Children and Art

While writing my last post it occured to me that artwork geared toward children is sometimes forgotten by the artworld.

Children's literature, movies, music, poetry-- some of it I enjoy more than most adult artwork.

But can we compare the two?

Can we compare the poetry of Shel Silverstein with the poetry of TS Eliot?

Is there a imaginary line drawn between artwork for children and for adults? And can we measure them by the same standards?

Response to Tyler's Response to Skyla

Question: Is N'Sync bad art? Does their popularity, however fleeting, warrant the title of "good art?"If Susie got Mitch's message, and Susie alone, did Mitch succeed as an artist?

N*sync never sought to be considered "good art." Their music was not geared to 30 something intellectuals. but 12 year old teeny boppers. The message of their songs were not in the lyrics, or the musical quality of the songs. The message was in the package, in the overly-repetitive "catchy" melodies, and flashy sweatsuits.

And the message wasn't much of a message anyways.

Except that it entertained.

So if the message was just that. To entertain 12 year olds.

Does that make it art?

Does that make it good art, because it did very succesfully so, entertain the tweens of the 90's?

I dont know? There is a difference between an entertainer and an artist. And N'Sync, definately fits more comfortably into the first category.

N'Sync, were very good entertainers. But the artistic quality of their works go unappreciated by most members of the artworld, because their audience was not the artworld. It was the world of entertainment.

Question:

What do you think? If an artist's purpose is to entertain, does that make him or her an artist or an entertainer?