A question I often encounter in conversation and in my own rumination is “Am I an artist or an entertainer?” This is a question many artists (or entertainers??) grapple with.
Why do we as artists/entertainers, or artertainers — sorry, nevermind, nope, I am not coining that term — let’s just use the word artists as a catch-all — even feel the need to ask ourselves this question? I can only speak from personal experience and say that whenever I’ve found myself asking this, it’s because either:
I didn’t get the reaction I wanted from a performance I gave and thus am challenging the subsequent negative self-talk with the idea that what I do might not be purely for entertainment’s sake, and therefore the lack of laughs (in my case) doesn’t necessarily make what I just did any less valid — because it’s art and art shouldn’t always bring delight. Right??
I don’t like something another artist is doing and I’m trying to figure out if it’s because it’s “art” which has no obligation to satisfy me, or “entertainment” that has failed to entertain.
Either way, this question is usually sparked by a negative reaction to me or from me, and since negativity is the common denominator here, it seems this question is fraught. It’s also a question that can’t really be answered, similar to the age old “What is art?” or “What came first, the chicken or the egg?*”
Is a question born of negativity that has no real answer worth asking? Don’t answer that. Whether or not the question is worth asking, let me explain why I feel it can’t be answered, at least not using the words “either” or “or.”
Can you really have art without entertainment or entertainment without art? Art must have a level of entertainment — a signal to your brain that something is worth paying attention to. Similarly, entertainment must have some degree of artistry behind it in order to entertain at all. There are entertaining hacks and not-entertaining hacks — the artist is the hack who entertains.
My real problem with this question isn’t that it’s born of negativity or that it has no concrete answer, but that it seems to be used as a cop-out, both for self-proclaimed “artists” and self-proclaimed “entertainers.” If you claim to be one or the other, it relieves you of some pressure. An “artist” can attribute a negative reaction to their work to the idea that it’s not meant to entertain (“they just don’t get it”) and an “entertainer” can chalk up unoriginal and/or underdeveloped content to the idea that their job isn’t to make anything of “quality” or to make anyone think — just to “entertain!”
And sometimes these ideas are the case. Not all art needs to satisfy, and not all entertainment needs to challenge or be of high quality. But perhaps as an artertainer (I changed my mind, I’m coining it), before asking yourself the question of “What is it that I do?” ask yourself if you could make whatever you’re doing any better.
*The rooster came first. He always does.
Below is a conversation between myself and comedian Adam Muller where we discuss this idea of art versus entertainment related to stand-up. Adam is a hilarious comic who often opens for me on the road, and we’ve spent hours in the car talking jokes and comedy in general and always say it feels like we’re doing a podcast. So on March 16th, 2024, while working a casino in the Poconos together, we actually recorded one. We had just performed there the night before and were gearing up for two shows that night. We recorded this at the hotel, and it’s an unfiltered discussion about our performances the night before and about comedy in general. It’s about 40 minutes long and I think you’ll enjoy it!
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Notes from a Successful Failure to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.