Rather than derailing Molly's thread on beauty, here's a new one continuing my discussion with Slip on Michael Jackson and art. Of course, anyone else is welcome to contribute.
2009/7/8 Slip Disc <[email protected]> > > 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. Each to their own. If crotch-grabbing/thrusting is your bag, then more power to you! If you think that the moonwalk was art -- rather than a fun/cheesy gimmick -- then that's okay too. I found nothing Jackson produced to be "mind-bloggling". He was labelled the "King of Pop", but pop -- by its very nature -- is asinine, disposable, and commercial... with due exception given to the genres of indie pop and C86. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_pop 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 can only assume this is a joke -- often hard to tell if we're not face-to-face -- or you have had very limited exposure to music. I am happy to talk about music and could offer up examples for longer than you'd likely care to hear them. However, for the purposes of this discussion, I'll give you a single, and I think comparable example, of a male solo writer and performer: David Bowie. > I personally have no interest, never had, > in the Jackson attraction. I am only motivated by your lack of > recognition of the innovation, Innovation is a serious word to throw around in music; I suggest you proceed cautiously with the examples I am looking forward to you offering up. I'd be particularly cautious when referring to Michael Jackson's contributions, however, because, as I am sure you know, he did very little himself... thus any credit for innovation will be, at the very best, diluted. > 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. Mend your tone a little, Slip. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
