Latest on MJJC

David Nordahl painting revealed.

This picture isn't new to me either. Typical of the tabloids to try and find something that isn't there. These are cherubs, they are not "little boys". In art, nakedness is not supposed to be seen as something erotic. It represents purity, one without sin, a man who has nothing to hide. Go to the art gallery and make note of every picture, painting, sculpture you see where a man or woman is depicted in the nude. You'd probably see a lot of artwork with cherubs in them as well. They are everywhere.
 
The media got nothing against MJ to prove he harmed any child.... so they use a painting instead! O_0 LMAO! That is so sad!
 
LOL, this painting is on the AOL front page now. I've seen it before on this site. It's beautifully done but to someone who doesn't understand Michael or who only wants to think the worst of him it wouldn't look so good.

It's sad but a little funny. Michael's making me laugh even after he's gone.
 
earthlyme said:
You konw, I can imagen Michael being in that place...he never really belong in the world. he was too good for it. I miss him but I'm soo glad that he's in a peaceful and better place...
Click to expand...


Agreed. :cry:



L.O.V.E. :heart:
 
It's amazing how paintings like this were beautiful art with adult male ancient Greeks , but with Michael it has to looked at wrong.
 
This is ridiculous. I wish they would let this go. sigh. This type of art is not new. And if anyone else is featured in it, it isn't viewed in that way, it's viewed as beautiful innocent art, so why do they have to turn it into 'weird' because it's Michael? le sigh.
 
I saw that YEARS ago and it's beautiful.

Jeez they are so behind!!
 
The tabloids have nothing else to report on now so they are clutching at anything they can just to report anything negative about Michael. its sickening of them.
i love this portrait and wish i had a full size one hanging in my home.
L.O.V.E
 
MJJLaugh said:
I love the painting of Michael with the little cherubs, beautiful and innocent!
Click to expand...

no, it was in New York Post.

Here an interesting article to that, not that stupid:


michael-jackson-art_500.jpg


One of the portraits Michael Jackson commissioned from painter David Nordhal does bear resemblance to Michaelangelo’s David statue, as Sunday's New York Post points out, but it’s more like a cross between that and William Bouguereau’s Le Printemps (The Return of Spring), pictured above right. Spot the difference: Michael is playing a Pan flute because he was a musician. Or a Satyr, depending on your perspective. “Michael” is just one of many paintings and other rare Michael Jackson-themed artwork appearing in The Official Michael Jackson Opus. I’m actually most interested in Nordhal’s depiction of Janet Jackson as a fairy in The Storyteller, but we can’t show that here, so I’ll either need to click this and squint, or just go ahead and buy a book for $249.
UPDATE: I just tracked down EW’s review copy of this mammoth tome. It’s like seven feet high, 240 pounds, and contains a single white glove among the pages. Don’t tell anyone I took it. I’m gonna wear it for blogging, even though it’s not sparkly.
http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/12/07/you-can-get-your-pan-flute-on-in-mr-jacksons-opus/
 
I believe they first showed this in that little known documentary called Living With Michael Jackson. You've probably never heard of it, it wasn't very publicised at the time.
 
If people get any ideas when they see a painting like that...it sure says ALOT about them. It definitely says more about them than about MJ or his fans...sigh.

And what do people mean with 'idealizing' .the way the cherubs look at Michael? Kinda...worshipping him?
 
Okay, so I was looking up news on the Opus, trying to find a review or something and every single piece of info on it highlights the paintings. ...Seriously?... Out of everything in the whole friggin' Opus, that is what they choose to write about?! Oh My God, it makes me mad. Ugh, ugh ugh. Why does 'civilization' become less and less civilized as times goes on? I have some real issues with Western views and society. I really do wish we could get all of the fans all over the world to chip in to buy an island that we can all go live on. *sighs*
 
Last edited:
MattyJam said:
I believe they first showed this in that little known documentary called Living With Michael Jackson. You've probably never heard of it, it wasn't very publicised at the time.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I knew I saw it in one of the interviews conducted in MJ's home.
 
