Art vs entertainment vs neil degrasse tyson


(sam lockie-waring) #1

thoughts on this? i think i disagree but argue with me cuz i’m open to discussion


(Bri Castellini) #2

Oh yuck yeah I disagree. That’s kind of elitist and also really damaging for young artists to hear, especially with the connotation that what he’s considering “entertainment” is somehow less valuable.


(sam lockie-waring) #3

elitist is a good word for it, yeah. i also think, and fair enough that a tweet maybe isn’t long enough for this nuance, that art versus entertainment by these definitions isn’t so binary.


(Bri Castellini) #4

Yeah things don’t just fall into one category or the other- sometimes there’s a blend in there. Bringing in some other folks because now I’m curious… @Frankvleone @hermdelica @movieguyjon @mdec24 @Marina_Tait @OddLantern @ghettonerdgirl @OSTSG @SecretLivesPS @floorthirteen @w-e-spear @RobbieRuviews @kmd @hailstorm


(Ghetto Nerd Girl) #5

Huh? Even if you agree with said view doesn’t mean you agree 100%. This leaves no room for a gray area. I think something can be art and entertainment at the same time.


(sam lockie-waring) #6

yeah i also think to bri’s point is a hella slippery slope to tell young folks that if they aren’t going full activist in every work, they’re being trivial. though maybe worth mentioning that entertainment as an end unto itself shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing, right? like what’s wrong with something that’s entertaining? isn’t that worth time too?


(Ghetto Nerd Girl) #7

This view he has is disappointing because for the most part I like NDT and he is very influential among young ppl.


(Melissa Malone) #8

I’m sad this statement was made by NDT! I find it kind of nauseating, tbh due to it sounding like art is more important than entertainment. YES art is important but so is entertainment and often times, great work is BOTH. However, I it doesn’t have to be and I believe there is a LOT to be said for entertainment purely for entertainment sake. I believe it plays a much needed role in staying sane… and in the world in general.

That being said, I’ve seen plenty of things that affirm my world view and I still think are art. Nothing affirms EVERYONE’S world view… so doesn’t that mean everything is both entertainment and art by his statement alone? Oy…my brain hurts. lol.


(Jonathan Hardesty) #9

What a facile take from someone who is otherwise pretty smart.


(sam lockie-waring) #10

i’ve seen things like this from him before… wish i were more surprised honestly. glad to know i’m not the only one who disagrees


(Frank Leone) #11

I find this statement to be a bit of an ignorant, inartistic statement that doesn’t completely make sense. We create because we have something to say, some message that we want to put out into the world. Something that “satisfies and affirms your world view” comes with the challenge of bringing that message to life, of finding an imaginative way to bring light to your thoughts. As artists, we are consistently being challenged, as well as consistently challenging ourselves. We strive to create the best art we can through our own creative means. Our hope is to enlighten, to make a difference, to “entertain,” among other things. So, satisfying and affirming your own world view, as well as challenging and disrupting your own world view, are all a part of the same process. As creators, we know this. It’s not one or the other, it’s both. Creativity is whatever you imagine and bring to life, whatever that may be.


(Bri Castellini) #12

:raised_hands::raised_hands::raised_hands::raised_hands::raised_hands::raised_hands::raised_hands:


(Marina Tait) #13

I agree - it doesn’t ring true at all and leaves me feeling confused.
But I will say this:
To many many people, Art is that which affirms their worldview, and that which challenges or subverts it is Not-Art, or Garbage, or Heresy. And it is that idea which I think he may be trying to address here, though clumsily.


(Robbie Ru) #14

I think I see what he’s trying to say but who’s to say entertainment can’t be art? That kind of goes against everything filmmakers believe. Most of the time we are trying to do both.

Again, I see what he’s trying to say but it was poorly executed.


(William E. Spear) #15

Disagreeing mostly. First, and this point is made elsewhere in this discussion, the absence of grey areas is troubling. An old quote about arguments - If you’re not with us your against us - comes to mind. What if I don’t care about either side? Second, my writing tends to amuse me endlessly. But often its intent is to present a different perspective than what an individual is accustomed. Entertainment can, and has been, used to challenge social order.


(Herman Wang) #16

Hey, NdT should have posted this in the “Unpopular Opinions” topic last week!


(Kallum Weyman) #17

I mean like I disagree but that’s because I have no idea what the definition of art is. However, I feel he is being way too simple, but I think it something to debate.


(Mary Julia DeCarlo) #18

Hm yeah I don’t like it because while my work could be affirming my world view it could be disrupting someone else’s. So isn’t art then in the eye of the beholder anyway? I also just hate it when people shame each other in the name of Art with a capital A.


(William E. Spear) #19

Agreeing on all points.


(James Boo) #20

Addressing the words without addressing their writer: This is a non-sensical statement that unnnecessarily moralizes the simple joy of bringing an idea to life. Also a great example of how Twitter’s core feature is the gutting of genuine dialogue – I don’t even know how one would begin to respond to this, because it’s not written to be part of any good-faith conversation.

Addressing their writer: By many accounts NDT is an arrogant exemplar of mansplaining, who dunks on the value of the arts and the humanities every chance he gets. Here’s one of those accounts, which responded to a Reddit question asking “Why are people so mean to Neil Degrasse Tyson?”:

"We were a small college club with around 10 members and on a whim one of our members emailed tyson’s agent to see if we could book him. We found out it would cost 40k (it raised to 50k in December of that year where I think it still might be) for his speaking fee plus expenses to have him come to our college for 1 day where he’d host a small lecture, a press meeting, dinner with up to 6 people, and the main lecture and a book signing time permitting. We decided to go for it, and spent a year where our club exclusively worked on bringing him in.

When he arrived, myself and others introduced ourselves and our fields of study. He went after first of us in humanities or soft sciences pretty much relentlessly from the get go. We’re all used to the philosophy major working at McDonald’s joke, but he wasn’t trying to be funny, and spent the ride from the airport making repeated comments about the uselessness of our majors. Additionally he spent about 5 minutes trying to show that logic was stupid but he was citing logical rules and Occam’s razor.

The small lecture was him bragging about how famous he was, and how easy it is to pull yourself out of poverty or etc. The dinner was for leaders of other clubs so helped us raise money. He took the piss out of how one student held her fork, and was impossibly smug when giving advice to physics students.

The main event was a terribly boring lecture consisting of fart jokes and fan service; teasing the upcoming TV series he was in and not much else. He spent a quarter of the time reading Sagan’s blue dot, which is nice but shouldn’t have cost us because it wasn’t his material.

He left at about 2am, and we were all exhausted because we had spent the day busy setting up and tearing down. The whole affair cost nearly 85k. The additional money being for locations, personnel, air fare, Tyson’s hotel, catering, etc."

$85,000! How many community events could have been funded for $85,000?