while.

As an arts ministry, we strive to glorify God through the art that we do. Will the art that we produce entertain everyone? Will it be understood by everyone? No. But neither does most art. It takes a certain pallette to appreciate good art. Not that I'm saying our art is good.

There are two different types of shows that we put on. We have the special performances: Boba Nite, Perspectives, et al. Then we have Sunday service: Triple Helix, The Eagle Has Landed, and True Plymouth Rock Stories. I will take each set individually.

The things that we perform for special performances, I would consider our art. These are unique opportunities where we get to dictate the flow of the program and do and try things that we haven't done before. As my previous post expounded on, we have a lot of different milestones associated with these events. It's not only a time to stretch our talents, but also to showcase something that the audience has seen us do before.

The experiments can involve the writing, the staging, the directing, or even the acting. Just different things that the team has yet to do. Considering that the ministry is still so young, there are a lot of opportunities to experiment and try new things.

As with any experimentation with art, the audience may or may not appreciate it. As with all art, it is not the commercial viability of what you produce. But being a show and having audience members, one needs to balance art with entertainment.

The idea of art as entertainment is an interesting one.

On one hand, art is about expression and communication. It can be expression about truth, emotion, philosophy, or ideology. Art is communication of abstract ideas through a medium that can more easily understood.

At the same time, art is also technical. The precision of a watch's movement. How fine a line is drawn. The intricacies of human life. All these things are art.

Now, you can have art that is technically superb, without expressing anything. You can also have art that is uber expressive without being technical. And, of course, you have the various shades in between.

On the other hand, you have entertainment. As an entertainer, you are trying to evoke something from the audience. Laughs, tears, tension, horror, or a myriad of other emotions. As entertainment, you're out to have a good time.

The problem of art as entertainment is that not everyone will have a good time. The simple fact is that not everyone is going to understand the art that you produce. If you agree that a primary function of art is to convey a certain idea or emotion; then when the art fails to do this, the art fails. If the art fails to communicate, can it still be entertaining? I would venture to say yes. Does it make it more difficult to enjoy a piece if you don't "get it"? Of course the meaning will always enhance the experience.

For Sunday service, we are doing more than just art. The art that we produce isn't only for art's sake. We are also attempting to communicate truth. Now, if not everyone understands or "gets it", have we failed? That's hard to say. It'd be one thing if no one understood, but what if 30% didn't understand? 50%? 90%? What is the cut off to declare what we've done as a failure?

Since the primary purpose of drama on Sundays is to communicate, entertainment is secondary. Entertainment is still important because you need to have the audience's attention in order to speak to it. Without that, your chance of communicating with them will be lost.

The issue is exacerbated by the amount of "positive" reviews that we receive. Every special performance we have is booked beyond capacity. In the last few performances, we were limitted to 100 people. We easily got over 150 people in the audience. I'd like to believe that we are just that great to watch, but I know that that is not the truth.

Since we don't do exit polls, the only "reviews" we hear are from our peers. "That was a great show." "I really liked it." "It was good." All empty compliments. I appreciate the words of encouragment, but they don't help me as a writer/director/actor.

So how do we balance high art with communicating to the audience? How do we connect to an audience while still maintaining our artistic integrity? I don't know.