|
Entertainment -
How best to define the term “
Entertainment ” is a subject of much contention; many
books and journal Entertainment
icles have been published arguing over even the basics of what we mean by
the term “ Entertainment ”
(Davies, 1991 and Carroll, 2000). Theodor Adorno claimed in 1969 “It is
self-evident that nothing concerning
Entertainment is self-evident any more.” (Danto,
2003). Indeed, it is not even clear anymore who has the right to define
Entertainment .
Entertainment ists, philosophers, anthropologists, and
psychologists all use the notion of
Entertainment in their respective fields, and give
it operational definitions that are not very similar to each others. How best to define
the term “ Entertainment ” is a subject of much contention; many books and journal
Entertainment icles have been published arguing over even the basics of what we mean
by the term “ Entertainment ” (Davies, 1991 and Carroll, 2000). Theodor Adorno claimed
in 1969 “It is self-evident that nothing concerning
Entertainment is self-evident
any more.” (Danto, 2003). Indeed, it is not even clear anymore who has the
right to define Entertainment
. Entertainment ists, philosophers, anthropologists, and
psychologists all use the notion of
Entertainment in their respective fields, and
give it operational definitions that are not very similar to each others.
Nonetheless we can make some progress towards defining
Entertainment in its most
everyday senses. The first broadest sense of “
Entertainment ” is the one that has
stayed closest to the older Latin meaning, which roughly translates to
"skill" or "craft", and also from an Indo-European root meaning
"arrangement" or "to arrange". In this sense,
Entertainment is whatever is described
as having undergone a deliberate process of arrangement by an agent. A few
examples where this meaning proves very broad include
Entertainment ifact,
Entertainment ificial,
Entertainment ifice,
Entertainment illery, medical
Entertainment , and military
Entertainment . However,
there are many other colloquial uses of the word, all with some relation
to its etymology.
The Café Terrace on the Place du Forum, Arles, at Night, September
1888.The second, more narrow, more recent sense of the word “
Entertainment ” is
roughly as an abbreviation for creative
Entertainment or “fine
Entertainment .” Here we mean
that skill is being used to express the
Entertainment ist’s creativity, or to engage
the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards
consideration of the “finer” things. Often, if the skill is being used in
a lowbrow or practical way, people will consider it a craft instead of
Entertainment . Likewise, if the skill is being used in a commercial or industrial
way it will be considered design instead of
Entertainment . On the other hand, crafts
and design are sometimes considered applied
Entertainment . Some thinkers have argued
that the difference between fine
Entertainment and applied
Entertainment has more to do with
value judgments made about the Entertainment than any clear definitional difference
(Novitz, 1992). However, even fine
Entertainment often has goals beyond just pure
creativity and self-expression. The purpose of works of
Entertainment may be to
communicate ideas, such as in politically-, spiritually-, or
philosophically-motivated Entertainment , to create a sense of beauty (see
“aesthetics”), to explore the nature of perception, for pleasure, or to
generate strong emotions. The purpose may also be seemingly nonexistent.
Entertainment can describe several kinds of things: a study of creative skill, a
process of using the creative skill, a product of the creative skill, or
the audience’s experiencing of the creative skill. The creative
Entertainment
(“ Entertainment ”’ as discipline) are a collection of disciplines (“
Entertainment ”) which
output Entertainment works (“
Entertainment ” as objects) that is compelled by a personal drive
(“ Entertainment ” as activity) and echoes or reflects a message, mood, or symbolism
for the viewer to interpret (“ Entertainment ” as experience).
Theories of Entertainment
Aesthetics, or the philosophy of
Entertainment , often engages in disputes about the
best way to define Entertainment . General pictures of the nature of
Entertainment are called
“theories of Entertainment .”
Fountain by Marcel Duchamp. 1917Many have argued that it is a mistake to
even try to define Entertainment or beauty, that they have no essence, and so can
have no definition. Often, it is said that
Entertainment is a cluster of related
concepts rather than a single concept. Examples of this approach include
Morris Weitz and Berys Gaut.
Another approach is to say that “ Entertainment ” is basically a sociological
category, that whatever Entertainment schools and museums, and
Entertainment ists get away with
is considered Entertainment regardless of formal definitions. This "institutional
definition of Entertainment " has been championed by George Dickie. Most people did
not consider the depiction of a Brillo Box or a store-bought urinal to be
Entertainment until Andy Warhol and Marcel Duchamp (respectively) placed them in the
context of Entertainment (i.e., the
Entertainment gallery), which then provided the
association of these objects with the values that define
Entertainment . The
placement of an object in an Entertainment istic context is a common characteristic
of conceptual Entertainment , prevalent since the 1960s; notably, the Stuckist
Entertainment
movement criticizes this tendency of recent
Entertainment .
