Entertainment vs. Art?

In his daily constitutional around the web, the Lost One discovered that the *Boundless* crew is all in a tizzy over *Watchmen* (No doubt, those of you who read *Boundless* regularly are shocked, simply shocked that someone on staff would voice a strong opinion [The Lost One often jokes that it is in the staff contract at *Boundless* that white smoke must be deployed when a new person is hired]), namely wondering aloud whether the movie is too full of adult content to be seen by Christians. This in turn led to a debate about what is art as opposed to entertainment leading to just a few of the relevant quotes below:

Anyone who visits the Vatican knows the difference between the Renaissance paintings of nudes inside, and the semi-pornographic billboards outside.

I think there is a difference between sculptures/paintings and real life...entertainment nudity...

Nakedness in an artistic context (the statue of the David, for example) is very different from another context.

All of this debate has led the Lost One to ask a very basic question: Is there, in actuality a legitimate distinction twixt art and Entertainment? To which the Lost One must answer emphatically, NO.

What's funny is that when one side defending *Watchmen* makes a statement about the nudity in the art world, people are quick to cry, "Foul". "They are different," The critic says, "Art is viewed by rich people in museums who use words like, 'Narrative Painting"', 'Maquette', and (the Lost One's favorite), 'Iconography'. It's far removed from something made for the menial purpose of mass consumption."

But of course the question is, is it? What most people fail to appreciate is the fact that art is always made to be viewed. It is not made for the artist to achieve catharsis, or to showcase their intellectual talent. No art is, at it's best, about the bringing of a new idea to the viewer. About communicating with them, about challenging them, about elevating them, but always about them. It's not focused on the artist's wants, needs, or personal beliefs about what the "right" crowd is. It is about communicating universal truth, universally. Indeed, a quick perusal of the art terms above will show that all of them are about selling the art, or communicating a story. Art is, and always has been about communicating.

The second thing missing is the simple fact that most of what we consider art, was created for mass consumption. Few would argue that Shakespeare isn't art. Yet Shakespeare wrote, not so students can discuss...say... the use of Amazon myth to subjugate women (or not), or the insights of a playwright into the follies of both youth and age, or the evil and corrupting nature of power, but instead wrote so the groundlings could laugh at poor Helena, who goes from one too few lovers, to one to many (Midsummer's Night Dream), to cry with Juliet when her parent's force her love to suicide, and herself as well (Romeo & Juliet), and to hiss at Richard III as he seduces a widow in front of the quickly cooling corpse of her own husband (Richard III). The fact that each of these plays excels at beautiful subtext, and thought provoking ideas, in no way diminish the fun for which they were ultimately created. It's the same in Painting, how many of the paintings we admire today were commissioned by nobles, purely for the pleasure of keeping up with the Jones, (Or De Gauls, or Reyes, or Mèdicis)? In architecture, Vitruvius' De Architectura is dedicated to the Emperor Augustus, is it so hard to believe this is because the designer was actively hoping to be massively popular? The Lost One thinks not.

Thus, there are things one could say against *Watchmen* (And the Lost One might just. Only...later), but the one thing you mustn't ever say is, "It's just entertainment." There is, ultimately, no such animal.