I see no real need to divide between art (as something per se more valuable) and entertainment (as something low for the masses). For me art is a word to set more complicated works made apart from works made by an industry mainly fore commercial reasons, while the artists work to express themselves.
Actually art is only entertainment for a more sophisticated and therefore smaller audience. And the minimum approach art should have is that it is entertaining.
No, it means there is no real need for that. There is only a divide between works which entertain me, and works which don't entertain me.
Yes but only for me. If that what bores me fascinates someone else it is art for those others. Or with other words entertainment which not only entertains but also fascinates.
But who makes the distinction?
No, the result will not be uniformity, but we do not have others to define for us what is good and what not. We have to decide that for ourselves. Which we do anyway.
Of course there still is a distinction, only who defines what is art and what not?
Whatever, what is art or not is not a given thing, it is made by people, who have opinions and not a truth, which means that what is art and what not is absolutely subjective, and not a truth. In the end I have to decide for myself what is art for me and what not.
If the Mona Lisa bores me I see no reason for me to call it art, only while others say so. But I accept that others, and in that case a majority, view it that way.
For me Quantum of Solace is a complex and fascinating masterpiece, so it is doubtless art for me, but I easily accept that that is a minority opinion.
But then if we all call both entertainment (or non-entertainment) instead of art, it is basically the same. A distinction is ok, but not to set some things above others as an objective truth. Like jazz is art and therefore always something better than e.g. pop.