Originally Posted by oscillate

I'd disagree. Art can be entertainment. It's all subjective, right?

A lot of people are clearly very entertained by Taylor Swift. Obviously music you like that you consider art is hopefully entertaining, otherwise you're some sort of masochist.

It seems like, for the purpose of this thread, we have to define art and entertainment, which in itself is a discussion.

So, art, hopefully, is entertaining. Good art, at least. But entertainment is not always art. You could argue that anything - even reality TV shows - is a form of art. You wouldn't be wrong.

But, in the case of music, we could use the general definition that art differs from entertainment in that it has longevity - an album's ability to be timeless. Bowie or the Beatles created art. Does it have a lasting cultural impact? I don't know that the Backstreet Boys fit that criteria.

Thoughts?