Perhaps another case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder. Music of a particular artist may require relativity of taste. Music as an art form, absolutely beautiful. There are a hell of alot of people who found Jackson's work beautiful, as evidenced in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people all over the world dancing and singing his music after he died. How many people in your lifetime could evoke such a global response, opinion aside.
On Jul 8, 3:57 am, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
