What is actual artistic substance and integrity?

In the thread on Michael Jackson, there was also much discussion on whether he was great or not, whether his music was innovative or not etc.

One of the comments there was saying this:

So this leads me to the question:

What is actual artistic substance and integrity?

How are actual artistic substance and integrity recognized, how can they be distinguished from a lack of artistic substance and integrity?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An artist is a dreamer consenting to dream of the actual world.

George Santayana


Good art is not what it looks like, but what it does to us.

Roy Adzak


The job of the artist is always to deepen the mystery.

Francis Bacon


The function of Art is to disturb. Science reassures.

George Braque



To become truly immortal, a work of art must escape all human limits: logic and commonsense will only interfere. But once these barriers are broken, it will enter the realms of childhood visions and dreams.

Giorgio DeChirico



There is no must in art because art is free

Wassily Kandinsky

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Signal its an interesting question but there isn't a definitive criteria in any given medium in which to define artistic substance as its generally shifting. In terms of Jackson, to use him as an example, he was a 'packaged' showman where the use of gimmicks and glitter and catchy phrases is churned out for mass consumption. The lack of integrity comes to play when what is produced is geared towards what the market will bare independent of quality. An artist creates what they feel to create without thought of how its received by critics or public alike which is described as artistic integrity. Artistic substance refers to quality of any given piece of work, its complexity, uniqueness, depth, innovation, boldness, inherent beauty.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who decides on those things ?

 

i like this one although i am not an artist.

 

Well there was thought of checking your asshole but then it was reconsidered since its so full of shit. Enemas are good I hear.

Any pithy thoughts on the subject?

 

Something is art when it was made with that intent, regardless of what anyone else thinks of it.

 

No Enmos. The question here is not 'what is art' the question here is what is artistic integrity and substance. Do try and keep up with the rest of the class.

Maybe you should sit in the corner and just listen.Here...

*hand extends with Enmo's dunce cap*

 

to me, art is the skill to portray feelings and memories. weather it be in paintings, music or sculpture.


the turner prize, on the other hand, is a joke, calling a screwed up piece of paper, ART? and then giving the "artist" lots of money for it?

Da-vinchi, Michealangello, Beethioven, Bach etc etc, all possesed great skill and CAN be called artists.

makes me question the very fabric of society

 

Oh, so you can't read then ? lol
My answer covers the 'substance' bit. As for artistic integrity, I don't know what that's supposed to mean. It's a misnomer, imo..

 

Whether a work has substance or integrity is interpreted in time. If I make a plain porcelain cup I cannot declare it art and say this has substance and integrity. In short just because the creator declares it so doesn't make it so even if it fulfills function, just like you cannot claim yourself an adroit thinker just because you have the ability to link words into a sentence. Even the Dadaist insisted on some rules of engagement when considering what was 'anti-art' which itself fell into the realm of art.

Maybe if you stick the aluminum part of the hat into an electric socket your acumen will improve.

When you wrote this gem here: "Something is art when it was made with that intent, regardless of what anyone else thinks of it."

What part (or 'bit' as you say) in that sentence describes artistic substance?

I ask because you declared this:

My answer covers the 'substance' bit."

 

The intent is all the artistic substance it needs.
Could you please define 'artistic integrity' ?

 

no screwing with the models.

 

Enmos

Then you have no understanding of what an artist is nevermind art.

I gave a brief description in an above post. Now go sift through all the words in my fist post and see if you can find it. Maybe then you can get a gold star to put on your cap.


An artist takes a selection of elements to create something unique, this is a subjective process as opposed to ancient times when the rules were written in stone. An artists work renews perception of what is known and expresses what society fails to express itself, its a function of art and not everyone is in a position to do it, so your claim that art is anything that is created is like saying any tin can is a work of art in itself simply because it was created. Nor can we say anyone who creates something is performing an artistic function.

 

Art is everything that touches your innermost core. It's subjective, and quite relative. And I don't believe that there will ever be a proper definition of what art is.

 

This all belongs to the Michael thread as it has nothing to do with art (neither did mJ have anything to do with art).

His skin change was a sign of neurosis. If he had pride he would have left his coloring alone, the change in coloring isn't a change in 'race'. I doubt it raised any awareness of anything save 'what is wrong with Michael'.

 

Right, MJ just contributed a sh*tload to popmusic and music history in general. While you're at it, why don't you also claim that music isn't art?

Changing your body could be considered as art, too. It's a matter of perspective.

 

Read the OP it has Michael as a jumping point of discussion not the point of discussion. Music is art, Michael is a pop star what the hell does any of this have to do with:

What is actual artistic substance and integrity?

How are actual artistic substance and integrity recognized, how can they be distinguished from a lack of artistic substance and integrity?

If you want to drool over MJ's life take it to a bloody MJ thread there are at least two running you know.

Changing ones body an art form? Ha! Yeah tattoos, plastic surgery, Mr. Universe and skin bleaching. Very creative

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Edited it, happy now? Really, there's no need to get all grumpy over a post that's a bit off-topic.

And tattoos can be very creative. The only difference is that those are "paintings" on a body. Plastic surgery can be art, too. Shaping a perfect lip, or nose, etc. That's also a form of art. Maybe not as creative as a sculptor's work, but nonetheless still a form of art.

 

"Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must"

(followed by: and you'd better do what you're told)

I don't see the point in discussing "artistic substance and integrity" and so forth in reference to anything Michael Jackson did. I'm impressed with his dancing in the same way I'm impressed with Ricky Jay's sleight of hand skills - which means, considerably impressed and in awe of grace and magic. But he was a pop star, with considerable talent in that field: he didn't make art, he made money.