View Full Version : 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:
I think Jackson was famous for being weird more than anything else, a reclusive, one gloved, mask wearing, chimp owning, child like, weirdo who wasn't comfortable with his race. I see more kitschy tasteless gaudy glam than 'artist'. His voice wasn't great, his songs nothing unique or interesting. In short I think he's more concoction and invention than actual artistic substance and integrity.
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?
cosmictraveler
06-27-09, 07:35 AM
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
Lucysnow
06-27-09, 12:45 PM
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.
Artistic substance refers to quality of any given piece of work, its complexity, uniqueness, depth, innovation, boldness, inherent beauty.
Who decides on those things ?
tuberculatious
06-27-09, 12:47 PM
There is no must in art because art is free
Wassily Kandinsky
i like this one although i am not an artist.
Lucysnow
06-27-09, 12:54 PM
Who decides on those things ?
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?
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.
Lucysnow
06-27-09, 01:03 PM
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*
Dynamite Dan
06-27-09, 01:04 PM
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
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*
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..
Lucysnow
06-27-09, 01:32 PM
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."
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 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' ?
tuberculatious
06-27-09, 01:45 PM
The intent is all the artistic substance it needs.
Could you please define 'artistic integrity' ?
no screwing with the models.
Lucysnow
06-27-09, 01:47 PM
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.
PsychoTropicPuppy
06-27-09, 05:04 PM
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.
Lucysnow
06-27-09, 06:26 PM
Could also flip the coin around and look upon Michael Jackson's skin colour change as a form of demonstration to prove to everyone that even once their skin is white they'll still stay black at heart, and that instead of trying to aim for a more whiter appearance they should be proud of what they have, the pride of being black. I could even go so far as to say that Michael used himself as a guinea pig to raise awareness of this flawed wish that so many people had, and probably still have - changing their colour which could also be used as a metaphor for other things such as background, ethnicity, and so forth. Trying to raise others feeling of self-respect and personal worth.
Art is everything that touches your innermost core.
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'.
PsychoTropicPuppy
06-27-09, 06:35 PM
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.
Lucysnow
06-27-09, 06:39 PM
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 :rolleyes:
PsychoTropicPuppy
06-27-09, 07:19 PM
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.
iceaura
06-27-09, 08:41 PM
"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.
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.
Lucy, you're oblivious.
PsychoTropicPuppy
06-28-09, 08:13 AM
Regardless of what your opinion is on MJ's creations, each song is an artistic creation, just as every painting Van Gogh made is.
The integrity and substance of any artistic work out there is influenced by its artist. Anyone who claims that the artist isn't relevant when it comes to the integrity and substance in any piece of art is well....better not going to say it.
And contrarily to your claims of MJ not being at all relevant in this subject, I think that MJ's life and work are a good example for this. His contributions in the world of music don't solely get criticised based on the pieces of music he's created but also on MJ's character, life, and actions.
There's this Costa Rican artist who used a suffering dog in an art exhibition a year or two ago. He paid some kids to catch a stray, tied it up on a short leash in an art gallery , and refused to give any food or water. Hundreds of visitors passed by the dying canine while visiting the gallery, and apparently no one said anything. Three days into the exhibition the dog supposedly died.
According to Vargas, he was testing the public’s sensitivity to the suffering of an animal. He wanted to see if visitors would try to help the dog, but they ignored it. He also said that if he had left it on the street to die, no one would have noticed anyway. So, to sum up, a guy displayed a starving dog, let it die, and thus proved that art enthusiasts are also cold hearted.
He may call this art, but due to that I will never want to know of his other artistic creations. Though, I admit he did make a point with this, but nonetheless it sickens me that he went so far as to prove his point by killing an animal and justifying it with a laughable "the dog would have died anyway on the street" and of course, this justifies him letting a dog starve to death, right...
Anyway, this is an other example of how an artist's actions influence his creations' integrity, and what not.
Source: http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/04/21/starving-dogs-art/
Lucysnow
06-28-09, 03:11 PM
Lucy, you're oblivious.
