Art is an open field full of oddity beyond comprehension and it is always the beholders that decide what is and what is not to be considered artistic. Obviously millions of people have perceived MJ to be artistic and innovative. You have your individual perceptions of art and so don't find anything of value in the MJ venue, still you can't discount what others feel or see in artists. I won't discredit MJ simply because I never thought he was anything special or never understood what people saw in him. I always wondered why people see some things as art, things like Andy Warhols can of soup. David Bowie? lol. One of many writers and performers without similar distinction and one that we could say had a cult following, as many artists have. I'm sure MJ was more than a crotch grabbing moonwalker and again that perception, with mended tone, lacks the recognition of the "span" of his career. Obviously there was talent there and innovation followed and is noted in Lee's post. In the world of art, one persons trash is another persons treasure.
On Jul 8, 7:51 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
