But why not be entertaining?

Learning does not have to be painful. And I think that there is a natural urge to explain things one thinks one knows as best as possible in a way that can actually be entertaining.

However, the purpose is what matters then, as the point isn't to be entertaining, but to communicate something of interest in a more palatable way.

And I think there is a constant struggle within the art world itself, where entertainment is more generally considered, between whether a creative work should be entertaining in and of itself for that reason alone, or whether or not it serves some other purpose.

Should art communicate?

Can it not, and still be art?

My own view is that human beings seek knowledge and like we seek food, we can prize how it is presented, like we can prize how food is prepared and presented, or not.

And that the art of presenting information can be entertaining without it lessening the importance of the information itself.

With my own efforts I don't see them as entertaining, though I consider they might potentially be, and I leave myself that option without feeling like it is problematic.

However, my purpose would never be to entertain.

James Harris