Concept IS execution. Discuss.

>>9609289
That's the stupedist shit ever. Conceptual is not or executive.

Nigger.

style IS substance

>>9609289
>Concept IS execution.

that's pretty sick dude
isn't beheading people bad enough without you coming up with new concepts for them

>>9609308
This is also true.

>>9609289
really specific concepts can be considered executions of much larger, broader ideas, but if you have a fairly general idea then that is a "concept", and the details added from there create the "execution".

so in short, it depends on how specific or broad your starting idea is in the first place

>>9609308
not true at all. style is style. substance is substance. but something can have plenty of style and not as much substance and still be great (ex. Lolita), and other things can be pure stylistic masturbation that serves no purpose other than showing the reader how sophisticated/intelligent the author is.

the reason it works for Lolita is that the style of the novel creates the experience of being inside Humbert's head, we read those beautifully written sentences and we truly feel like we are inside Humbert's head, those sentences are not pretty for their own sake, they're pretty because they reflect Humbert's own view of himself. that's why it works, even if the substance side (themes, etc) are somewhat empty. treat it as a chance to step into a deranged civilian's mind and be able to see their consciousness firsthand. thats all Lolita really is to me(though I haven't finished it yet), an unfiltered glimpse into the mind of a deranged man, but its done so well that it deserves praise

>>9609562
>not true at all.
But it is.
Someone's style can be the substance that makes people notice their work.
Take painting, for example. Dali's substance is in large part his style.

>>9609575
style is WHAT is being expressed, substance is the MANNER in which it is being expressed. Dali's style adds to the substance of his work, no doubt, his fluid brushstrokes (style) help to convey the surreal world (substance) he's creating, but they are not the surreality itself.

>>9609591
Wrong again.
His style is his substance. His substance would not be his substance without his style.

>>9609598
I get what you mean, and I think that creatives should view both aspects as one whole when creating their own work, but it still helps to try to separate them when examining a work that has already been created. You haven't countered my point about Lolita, for example, and I don't think you can either.

Either way I will agree that in many cases, the two are interconnected in such a way that they Yin-Yang in-and-out of one another.

>>9609289
I thought about this for like a minute and I agree.

>>9609598
Wrong. His style informs his substance, it is not the substance itself. The most you could say is that they are intimately intertwined with each other, but intertwined =/= equals. Intertwined visually looks like two things that are connected to eachother yet still different from one another. Imagine two different colored strings of play-doh, blue and pink. They are connected yet you can still discern between each type of play-doh.