To what oh genius? What does it take too many words to describe what I am oblivious towards? Or did you feel that you should have at least said something?
Lucysnow
06-28-09, 03:26 PM
Regardless of what your opinion is on MJ's creations, each song is an artistic creation, just as every painting Van Gogh made is.
The integrity and substance of any artistic work out there is influenced by its artist. Anyone who claims that the artist isn't relevant when it comes to the integrity and substance in any piece of art is well....better not going to say it.
Besides your unhealthy focus on Jackson do you actually read posts at all? I mean do you try and glean what the discussion is about or do you just blither on in your own world?
Can you answer these questions? I mean you are blithering about what you seem to think art is but Signal didn't ask what art is he asked:
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 hold this
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.
then how can you say this
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.
-?
How can you make any value judgment if you hold that there is no definitive criteria?
Artistic substance refers to quality of any given piece of work, its complexity, uniqueness, depth, innovation, boldness, inherent beauty.
Can these: "complexity, uniqueness, depth, innovation, boldness, inherent beauty" be objectively defined?
Otherwise, it is all just down to the opinion of the individual.
Lucysnow
07-02-09, 04:11 AM
I said that it shifts, there isn't a definitive criteria in terms of what is expected overall in the world of art in regards to any particular medium. What one would have looked for in a work of art during the 17th century would be different from what we would look for in the 21st, its for this reason Roy Lichtenstein can be accepted as quality work along with Rubens. They represent very different qualities but they are both examples of meaningful art. What criteria was there for Michel Duchamp? Dada created its own criteria. Each movement would have its own criteria but there wouldn't be one to govern all art. I did go on to say
"Artistic substance refers to quality of any given piece of work, its complexity, uniqueness, depth, innovation, boldness, inherent beauty." etc etc etc
WillNever
07-16-09, 01:17 AM
When you see artistic substance, you usually know it. If a drama (this could be a song, a play, a work of fiction) has artistic substance, it may stir emotion within you. If a dance has artistic substance, it will amaze you with its beauty or its technique. Even in an essay, artistic substance is in how cleverly it is crafted by the author to persuade readers.
Artistic substance is what realizes an artist's purpose in each of his pieces of art. :)
In the first place, art can be nearly anything. Ceramic spoon holders with cute ducks and bunnies painted on them, for instance. In eighth and ninth grade, I had this habit of twisting paper clips into weird, formless shapes. My teacher eventually told me to stop, but not because she thought it was wasted effort. Rather, she was running out of paper clips.
There was an exhibit in Britain last year where an artist masturbated over pieces of paper (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=76124), then threw graphite over the ejaculate.
Artistic substance is an art form that communicates something genuine. Artistic integrity arises from making that genuine statement despite what the audience might think. Those are very simplistic approaches to the concepts, but also basic and essential.
When you see artistic substance, you usually know it.
Two words: Tracey Emin (http://images.google.co.uk/images?gbv=2&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&sa=1&q=%22tracey+emin%22+art&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=)
Two more: Damien Hirst (http://images.google.co.uk/images?gbv=2&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&sa=1&q=%22damien+hirst%22+art&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=)
Three more: Gilbert and George (http://images.google.co.uk/images?gbv=2&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&q=%22gilbert%20george%22%20art&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)
Tell me again...
When I was young I defined art as being a drawing or painting which resembled the intended image as much as possible, but that definition never suited my teachers. Nope, as my education progressed, I was told by teachers and whatnot that art was simply expression, and that blue dots on blank canvasses were a highly sophisticated form of abstract art, and that I was a mongrel fuck if I couldn't interpret a blue dot on a blank canvass as being "a polar bear's opinion on winter-to-spring transition".
Personally, I think Lil Wayne is a piece of shit, and I could easily express such feelings by taking a poster of Lil Wayne and defecating over it. Could I then call that art? Of course not. I may be expressing my thoughts using various tools, but at the very core, I'm just shitting on a poster.
Carcano
07-18-09, 05:16 PM
In the thread on Michael Jackson, there was also much discussion on whether he was great or not...
Look up all the Jackson imitators on youtube.
Do any of them even come close?
Nope!
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.