No one asked for my view, so here it is anyway - chuckle. I did years as a musician, did a tiny bit of acting, and eventually grew to be a media artist as my preferred expression of the "artistic compulsion."
So I guess I get to pick my hells out of the many that are available to me.??
It's been hinted several times, if not said outright, that the arts are like anything else. It is their use that makes them wholesome or unwholesome, conducive to the goal or to distraction, etc. If an actor stands on a stage, uttering lines that she has learned, to no audience, in what way is she distracting others from the path? Is she stepping off the path herself? And who are we to make that judgement. The artist usually has an urge related to his/her art...to compose, perform, create or interpret, for example. That urge is no different than the urge to eat. We can eat, speak, act, etc., mindfully or not.
The other point the Buddha made seems to agree with this. He commented that the actor that believes he is going to the land of laughing Devas by his acting is expressing Wrong View - and it is Wrong View that leads to Hell.
And what of the audience? Are the audiences any less kamma-inflicted than the performers - they choose to go and escape from reality, through the laughter, distraction, etc.
JMHO, but art is not wrong livelihood. Viewing art is not wrong action. What we do with that can be "Right or Wrong," but that is our choice, just like anything else.
These are just my views, so feel free to take them with a grain of salt or dismiss them entirely
Who, having trouble remembering my name today