One of Spores developers says "Wii is a piece of..."

[sieanr]

mancandy said:You make it sound like that average people are incapable of making "art". However, people during the renaissance did have a an appreciation for art. Art was displayed in public places. Michelangelo was a famous artists, not all artists are famous. Not all art sit in the Louvre. When you talk about "non-average" people, I assume you are referring to the rich. Not everyone was rich.

Yes I'm referring to no wealthy individuals and I never said art wasn't displayed in public places. This was in response your assumption that all people did during the renaissance was stare at sculpture all day for fun. Of course not all artist are famous and as someone else summarized, it's really dependent on art historians and what happens to be "in" at the time but I never said anything about "average" people being incapable of making or appreciating art.

I see what you are saying, I just want to elaborate on your comment. Ferrel and Cruise are actors, a type of entertainer, hence not artists. So movies are not art, just forms of entertainment.

As another person said, Directors are artist and actors are their tools.

Musicians, opera singers, ballet dancers, etc are entertainers, so they are not artists either.

They all perform works made by others, thus they can be seen as a medium for composers, choreographers, ect.

Playwrights, like Shakespeare, are not artists, merely writers and writers are just another from of entertainers. So I will assume all writers are not artists. The plays that resulted from the playwright's work are not art as well since they are forms of entertainment. Also the characters in the plays are not artists since they are just actors.

Should anything that entertains someone be considered "art", or is something thats meant to communicate emotion or ideas "art"?