Art Here and Now header image 2

No Art, only Entertainment

December 10th, 2007 by Trout · No Comments

I’ve noticed for quite some time that most media web sites and newspapers do not have an Arts section. The closest you find is Entertainment. The meaning of these two is of course very different, not because art can’t be entertaining, it can be. But art often has more purpose to it than that. By sticking only to “Entertainment,” the media avoids discussion of any of the other reasons for art, or the cultural criticisms it might be presenting. It takes the easy route, sticking to celebrity gossip and celebrity fashion, and not a bigger cultural context, or inclusion of any artwork whose main purpose may be something other than Entertaining.

If your TV station or newspaper covers only Entertainment and not the Arts, write them and ask why, and ask them to change it (not just the name of the section, but what they cover.)

Some examples of “Entertainment” and no “Arts”:

Some great papers that still have an Arts section:

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Tags: Art Life · Artforms · Big Business · Cinema · Dance · Drawing and Illustration · Painting · Photography · Sculpture · Television · The Press · Theatre

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment


Your email address will not be shown in the comment post, and if we email you at all it would only be about something related to this comment.

(You have to click in the comment box at some point before submitting. This helps prove you're a person.)

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security text shown in the picture. Click on the image to regenerate some new text.

Anti-Spam Image