Visuals are an excuse for bad music 

2 hours ago, prézli said:

Agreed.

 

This is one of the best photoshoots by a MPG for an album.

 

Because none of their faves can compete with FKA twigs or Sevdaliza

 

Because their faves aren't good at them 9/10 times. 

 

Everything from album artwork to music videos is literally apart of their artistry, if they aren't good at it they won't mention it lol. Most of their visuals be bland af serving makeup commercial at best. 

4 hours ago, KingKhalid said:

Because visuals have literally nothing to do with the artist  
 

they are not directors they are performers and if a artist had to do it on their own NOTHING would be accomplished  there’s an army of people behind our stars and they deserve that credit period 

THANK YOU 

 

Let's be honest: caring about "visual skill" is basically finding excuses over a fave's lack of talent in concrete musical skills. The actual visual aspects of a pop star's career are not done by the pop stars themselves but by photographers and directors. They're the ones who should get almost all the credit.

2 hours ago, Love Again said:

Currently?

 

1. Beyoncé

2. Gaga

3. Dua

 

Madonna during the late 80s / 90s is unmatched when it comes to art direction and Gaga 2008 - 2013 was a POWERHOUSE. Her worldbuilding and storytelling through her MVs was so impressive

Katy Perry?

Because it's usually a collaborative effort. Like people study to become directors, stage directors, cinematographers, choreographers and more I'm sure. Sometimes it just comes down to who cares and can afford the best people. So unless an artist tells us what they contributed specifically to the visuals we have to assume it was a team effort and give credit to the professionals.

56 minutes ago, halcyonday said:

Katy Perry?

Before Smile yes!

In some cases it doesn't make sense to credit an artist for hiring a team or even coming up with a concept, but in other cases when the artist does that (and potentially even more involved work), crediting the artist makes sense.

 

All in all, it's not a very easy thing to compare between artists as everyone will have a different involved and a different culminate visual history that may confirm or deny the idea that their visual language is their own or something to be proud of.

I think Beyoncé's Black is King is a great example of how visuals can be a credit to the artist's talents and creativity despite being huge productions that rely on hundreds of collaborators that range from the actual filming aspect of it, to the choreography, set design, clothing, hair, and story. And it's precisely the fact that there are so many involved in the project that makes it so that Beyoncé as the common denominator director can and should be seen as having "visuals" as one of her skills.

 

We routinely credit director of films as auteurs even though they have a lot of help too, why would it be any different when we are looking at works that a popstar has created under her own direction?

ATRL doesn’t see anything but charts and stats. I think music videos are an important art form and essential to developing a long term legacy and artistic identity. 

4 hours ago, KingKhalid said:

Because visuals have literally nothing to do with the artist  
 

they are not directors they are performers and if a artist had to do it on their own NOTHING would be accomplished  there’s an army of people behind our stars and they deserve that credit period 

Many times the artist is the one who has the vision of what they want the music video, tour, album cover, single covers etc. to look like even if they don't do the art themselves. I wouldn't call it a talent just creative

 

Is this what u mean @Love Again

Edited July 13, 20233 yr by Insanity