I find it difficult to draw such distinctions between art and life. I believe that some of the most important statements come from a place of real sincerity and (perhaps “troubling”) experience. Have we not learned from the artists of the last mid-century who tried so hard to show us that art might be its most effective when tied to real bodies and actions and not isolated to pictures on white walls?

If art’s goal is to complicate, to upset the status quo, to question norms (as I believe it does at its best), might we not consider some far-reaching pop gestures, even if they do not easily fall within art historical discourse, as radical aesthetic statements?

I think that artists turn to “body art” often to make these statements because it is well suited for the cause. Obviously, involving real bodies in artistic practice breaks down the usual gaze of the viewer. There is someone looking back, and multiple subjectivities have to be considered in a way that is not apparent in plastic arts.

For instance, let’s consider two body artists: Orlan and Amanda Lepore. While Orlan comes from an art background and augments her body-manipulative activities with artistic discourse and theoretical underpinnings, Lepore’s manipulation of her body is tied directly to her personal desires. It is sincere. Because of this, her activities make me think of gender boundaries and how bodies and their interactions lead to certain behaviors in ways that Orlan does not. Lepore has used hyperbole to highlight our culture’s troubling division of gendered bodies and actions not trough artistic metaphor or learned critique but through life experience.

Michael Jackson confused distinctions: man/woman, black/white, adult/child. While you may not think his moves were always “appropriate,” they were always challenging. His life was queer. It upset our usual understanding of these dichotomies and challenged our pre-conceived notions about gender, race and age. To eschew his life as “insane” upholds traditional values in favor of challenges to those things (family, gender, racial “purity”). This seems too close to me to sexism, homophobia, and blind conservatism.

I, for one, am not comfortable pointing fingers at Michael’s decisions, and certainly not calling his actions “not OK” or “desperate.” He fought, in his unique and unconventional way, a culture of intolerance and staid and troubling norms (or at least highlighted those problems and exposed them, sometimes through hyperbole). But how effective! How many people have had to confront these issues because of his pop stardom and have had to have serious discussions about these issues?

Hi, Libby. I think you are right to say that we agree on many of these points. And while I didn’t mean to accuse you personally of homophobia, racism, or the like, the language of the post did upset me. I tend to sympathize with the mistreated, the misunderstood – and your post was far more accusatory or dismissive than sympathetic (or motivated by motherly affection). While I agree that Michael Jackson’s choices were probably motivated by mistreatment, alienation, and other sad impetuses, it might be better to try to understand those motivations than simply dismiss them/him as crazy.

“Cutting,” or body manipulation seems to be the issue where we disagree, or at least think differently. Changing one’s physical countenance, even through surgery, shouldn’t be flatly considered “wrong.” What reasoning lies with this logic? Health is certainly a concern and might motivate one’s personal decision not to alter one’s body. But do we have the right to tell others (either directly or through our writing or speech) that they shouldn’t alter their bodies? After all, our bodies are the only things we really “own.”

Aside from the health concern issue, the only reasons I can think of to dismiss plastic surgery or other body manipulation stem from religion (i.e. body as a temple/holder of the “soul”, God-given). Is the body really sacred? I think it could be argued it is the best palette on which to make societal statements because of its immediacy and directness. Our clothes (our second skins) are certainly used in this way. While “cutting” (tatooing, hair dying, piercing) may seem a jump from dressing to impress or challenge, is it really?

I am truly interested to hear what you have to say about this. I just can’t muster up the reasoning for saying flat out that “cutting” is wrong. I think it can be expressive. It doesn’t seem Michael’s body manipulation is what caused his health decline, but rather drug abuse.

not to barge in – but it was all related. it had to be. in the world of michael jackson there was no room for mediocrity from your voice, to your moves, to your face. you work on it until its perfect – something drilled into those boys at a young age – and something that we could all see written all over Michael’s face. while it may have seemed a personal quest for facial perfection – it was his life as an artist and perfectionist that drove those decisions – which he, more than anybody would be judged by the world.

Hello,
I am afraid, I have to disagree with you! Michael Jackson stood for crossing and questioning the boundaries. Remember that society was built by we humans, a set of dominant humans who thought certain things were right! They said a man should be like this, a woman should be like this and hundred other things. There were some good things in it, but also some ugly dark things- for example the earlier notion where white society didn’t accept blacks as equals!

Michael Jackson’s talent challenged those rules. His music and art reached beyond barriers and he earned the love of “white” fans and all coloured fans. Yes racism was something already in question at that point and hence Michael was applauded for crossing the boundaries.

About his skin colour- well, he had vitiligo and he chose to go whiter in order to balance his skin tone. At the end of the day vitiligo was only to spread and make him an albino. He had to look presetable to the world and he chose to do the easiest thing. Imagine his vitiligo skin wearing brown make up so that he looked dark.- would have been all the more weirder. And I don’t think our skin deep society would have continued to look beyond Michael Jackson’s blotchy skin if he had decided to go public with his vitiligo. And wait a minute, why there is a market for tanning solutions? Why it is okay to tan your skin tone to browner shades but what Michael did was coming under scrutiny? It’s okay to go darker- because it’s cool and hip, but it’s not okay to go paler- because it’s giving up your black identity and wanting to be white.. (as if being white is some sacred thing!!!). Again let me remind here, Michael had a skin condition!

His nose- well, in a country (here I am referring to the US of A) where most women go waxing to get rid of their natural body hair, where there are more pedicure/manicure salons than churches, Michael’s experiment with nose is criticized… Why why why? Breast enhancements are okay, slimming pills and gyms are okay, viagra is okay but Michael’s nose was not okay!!! I am sure there will be a time where plastic surgeries become as common as waxing and Michael will be quoted as an example in a positive light. What I mean to say is it’s all about society’s belief at a given point of time! Michael was surely ahead of it.

About his sexuality- watch his “the way you make me feel” performances. He is the most passionate of performers. He is the sexiest man who can seduce any woman! Then, yes he comes across shy in interviews etc. But why does it matter to the media? Why a man can’t be shy and withdrawn to the outside world and yet be passionate to the core in his space (Michael Jackson’s cherished space was his performance stages)? Again the society wants ideal males in a certain way and anything different goes under the scrutiny!

Last but not the least, his child molestation charges- Let me state it clear, he was acquitted. He was not guilty of anything. In western countries children have their own rooms and don’t sleep with the parents/elders. But I tell you in developing countries children sleep with their parents because they don’t have enough space in the house. Family bonds are more initmate in developing countries, divorces and less common, children stick to their families (I am not defending the system or criticizing the system in western countries, I am just stating the fact). The bonds are stronger there in a different fashion. Michael Jackson’s behaviour with kids was odd for the western society as it was beyond the comprehension of its viewpoint.

Yes, human in general don’t accept anything that is beyond what we believe is true. We don’t respect the differences. We don’t dare to cross boundaries easily. Some people have it in them to do so and also preach the world so. Michael did it in some cases (he was successful in a cultural crossover) but failed in other instances- perhaps his plea was not strong enough to change the world.

Nevertheless, Michael Jackson was a gift to the world of entertainment and that too a original, impeccable and precious one. And after that he was a kind and loving being who did a lot for sick kids and charity. I would remember him for that and the explanations for his media portrayed “eccentricity” I have given above are good enough for me. The whole reason I come up with explanations is that I see a pure heart in Michael’s heart that touches me beyond everything.