I know this can be a tricky question, but I’m asking honestly. I went to art school and took some philosophy classes, so I get that people see a difference between different kinds of art. There’s applied art, which has a practical use (like industrial design, graphic design, or decorative art), and then there’s fine art, which is about beauty and creating for the sake of it, without focusing on practicality (like jazz, classical music, paintings, etc.).
I get that these two often overlap (especially with things like Post-Modernism and pop art). But here’s my question: is entertainment, like movies or video games, considered applied art? While entertainment doesn’t serve a physical need, it does serve a psychological one for the public, and it’s created with practical things in mind like playtesting for games or test screenings for movies. So, would that make it applied art?
I find it helpful to think about the difference between relaxation and leisure. High art (or fine art) is probably meant for leisure—helping us grow as people. On the other hand, entertainment, as we usually think of it, is more for relaxation, giving us a break rather than making us better.
@Chandler
Thanks, that makes sense. Applied art could be seen as more about relaxation, as it’s designed to make life more pleasant. So, something like a popcorn movie or a big-budget video game might fit into that category?
@Cleo
Yeah, applied art can cover a lot of ground, like how movies can be both. Some applied art (and movies) help us grow and connect with the world, while others just help us relax.
Many philosophers have talked about the difference between high art and low art (like Adorno or Kant). High art is more about purpose and meaning, while low art, including entertainment, serves more immediate needs like relaxation. So, yes, entertainment could be grouped with applied art based on how well it meets those needs, similar to how a good tool is judged for its usefulness.
But there are some challenges to this idea. It’s not always easy to draw a line between art and entertainment, and some entertainment might actually be closer to fine art than applied art. Some people also argue that the line between high art and low art doesn’t make much sense anymore.
@Taylor
Thanks for the response! Do high and low art match up with fine and applied art? I always thought high and low had to do with quality, but fine and applied seem more about the purpose of the art.
@Cleo
They’re not exactly the same. But when we talk about entertainment versus art, it’s kind of like talking about low art versus high art. Some people see entertainment as low art and applied art as more practical, but not everyone agrees with that distinction. It’s possible to think of entertainment as either fine or applied art, depending on how it’s made and its purpose.
@Clove
Doesn’t the purpose of the art decide if it’s fine or applied? Applied art seems to focus on practical use, and fine art on beauty. I know they overlap, but is something made mainly for entertainment closer to applied art?
@Cleo
I think you’re using ‘entertainment’ in a way that’s making this harder to understand. Can you explain what you mean by applied art and fine art again?
Clove said: @Cleo
I think you’re using ‘entertainment’ in a way that’s making this harder to understand. Can you explain what you mean by applied art and fine art again?
Sure. I just mean that something like a movie or game that’s made to entertain people might fit better as applied art, since it’s meant to serve a practical purpose—keeping people entertained. I’m not trying to argue that art can’t be both fine and applied, but if something is made mainly to please the audience, wouldn’t it be more applied art?
@Cleo
Okay, I get it now. So what’s the difference between making something to entertain a lot of people as applied art versus as fine art? Don’t both types try to reach as many people as they can, just with different goals?