My fishhead friend speaking on the difference between tale and tail. I thank you. :-)
On 8 Jul., 09:57, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Ian really, the Caravaggio comparison is pertinent but only in the > context of that era and Jackson in this era. Equally they crossed the > line, creating a frenzy of mind boggling spectacle. I must say that > your comment "Michael Jackson produced a lot of popular PRODUCT, but > very little art." is indeed a consequence of tunnel vision. Of course > if you can produce evidence of another artist that issued such > extraordinary talent preceding that of Jackson, I, as well as others, > would concede to your view. I personally have no interest, never had, > in the Jackson attraction. I am only motivated by your lack of > recognition of the innovation, regardless of the underlying product > value, of such motivation in artistic influence as well as the perks > within the industry (for the sharks). Art is something of a misnomer > in that people will and are paying thousands of dollars for > contemporary "Graffiti" art, which for me as an artist styled in > Renaissance period art view as pure "garbage". So in that sense, your > view of Micheal Jackson as less than an art form is reflective of your > lack of understanding what "art" is all about. > > On Jul 8, 2:19 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2009/7/7 frantheman <[email protected]> > > > > Behind all the weirdness (perhaps even perversion) and > > > the disgusting commercial hype surrounding his death, that was what > > > Michael Jackson was at his best. There have been other similar > > > artistic wonders throughout history - Caravaggio comes to mind. > > > Did you just compare Michael Jackson to Caravaggio? :) > > > Whilst I think there is much artistic merit in music, I think it is almost > > always missing from the mainstream. Michael Jackson produced a lot of > > popular PRODUCT, but very little art. He also understood, for a time, how to > > market that product as good as anyone. This was made remarkably easier by > > the team of people around him. The album 'Thriller', whilst a good album, > > initially looked to have only been a minor hit for him. The first single, > > 'The Girl Is Mine', did okay, but didn't set the world on fire. However, > > over the next three years Jackson marketed the hell out of that album. He > > bled it dry, releasing nine songs from it. And of course, that $500,000 > > video (which he did not choreograph, by the way) was a stroke of marketing > > genius. > > > To call Michael Jackson an artist deeply devalues the word. I don't just say > > that because I am a music snob (I freely admit I am and that it is a factor > > here). I think the roles of the musician and artist are almost always in a > > state of conflict; such is the nature of a creative person peddling > > commodities (CDs, etc) and being subjected to commercial pressure. However, > > I think the continuing decline of the music industry's business model -- > > coupled with the reduced cost of home recording -- is a great thing for the > > "art" in music to take a more prominent role. > > > Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
