The purpose of art has never been to entertain, even if art can be entertaining. The fact that so many people think such a decadent idea shows how debased our society has become by way of the profit motive.

This is an insane way to think about art. Of course art exists that entertains, and it is art. To say that art can't entertain is an absolutely drab way to look at things - it almost assumes that only negative emotions can be transferred through art.

Well, nobody said that.

> purpose of art has never been to entertain, even if art can be entertaining

Sure. But the purpose of mass-market movies is to entertain, and has been since the broadcast era.

Repeatedly referring to "art" is misleading.

Think of what good movies & television do as storytelling and I think you'll agree it better fits the narrative at hand.

Seems to me like you’re taking a narrower definition of ‘entertain’ than the parent post.