Being completely honest, when do you consider a K-pop act is being an artist?

i just see kpop "artists" as entertainers and i'm grateful for all the stuff they produced that i enjoyed throughout the years. if i didn't have this hobby, i'd probably be doing fentanyl under a bridge to pass the time instead

The moment you make a living out of making a form of art, you are an artist. I know it is obvious but some people seems to be a bit too bitter about others praising idols as artists.

I literally wish i had HALF the talent these idols have I agree with you, for me its more about how they convey their artistry and give us a true sense of just how amazing a performance can be. Sure, Soyeon is the ultimate artist and she goes beyond most of what the others could remotely dream of in terms of being more than just a singer/dancer. But in the end, I merely rely on the presentation aspect to be truly amazed! And to that extent, most if not all kpop groups and solo artists are breathtakingly good!

Kpop artists are performers. Performance is art. So they're artists. Art isn't just about self expression but expression in general. A performer of ballet isn't expressing their own emotions or ideas necessarily, but they're still artists.

Ftr, the concept of "the artist" as some special thing that has intrinsic importance is something I don't particular get on with.

But to honestly answer the question, I'm interested more in the music itself than the performance of it, so I'll always value and pay more attention to the composers then the performers and those performers who are also the composers will always have more of my respect. But that's just me, I don't think it's some universal standard. Like I don't care about vocal talent whatsoever, but plenty of people will say that vocal talent is the most important thing and they can't respect a singer that, to their ears, can't sing.

They are all artist. We need to stop gatekeeping things. Kpop artists are great performers and trained usually years to perform. They sing, dance and rap that is what artists do

Well two ways either every single kpop group isn’t artistic OR they all have their own artistic flavor.

What I do think is one group isn’t more artistic than the other by a huge margin in kpop.

They are heavily controlled by their companies and the hipster in me doesn’t consider anyone like that as an “artist” like 17 year old me would have only considered someone an artist if they were indie enough and obscure enough hence most big name pop Stars never can be artists in my mind. Plus they release way too much music to be artistic as well.

Basically the songs are not interesting or unique enough for me to consider idols artists. They have not redefined music or come up with things that have been musically influential. I cannot call these idols genre defining in pop or hip hop or r&b etc. hence they’re not Artists in my hipster eyes. Just producing is usually not enough in my books. And it never has been in general as well. Just that writing is so uncommon in kpop that we consider any piece of generic pop to be artistic.

The second thing is everything an idol does is artistic in its own merit. It’s takes great artistic skill to be great performers and release so much content like the idols do. To be appealing to dance and sing and be great on stage, that’s hard and is an art form on its own. Not everyone can do all those things simultaneously and be that great at it like idols. They are brilliant in putting on a show like no other. No one holds a candle to how well they keep an audience captivated. That’s skills that’s an art form on its own.

When they have control over what they're delivering. They don't necessarily have to write the songs (I agree with you, that's a different skillset and no one seems to criticize western artists for having 90+ people involved on their albums), but if they're just delivering what someone else has decided they're going to sing, how they're going to sing it, what choreography they're going to have, what their point moves are, passing along the writers' message for the song in interviews... then they're performers, yes, but I don't know about artists.

ETA: Thinking on this further, I think Chocolat's Melanie had a good point about this. She said in an interview once the only song she liked was Black Tinkerbell. Every other song Chocolat performed, they were told exactly what to sing, how to sing it, how to dance it. I mean, idols have mentioned before that even when people comment on a "charming part" of the song, they were told exactly what to do and how to do it. Black Tinkerbell was the only song Chocolat ever got that they got to talk to the writer, they got to offer their thoughts on how to sing a part, they got to discuss the meaning and emotions to evoke. That stands out to me as an example of the difference between just doing something on the precise moves you've been told to execute vs. being able to be an artist. In a way, in the former example, the artists are all the people putting all the pieces together and the idols are basically just acting as their medium, the way paint on a canvas is.

For me it's about passion, writing and producing are amazing skills that I wish idols continued to take a part in (and imo can help spotlight someone's passion) but at the end of the day not everyone has those skills and that's totally fine cause there are people who can produce songs but can't carry a tune. So if an idol constantly strives to improve their skills, diversify their discography/content in general, and gives their best consistently with performances they are an artist regardless of song credits in my book.

The idols have no consideration because they follow it as a simple job career, and the companies recruit them above all on the visual criterion not on an artistic criterion.

Passion and art are secondary things, which is the complete opposite of an artist.

Idols who have gained GP consideration in Korea and are regarded as artists are very few.

Imo anyone who enjoys or finds a creative art interesting, will at least want to get involved with their craft at a certain point in their life no matter how small that contribution is. Because we are humans and we do have a lot of pride in us.

