K-Pop: Artists or Entertainers?

Courtesy of RondaK

By David Tizzard

K-pop is here. Music outlets such as Rolling Stone and NME now feature groups regularly and heavily. There is a financial imperative in this, of course. The same way in which awards shows will make a habit of having certain groups perform, and often late on in the ceremony, to ensure high viewing figures from the many devoted fans, news outlets have also realized the money that can be made by having K-pop on the front of their magazine or featured heavily on their website. K-pop brings clicks, clicks bring advertisers, and advertisers bring money. It's the circle of digital life. Elton John eat an NFT of your heart out.

While the question has long been asked as to whether K-pop is or isn't a genre, and whether the K represents Korea or everything but Korea, this article hopes to begin discussion around whether those who perform in the K-pop industry are artists or entertainers.

A narrative began a few years ago, largely centered on BTS, declaring some in the industry to be artists. This was because they wrote their own songs and addressed social issues. Leaving aside the fact this is how K-pop actually began with Seotaeji and Boys' phenomenal impact in the early 1990s, boybands such as BTS were described as "artists." Often called a "band." Said in the same breath as The Beatles.

That narrative and reason for us to all pay attention and show respect to the septuplet was quietly brushed under the rug as their entertainment company started buying songs for them to sing from other people and swapped talks of school bullying for Butter. Instead, it was now about their undeniable popularity. However, the idea that K-pop idols are artists has persisted. So what is an artist? And what is an entertainer? And what title applies to members of NCT, Got7, Twice, and The Boyz if they are to be written about?

An entertainer wants to please people. They are bourgeois. The purpose of what they do is to see delight in the face of those for whom they perform. If the delight is there, they have done it well. If the joy is absent, there is something wrong. The entertainer, therefore, lives for the reaction they give birth to in those who observe them. The whole reason for being is external to them. And this is not a trivial matter. Nor should it be disregarded or seen as a mere folly. To bring joy to people is not easy. It also seems to push the needle towards goodness more than towards the dark. It of course helps in this if you're super hot.

For an artist, however, there is ugliness. And there is a paradoxical beauty in that ugliness. What matters is not the delight felt by others. Instead, the validity of the creation is internal. It is conferred by the artist and the artist alone. Should it bore or even disgust and horrify others, this is inconsequential. In fact, it might even be desired. For the artist there is a toughness and a refusal to compromise. They will bite the hand that feeds them if necessary. They will "go electric." They will "go acoustic." They will get haircuts. They will burn money. They will do whatever they want to do. A fantastic confidence and an unparalleled contempt for society exist in equal measure. There is conviction.

Conversely, the entertainer works on commission. They conform. People pay them money to speak, act, dance and move a certain way. Of course each entertainer will bring something of themselves to the role. Yet they are there to please and to provide that which is comfortable. They work perfectly on mainstream television and on talk shows. They are easy and pretty: the darlings of aunties worldwide. They seek and produce perfection in what they do.

It is certainly not for me, or for Stephen Fry who has inspired much of this distinction between artists and entertainers, to determine once and for all what art is. That is a question which has dogged humans for as long as we can remember. But, personally, art is challenging. Art is uncomfortable. Art makes you think. And art comes from artists who exist to create purely for themselves and not for the joy (or lack thereof) it might bring to those who observe their creations. Artists create permanency. Entertainers create the present.

With all this said, it feels to me far more appropriate to call K-pop idols entertainers rather than artists. This is not to say they are lesser or providing something insignificant. Far from it. Yet it is to ascribe difference and highlight what makes them unlike some of their peers in the world's biggest music magazines. They might be artists in their personal lives. They might be artists in the future. But while they sing, dance and dress on demand for CEOs so as to bring the joy we see across the world, they are entertainers. And if it were possible, Scott Joplin's marvelous 1902 piece would start playing right now on the website as you finished this piece whether you liked it or not. In fact, I would quite enjoy it if you didn't like it.

Dr. David A. Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) has a Ph.D. in Korean Studies and lectures at Seoul Women's University and Hanyang University. He is a social/cultural commentator and musician who has lived in Korea for nearly two decades. He is also the host of the Korea Deconstructed podcast, which can be found online. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.