Reasons for reluctance to communicate

¶ … art is "the creation of beautiful or thought-provoking works" according to the World English Dictionary

It is with that definition in mind that I argue that theatre is most definitely an art form. Theatre can be defined as when someone chooses to make dramatic performance (acting) their profession much as a dancer chooses the ballet as their profession. The roots of theatre can be traced as far back as the ancient Roman Empire, through the Renaissance in Europe and finally to the 20th century, which saw the emergence of commercial theatre such as musicals that are performed in such venues as Broadway.

Without question, acting is something that only select people are really great at. Likewise, few people can really draw or paint, dance, write, sing or play music. These are all considered art forms and the theatre is a culmination of all of these in one way or another. To try and argue that writing great prose alone is art, but that acting out that prose is not art doesn't make logical sense. For example, take a Broadway play such as The Lion King. Obviously, this musical has music in it, along with singing and dancing. It also involves elaborate costumes, colorful stages and props and creative lines for the characters. It cannot be denied that such a production is art. Theatre is art.

The theatre doesn't have to be a musical in order for it to be art. Take Shakespeare, for instance. He was clearly one of the most talented playwrights of all time. His stories were works of genius, and the stage productions of his plays were very popular during the rebirth of the theatre in the Renaissance. Shakespeare took writing to another level with his couplings, monologues, and other literary devices. You cannot say that his writing is art unless you also include the production of these writings on the stage.