Are You Entertained?

Lately I’ve been thinking about how we relate to the arts today. Growing up in Europe, things like classical music, literature, paintings, and theater were highly valued. Film was considered on the same level – as a cultural treasure. Coming to live in the US, I saw a difference. Films were movies – they were entertainment. And in most recent years, much of the arts, even in Europe, has moved into the category of entertainment.

Now, I’m not about to discuss this distinction, at least not at this time. Personally, I don’t believe it is accurate. But thinking about entertainment today and how people relate to it, I made an interesting observation. I believe it is a good illustration of what I talked about in the post “Why Beginning?” (and several after that).

I looked at the definition of the word “entertainment” and “entertain” in a few dictionaries. First the contemporary Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus American Edition from 1996 (Oxford University Press). Then the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. And finally in the Webster’s American 1828 Dictionary of the English Language (Waking Lion Press, 2010) – it contains word definitions as they were used in the early 1800s.

And here is what I found:

The Oxford 1996 dictionary and the current online Merriam-Webster show pretty much the same definition. Entertainment is amusement or diversion; it can be a public performance; it also can involve entertaining guests.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entertainment

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary give as first definition the receiving and accommodating of guests, then provisions for the table – hence a feast, and thirdly, “the amusement, pleasure or instruction, derived from conversation, discourse, argument, oratory, music, dramatic performances, &c.; the pleasure which the mind receives from any thing interesting, and which holds or arrests the attention. We often have rich entertainment, in the conversation of a learned friend.” And the 7th and last definition is: “that which entertains; that which serves for amusement; the lower comedy; farce.” (Webster, p.259)

Notice how the usage of this word has changed. What 200 years ago included pleasure and instruction, that which holds the attention, that which is interesting and which comes from a learned source, has been transformed into that which diverts. The entertainment of the past was expected to supply new information, something to be learned and absorbed – i.e. received in the mind. Today’s entertainment is expected to keep the attention, to keep one engaged with stimuli, yet rarely to instruct. Instruction is even considered opposite and incompatible with entertainment.

This is what I mean when I say that people in the past have related differently to the arts than we do today. I think with time and usage, our understanding of art has grown more clouded rather than improved. Not necessarily all of it, yet enough to create plenty of current art that people have hard time relating to. I certainly do. So I’m back again to the point that understanding art involves understanding its roots. And I believe there are answers.