Rule 34.

Because I consider Precious Moments and Hello Kitty in the same league.

Dude! So not the same league!!! I feel like I need a bath to wash the PM comparison away. Ew!!!

Makes some more popcorn

Dude! So not the same league!!! I feel like I need a bath to wash the PM comparison away. Ew!!!

Hah! I was going to try to address that but GC is way more of an expert!

PM is sappy, old lady, smarmy collectible. HK is hip, kitschy, youthful, fun collectible.

HK is hip, kitschy, youthful, fun collectible.

And evil. You forgot evil.

Oh, that goes without saying, of course. [link]

Here's my question when it comes to defining Art, and one that comes up pretty often on the message boards I frequent related to Broadway shows. I think very similar questions can be raised about movies.

Who, or what, determines whether a product made by multiple craft-makers is art? Is it determined by the screenplay/book, the score (if a musical), the sets, the costumes, the choreography, the blocking, the cinematography, the editing, the sound design... what?

In the theatrical community this debate is especially common. Consider a musical by Sondheim - Into the Woods, say, for the sake of argument. Most people think Sondheim is the premier artist of 20th century American musical theater, a statement I can often agree with, and almost all of the semi-pretentious theater geeks I know STILL complain that Phantom beat Into the Woods for the Best Musical Tony in 1988. It was undeniably art, as my PBS DVD bears out each time I watch it, and Sondheim always gets the credit for that.

But not every production of Into the Woods is great art. It's one of the most commonly performed shows in high school theater groups, for example, which are, by their very nature, typically fairly bad. And even the Broadway revival a few years ago, according to most reviewers, was stagnant, boring, and unappealing. In the wrong hands, Into the Woods is not great art.

Then take something like The Lion King, often seethed against as the king of Broadway's hated commercialization. The biggest theater geeks will declare its music simplistic, it's book insipid and unoriginal, and declare its continued success to be evidence that in theater as in film, popularity and quality are antithetical. But is The Lion King art? They would say no. I say that ignores the perfect direction and costume design involved.

What variables matter?

(As an aside, I love Urinetown, but the production I saw wasn't art simply because the lead character was TERRIBLE, so I couldn't get into it. Yet another variable.)

Gris,

this is my opinion (and with this and $2 you can get a doughnut) - but I think that in productions (movies, theater, etc.) - each of the parts can be evaluated independently and together as art. I've seen people give wonderful performances in bad productions and bad productions that bring everybody down.

I also think that sometimes really bad things transcend into art. But this is rare.

Like The Apple ?