Sigh............I think that people with a bit of knowledge about art will see where the picture takes its referance from. As for the other ways of looking at it, that is-as someone already has said- a good way for people to expose whats on their mind. And its not pretty.
Its as simple as this; if you have a dirty mind, dirt is what you put out, and dirt is what you see. but peopletend to forget that it also reflects on them.

Its a beautiful painting, even if its not my prefered taste in paintings ( I am more fond of less naturalistic painting styles), but that is a preference of style. This one has clear references to classical paintings and sculptures, and I know that Michael greatly admired that style.
I love Nordahls drawings, by the way.
 
It's a lovely painting. Not something I would hang in my living room (especially not with myself depicted in it, lol) but these types of paintings gave Michael joy.

I think I can sort of relate to Michael's preference of being around children to being with adults on a lesser level. When I was in my late teens/early 20's I would go to parties (rarely) and hate every minute of it. I was very shy, awkward with acne and just wanted to crawl in a hole. But when you're young you're expected to party and hang out with other teens so I forced myself to go these these parties where you're expected to be cool and dance and drink (which I never did) and make small talk. I was at a friend's party once and there were little kids there and I immediately gravitated to hanging out with the kids. With kids you don't have to pretend to be witty and cool or clever. They don't care how you look. They just want to play and have fun and you can just be yourself. You don't have to impress them or look extra pretty for them. So I kind of get it. But unlike Michael I had a pretty good childhood. It wasn't easy but I didn't have a job when I was a kid. I could go out and play with my friends. I had fun. So I eventually outgrew the hanging out with kids thing for the most part.

I solved my problem though. I just don't go to parties anymore. Ugh, I hate them so.

Sorry, back to your discussion...heh.
 
movingcoolcat said:
Sigh............I think that people with a bit of knowledge about art will see where the picture takes its referance from. As for the other ways of looking at it, that is-as someone already has said- a good way for people to expose whats on their mind. And its not pretty.
Its as simple as this; if you have a dirty mind, dirt is what you put out, and dirt is what you see. but peopletend to forget that it also reflects on them.
Click to expand...

I agree!

The David Nordahl paintings are gorgeous, rich in details! He's an amazing artist. It's so sad how some people look at it... But I understand that not everyone has the sensitivity to appreciate art, but they should to read more, instead of making destructive criticism without any basement. Knowledge is the everything key, and never is sufficient.

“I am bewildered at the length to which people will go to portray me so negatively.” ~Michael Jackson~
 
The critique of the painting is not about the type of art it is and whether or not it's anyone's cup of tea...it's a direct cut to Michael, a reference to the allegations. I doubt they care about Mr. Nordahl's "art" in the least. He is a great artist, I like the "Enchanted Tales" painting best. They are all beautiful works and represent Michael's love for children very well.
 
It's a beautiful painting, I'm sure Michael would have loved it. Michael's image reminds me slightly of Jesus in Leonardo's The Baptism of Christ.
 
Michael saw himself as an almost savour for childern. He wanted to always have reminders of how he came to their aid when in times of need. They can say they think he was trying to represent God if they want, they can try to distort those pantings any which way they choose, yet the fact was that they are simply paintings of a person who loved the innocence of childern and being there to uphold it. The prosecution tried their best to represent them in a vulgu light... obvious 13 jurors saw otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bee
KJ777 said:
The critique of the painting is not about the type of art it is and whether or not it's anyone's cup of tea...it's a direct cut to Michael, a reference to the allegations. I doubt they care about Mr. Nordahl's "art" in the least. He is a great artist, I like the "Enchanted Tales" painting best. They are all beautiful works and represent Michael's love for children very well.
Click to expand...


I know that the critique it's a direct cut to Michael and not about the type of art. But even so I wanted to talk about Nordahl's art because I appreciate it.

Thanks. :flowers:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top