I think Diane Sawyer explained the moonwalk as special shoes fitted into slots in the stage floor which made the moves possible.
I agree with your assessment of Jackson and two teens at the time never were interested. An older brother liked Prince for a time. Now, Scott Joplin, Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington are in an entirely different class in my personal view. I simply tuned out the entire circus event that I was forced to view till reporters got around to mentioning seven USA dead in Afghanistan. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
