Yes, a lot of movies or video games block busters, no matter how pretty they are, are closer to a rollercoaster than to a van gogh painting.
Indeed, you may have a lot of fun in the rollercoaster, and it may be aesthetically pleasing, but it's not made with an artistic intent as much as a desire to make the audience feel good and spend money.
You can call anything "art", so it's not like we can state precisely what fall out of the category. Plus I think the intent make things clearer: do you create music for the music, or do you reuse a well known working formula hopping to sell a lot of air time ?
You can mix both, of course. But when ROI is measure by those producing the thing, it's more a product than a piece of art.
The whole point of art is to make someone feel something. And a big part of getting people to feel is playing on familiarity - for example, how much rock music can be traced directly or indirectly to Chuck Berry? Almost every guitarist has been affected by him. We all mine Chuck Berry riffs, and thus the audience can latch on to our original music and have a spark of recognition.
It definitely would not. "Entertainment" to me would include industries like sports and gambling, which are, to most people, not art (although some gambling could be argued to be art).
I'm not sure why some people in this thread have such a strict definition of art. Hollywood blockbusters are just as much art as poetry.