Proceduralists often suggest that it is the process by which a work of
Entertainment
is created or viewed that makes it,
Entertainment , not any inherent feature of an
object, or how well received it is by the institutions of the
Entertainment world
after its introduction to society at large. For John Dewey, for instance,
if the writer intended a piece to be a poem, it is one whether other poets
acknowledge it or not. Whereas if exactly the same set of word was written
by a journalist, intending them as shorthand notes to help him write a
longer Entertainment icle latter, these would not be a poem. Leo Tolstoy, on the
other hand, claims that what makes something
Entertainment or not is how it is
experienced by its audience, not by the intention of its creator.
Functionalists, like Monroe Beardsley argue that whether or not a piece
counts as Entertainment depends on what function it plays in a p
Entertainment icular context,
the same Greek vase may play a non- Entertainment istic function in one context
(carrying wine), and an Entertainment istic function in another context (helping us
to appreciate the beauty of the human figure).
Entertainment and class
Versailles: Louis Le Vau opened up the interior court to create the
expansive entrance cour d'honneur, later copied all over Europe
Entertainment is
often seen as belonging to one social class and excluding others. In this
context, Entertainment is seen as a high-status activity associated with wealth, the
ability to purchase Entertainment , and the leisure required to pursue or enjoy it.
The palaces of Versailles or the Hermitage in St. Petersburg with their
vast collections of Entertainment , amassed by the fabulously wealthy royalty of
Europe exemplify this view. Collecting such
Entertainment is the preserve of the
rich, in one viewpoint.
Before the 13th century in Europe,
Entertainment isans were considered to belong to a
lower caste, since they were essentially manual labourers. After Europe
was re-exposed to classical culture during the Renaissance, p
Entertainment icularly
in the nation-states of what is now Italy (Florence, Siena),
Entertainment ists
gained an association with high status. However, arrangements of "fine"
and expensive goods have always been used by institutions of power as
marks of their own status. This is seen in the 20th and 21st century by
the commissioning or purchasing of
Entertainment by big businesses and corporations
as decoration for their offices.
Utility of Entertainment
Often one of the defining characteristics of fine
Entertainment as opposed to
applied Entertainment , is the absence of any clear usefulness or utilitarian value.
But this requirement is sometimes criticized as being a class prejudice
against labor and utility. Opponents of the view that
Entertainment cannot be
useful, argue that all human activity has some utilitarian function, and
the objects claimed to be "non-utilitarian" actually have the function of
attempting to mystify and codify flawed social hierarchies. It is also
sometimes argued that even seemingly non-useful
Entertainment is not useless, but
rather that its use is the effect it has on the psyche of the creator or
viewer.
Entertainment is also used by
Entertainment therapists, psychotherapists and clinical
psychologists as Entertainment therapy. The end product is not the principal goal in
this case; rather a process of healing, through creative acts, is sought.
The resultant piece of Entertainment work may also offer insight into the troubles
experienced by the subject and may suggest suitable approaches to be used
in more conventional forms of psychiatric therapy.
[[Image:Graffiti_Panorama_rome.jpg|thumb|600px|center|Grafiti, a kind of
Entertainment considered by some to be vandalism, as it is mostly known from being
painted illicitly on on buildings, buses, trains, bridges and suchlike.
The "use" of Entertainment from the
Entertainment ist’s standpoint could be as a means of
expression. It allows one to symbolize complex ideas and emotions in an
arbitrary language subject only to the interpretation of the self and
peers.
In a social context, it can serve to soothe the soul and promote popular
morale. In a more negative aspect of this facet,
Entertainment is often utilised as
a form of propaganda, and thus can be used to subtly influence popular
conceptions or mood (in some cases,
Entertainment works are appropriated to be used
in this manner, without the creator's initial intention).
From a more anthropological perspective,
Entertainment is often a way of passing
ideas and concepts on to later generations in a (somewhat) universal
language. The interpretation of this language is very dependent upon the
observer’s perspective and context, and it might be argued that the very
subjectivity of Entertainment demonstrates its importance in providing an arena in
which rival ideas might be exchanged and discussed, or to provide a social
context in which disparate groups of people might congregate and mingle. |