Example of this group of people is the BTS vocal line. You can tell that at the beginning of their career, the members that were heavily involved in their outputs was the rapline. But along the way the other members started contributing little by little until now when they can even create their own tracks. That’s how things should be for anyone who is genuinely interested in what they do.

And we also know a lot of these kpop idols see the idol industry as a steppingstone for better prospects in the entertainment world such as acting. Some are not really here because they love music and want to pursue it as a lifelong career. They have their own plans. And that’s totally ok. Just that I’ll call the former an artiste rather than the latter to distinct the two.

Quote from centen

When they have control over what they're delivering. They don't necessarily have to write the songs (I agree with you, that's a different skillset and no one seems to criticize western artists for having 90+ people involved on their albums), but if they're just delivering what someone else has decided they're going to sing, how they're going to sing it, what choreography they're going to have, what their point moves are, passing along the writers' message for the song in interviews... then they're performers, yes, but I don't know about artists.

ETA: Thinking on this further, I think Chocolat's Melanie had a good point about this. She said in an interview once the only song she liked was Black Tinkerbell. Every other song Chocolat performed, they were told exactly what to sing, how to sing it, how to dance it. I mean, idols have mentioned before that even when people comment on a "charming part" of the song, they were told exactly what to do and how to do it. Black Tinkerbell was the only song Chocolat ever got that they got to talk to the writer, they got to offer their thoughts on how to sing a part, they got to discuss the meaning and emotions to evoke. That stands out to me as an example of the difference between just doing something on the precise moves you've been told to execute vs. being able to be an artist. In a way, in the former example, the artists are all the people putting all the pieces together and the idols are basically just acting as their medium, the way paint on a canvas is.

Good Point. I think everything boils down to being involved with your music one way or the other

If you consider dance an art, then anyone who dances should be considered an artist. Even those that dont have any input, just the very act of performing dance should be enough to qualify for the artist label.

Imagine you're in a painting class and the teacher is telling you how to paint. They give you an assignment where they tell you what to paint, what colors to use, how to do the strokes, etc. In the end, the painting that you end up doing is STILL your very own and is considered a "work of art". Same with Kpop idols who dance other people's choreos. If you consider dance an "art", then the act of performing that art makes you an artist.

If you consider only someone who creates the choreo, lyrics, or the song itself, as an artist, then 95 percent of idols dont qualify.

by default, if you sing or dance you are an artist. And Idk any kpop acts that don't do at least one of those 2 things

Sincere question to everyone who says that just dancing makes them an artist, even if every move, every wink is carefully choreographed and dictated by someone else:

Are people who participate in a Zumba class artists too? They, too, are dictated a dance to do, but have even more control than some idols on how they do it. As long as you don't run into anyone else, the Zumba instructors don't care if you swing your arms left vs right or if you wink or clap or...

Mostly, I'm curious to people who would say, no, dancing in Zumba isn't art but an idol dancing to someone else's rigidly planned and dictated choreography is. Where do you draw the line on when dancing made you an artist?

(If you'd say dancing at Zumba is also art, then I'm less curious. At least your stance is consistent.)

I think all the extra criteria people are mentioning here are what would be in consideration for what make an artist, a good artist. Lack of them won't take away that they are artist but maybe just not great ones.

Like I paint, hence I'm a painter but no Picasso

I consider all idols as artists. Idols get downgraded enough by the public. Its worse if even fans don't see them as an artists.

i never consider them artist

i just consider them idol

Quote from Minazuki

I'm dying at the hypster in you's vision of art.

But I agree with you that there is not a HUGE gap of artistry between groups. Sure there are some, since there are groups who are simultaneously skilled in more fields than others, but It's not something that would make me define one artistic, while the other is not. When, after all, they all are executing a form of art.

Bro 17 year old me was every version of “not like other girls” 😭😭😭😭😭😭

I consider any performer an artist, whether it’s a Kpop idol or someone doing summer stock in a small town. I don’t subscribe to the idea that you had to create the art to be an artist. If a world renowned pianist is playing Chopin or a celebrated ballet dancer is dancing Swan Lake or someone is dancing to Fosse’s Chicago on Broadway, it does not negate the artistry of their interpretation, performance or overall work because they did not write or produce the work, which is essentially what you are saying if you say “they’re not an artist if they just do what someone else wrote, produced or choreographed.”

I don’t think Aretha Franklin or Frank Sinatra are less of artists because they didn’t write their own songs, any more than I think Megan Trainor or Charli XCX is a better or greater artist than James Brown or Elvis Presley just because they write their own songs.

