Another great RocketTheme Joomla Template brought to you by the RocketTheme Joomla Template Club.
FireBoard
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
FireBoard General Stylists tips
beauty product Spend the Day in Beauty (1 viewing) (1) Guests
Go to bottom Post Reply Favoured: 0
TOPIC: beauty product Spend the Day in Beauty
#2904
Molly Brogan (Visitor)
Click here to see the profile of this user
Birthdate:
beauty product Spend the Day in Beauty  
thoughts on this post of your. Huh? On 10 July, 14:32, Molly Brogan < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: Then, I guess you are a straw man off to see the wizard... On Jul 10, 9:17 am, This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: There is point to be made there I think Molly.  Perhaps along with what is evil we may have to try to sort out the qeustion of what is Love. I can say with fear of contridiction that I love my wife and my children and my parents and my siblings.  what of my love for the blues though? Can it be said to be love?  If it can then if I declare that my feelings for the blues are exaclty the same as my feelings about being involved in violence, then I guess we can also call that love and not deviant compulsion? Note here that I do not love violence, in fact the opposite is true I quite abhor it. On 10 July, 13:50, Molly Brogan < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: Is it really love in those cases, Lee, or something more along the lines of deviant compulsion?  Both examples would certainly fall outside of the love is patient, love is kind... definition. I think that love and beauty have much in common, as they move us in spirit, or to higher consciousness. On Jul 10, 5:12 am, This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: Surly any type of love is a beautiful thing?  Umm unless it is peadophilic love, or love of violence.  Okay okay scracth that one, bad Idea. Yeah Dipu what do you mean? On 10 July, 00:15, Slip Disc < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: International communication can be very difficult.  Can you please explain how your reply to Molly's post is relevant?? You are replying to a post that poses pertinent wording about beauty and concept but which excludes any reference to love. So what do you mean by any type of love ?? Please explain. On Jul 9, 2:16 pm, dipu banerjee < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote:  any type of love On 7/10/09, Molly Brogan < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: Boring beauty.  Quiet a concept.  Can beauty be boring? On Jul 9, 9:03 am, archytas < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 _style_d 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: 2009/7/7 frantheman < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#2905
dipu banerjee (Visitor)
Click here to see the profile of this user
Birthdate:
beauty product Spend the Day in Beauty  
peadophilic love, or love of violence.  Okay okay scracth that one, bad Idea. Yeah Dipu what do you mean? On 10 July, 00:15, Slip Disc < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: International communication can be very difficult.  Can you please explain how your reply to Molly's post is relevant?? You are replying to a post that poses pertinent wording about beauty and concept but which excludes any reference to love. So what do you mean by any type of love ?? Please explain. On Jul 9, 2:16 pm, dipu banerjee < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote:  any type of love On 7/10/09, Molly Brogan < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: Boring beauty.  Quiet a concept.  Can beauty be boring? On Jul 9, 9:03 am, archytas < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 _style_d 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: 2009/7/7 frantheman < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#2906
Molly Brogan (Visitor)
Click here to see the profile of this user
Birthdate:
beauty product Spend the Day in Beauty  
On 7/10/09, This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: Surly any type of love is a beautiful thing?  Umm unless it is peadophilic love, or love of violence.  Okay okay scracth that one, bad Idea. Yeah Dipu what do you mean? On 10 July, 00:15, Slip Disc < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: International communication can be very difficult.  Can you please explain how your reply to Molly's post is relevant?? You are replying to a post that poses pertinent wording about beauty and concept but which excludes any reference to love. So what do you mean by any type of love ?? Please explain. On Jul 9, 2:16 pm, dipu banerjee < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote:  any type of love On 7/10/09, Molly Brogan < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: Boring beauty.  Quiet a concept.  Can beauty be boring? On Jul 9, 9:03 am, archytas < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 _style_d 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: 2009/7/7 frantheman < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#2907
Slip Disc (Visitor)
Click here to see the profile of this user
Birthdate:
beauty product Spend the Day in Beauty  
On 7/10/09, This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: Surly any type of love is a beautiful thing?  Umm unless it is peadophilic love, or love of violence.  Okay okay scracth that one, bad Idea. Yeah Dipu what do you mean? On 10 July, 00:15, Slip Disc < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: International communication can be very difficult.  Can you please explain how your reply to Molly's post is relevant?? You are replying to a post that poses pertinent wording about beauty and concept but which excludes any reference to love. So what do you mean by any type of love ?? Please explain. On Jul 9, 2:16 pm, dipu banerjee < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote:  any type of love On 7/10/09, Molly Brogan < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: Boring beauty.  Quiet a concept.  Can beauty be boring? On Jul 9, 9:03 am, archytas < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 _style_d 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: 2009/7/7 frantheman < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#2908
Don Johnson (Visitor)
Click here to see the profile of this user
Birthdate:
beauty product Spend the Day in Beauty  
Ah, yes!  Love is pure and heals all things.  Love crosses over all boundaries.  Love conquers all hateful things.  Love is a powerful thing! Thank You Dipu for sharing your thoughts with us!! Many Happy Days for you full of Love!! On Jul 10, 2:03 pm, dipu banerjee < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: love means peace, true love always avoid violence... On 7/10/09, This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: Surly any type of love is a beautiful thing?  Umm unless it is peadophilic love, or love of violence.  Okay okay scracth that one, bad Idea. Yeah Dipu what do you mean? On 10 July, 00:15, Slip Disc < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: International communication can be very difficult.  Can you please explain how your reply to Molly's post is relevant?? You are replying to a post that poses pertinent wording about beauty and concept but which excludes any reference to love. So what do you mean by any type of love ?? Please explain. On Jul 9, 2:16 pm, dipu banerjee < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote:  any type of love On 7/10/09, Molly Brogan < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: Boring beauty.  Quiet a concept.  Can beauty be boring? On Jul 9, 9:03 am, archytas < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 _style_d 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: 2009/7/7 frantheman < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#2909
Tinker (Visitor)
Click here to see the profile of this user
Birthdate:
beauty product Spend the Day in Beauty  
lines of deviant compulsion?  Both examples would certainly fall outside of the love is patient, love is kind... definition. I think that love and beauty have much in common, as they move us in spirit, or to higher consciousness. On Jul 10, 5:12 am, This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: Surly any type of love is a beautiful thing?  Umm unless it is peadophilic love, or love of violence.  Okay okay scracth that one, bad Idea. Yeah Dipu what do you mean? On 10 July, 00:15, Slip Disc < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: International communication can be very difficult.  Can you please explain how your reply to Molly's post is relevant?? You are replying to a post that poses pertinent wording about beauty and concept but which excludes any reference to love. So what do you mean by any type of love ?? Please explain. On Jul 9, 2:16 pm, dipu banerjee < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote:  any type of love On 7/10/09, Molly Brogan < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: Boring beauty.  Quiet a concept.  Can beauty be boring? On Jul 9, 9:03 am, archytas < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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 _style_d 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 < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: 2009/7/7 frantheman < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it 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
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
Go to top Post Reply
Powered by FireBoardget the latest posts directly to your desktop