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”:

• Google News
• ABC News
• CBS News
• NBC News
• BBC News
• CNN
• Chicago Sun Times
• San Francisco Gate
• Seattle Times

Some great papers that still have an Arts section:

• The New York Times
• The Los Angeles Times
• The London Times
• The Washington Post

Related posts:

1. If You Get Points, Is It Art?
2. Artist Astronauts, Artist Cosmonauts, Artists in Space
3. A New Wave for Japanese Art

After I wrote the post about Young Frankenstein yesterday, I ran into this post – Are Blogs Making The Time-Honored Preview Obsolete?

It’s common practice for the press to refrain from reviewing shows when they are in previews. If you do a search on Technorati or Google for “Young Frankenstein musical”, however, you’ll see that no one but the traditional press is adhering to that unspoken agreement.

Related posts:

1. The New Mel Brooks Musical Young Frankenstein