It’s strange to me to see people dismiss them because they’re “just following choreography.” Professional ballet dancers are also “just following choreography” and depending on your position (corps, for instance), you may be expected to just follow the choreo and not provide your own interpretation. The same is true for professional dancers on Broadway or the West End. It does not make the person in the corps or the chorus less of an artist than the star - they are all artists.

However, some have said earlier - and I agree - that you can distinguish between an artist and a great artist. All Kpop idols are artists, some are good artists and some are great artists. Again, to me, it’s not about whether they write or produce their own work, but (potentially) the emotional interpretation or power they bring to their art, or the interesting creativity they bring to their art. Again, Aretha didn’t write most of her songs, but she was a great artist in her interpretation of a song, which goes beyond just her natural talent and ability.

For example, Aretha, with her background in gospel music, transforms the Beatles’ quiet Let It Be into a high gospel religious experience.

Similarly, Ray Charles transforms Johnny Cash’s classic Ring of Fire

And just a pair of more recent examples - Frank Sinatra’s traditional take on the 1920s (I think?) staple Blue Skies vs indie artist Birdy’s modern take

Or Alicia Keys’ emotional version of Billie Eilish’s Ocean Eyes

All of these are examples of artists interpreting other artists’ works. Some are writers in their own right and some are not.

I hate the elitist way of thinking lol they're all artists to me

When a group or idol composes and writes a song and entertains the public with their music.

I consider singing and dancing an art form so I consider all idols artist. Some people have a very narrow definition of what an artist is/should be and I just dont agree with it.

If you are a professional singer/rapper/dancer you are automatically an artist to me.

Never really got the idea of writing/producing music to be considered an artist. Maybe it's because I was born/raised in India until I was almost 8.

In India, most singers are usually playback singers who sing in movies(and most of the time they don't write their own music). But they are still considered artists nevertheless because their instrument is their voice. I would honestly feel it is degrading if I didn't consider them an artist just because they don't write/produce their music.

Same can be applied to kpop idols

I tend to think idols and artists are the same because both can do the same things in the industry (sing, dance, produce, act, etc) but one is labeled as idol and the other is labeled as artist. The only difference that I notice is that artists are more "free" to do what they want career-wise

Lots of kpop idols don’t have control of the music until they get a few years under their belts. They don’t get to write and produce until later on in their careers

Quote from Sweet-Spice

Armedryu so I guess you mean yes.

And I know you provided the statement with good means to legitimize a bunch of kpop groups but it's still a fallacy and argument that shouldn't be made to aid it

Money shouldn't be a factor to legitimize an artist. You thinking someone is an artist and appreciating their work should be enough.

Woah, true true

Quote from centen

Sincere question to everyone who says that just dancing makes them an artist, even if every move, every wink is carefully choreographed and dictated by someone else:

Are people who participate in a Zumba class artists too? They, too, are dictated a dance to do, but have even more control than some idols on how they do it. As long as you don't run into anyone else, the Zumba instructors don't care if you swing your arms left vs right or if you wink or clap or...

Mostly, I'm curious to people who would say, no, dancing in Zumba isn't art but an idol dancing to someone else's rigidly planned and dictated choreography is. Where do you draw the line on when dancing made you an artist?

(If you'd say dancing at Zumba is also art, then I'm less curious. At least your stance is consistent.)

Display More

Your point makes sense even tho i don't consider those ppl artists. imo it's more related to the feelings, the way you execute it and the purpose of it, if you do zumba its because you want to be fit or do it as a hobby, it's not something you do as a living or perform in front of an audience to entertain unlike idols. That being said, i'm not 100% sure i would discard the zumba teacher as an artist or call artist an idol whose skills don't go above the average level.

Quote from centen

Sincere question to everyone who says that just dancing makes them an artist, even if every move, every wink is carefully choreographed and dictated by someone else:

Are people who participate in a Zumba class artists too? They, too, are dictated a dance to do, but have even more control than some idols on how they do it. As long as you don't run into anyone else, the Zumba instructors don't care if you swing your arms left vs right or if you wink or clap or...

Mostly, I'm curious to people who would say, no, dancing in Zumba isn't art but an idol dancing to someone else's rigidly planned and dictated choreography is. Where do you draw the line on when dancing made you an artist?

(If you'd say dancing at Zumba is also art, then I'm less curious. At least your stance is consistent.)

Display More

Art is something that should invoke emotions and interpretations in others who view or consume it. (This doesn’t mean all art has to be shared, but even without sharing art is inherently open to interpretation even to ones self) Hasn’t that always been the case? Zumba is something people do for themselves as a work out or self improvement etc it’s not for consumption or interpretation.

If you dance Zumba because you think it’s a beautiful artistic expression along with being a work out, it’s art. If you doing it just for the moves and as a work out (which is what people do Zumba around me for) it’s just that.. a work out routine.