Only if you have to see it in Pageant form. Barf!
On Jul 9, 2:04 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Boring beauty. Quiet a concept. Can beauty be boring?
>
> On Jul 9, 9:03 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Einstein and others drew relativity from obscure experiments to glean
> > the size of molecules and the movement of pollen grains in solution.
> > Beauty tends to fit with experiment and eventual communication beyond
> > the almost non-verbal beholder's eye. It may well bore most people
> > and end up being taught in school chemistry.
>
> > On 8 July, 20:23, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
