Greg Gorman's semi-nude photo of Michael?

[OnirMJ]

Now it's clear why he was so cool about La Toya with her Playboy photoshoot

Not the same thing. At all.

 

[barbee0715]

DD came out in April 1988. But MJ then was on tour since February. So the video must have been shot early 1988 or maybe late 1987. If this photo was made then too then the 1987 date isn't that far off.

BTW, Gorman is a renowned photographer. I doubt he would risk his professional reputation by faking photos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Gorman

The very fact that it's Gorman told me it was real. And it's very artsy and serious like his other pix of Michael.
It's definitely not a photoshop like some other pictures I've accidentally opened. (If you know what I mean).

 

[HIStory]

I have seen fans on FB being in denial about it saying MJ would never do something like this. I wonder if they all forgotten YANA where MJ wears even less and actually it is more provokative than this photo.

 

[Doo Doo Head]

None of that looks like him. The whole thing seems painted.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

I have seen fans on FB being in denial about it saying MJ would never do something like this. I wonder if they all forgotten YANA where MJ wears even less and actually it is more provokative than this photo.

I'm not skeptical of the picture for thinking Michael would have never done anything like that, it doesn't bother me at all and it looks vey artistic. I'm skeptical because how his ear and face )his right eye and cheekbone specially) looks, the glass makes them look odd. 'Till there is more proof, I remain doubtful.

 

[Rhilo]

:baby:

I have no words.

 

[myosotis]

I think this photo may look a little 'different' because Greg Gorman's own team did Michael's hair and makeup, and all the lighting of course.
It's beautiful! I'd like a book of these for Christmas.....
(Edit: AND a calendar, and all the pictures can be the same .... )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


When you say you’re a control freak, you mean?
I like to know that every aspect of the photograph has part of my imprint in it, from the hair to the styling.

So you also do hair and makeup?
I don’t do any of that [laughs] but I have my team who reproduce my vision.

http://www.sleek-mag.com/showroom/2...apher-you-have-to-boost-celebs-egos-a-little/

 

[Michaels Lover]

I'm not skeptical of the picture for thinking Michael would have never done anything like that, it doesn't bother me at all and it looks vey artistic. I'm skeptical because how his ear and face )his right eye and cheekbone specially) looks, the glass makes them look odd. 'Till there is more proof, I remain doubtful.

yeah, same..the reason I'm skeptical is simply because, to me, it doesn't look like him that much, and it looks too much like a painting. I would not be surprised that he would do something like this at all

 

[LindavG]

I have seen fans on FB being in denial about it saying MJ would never do something like this. I wonder if they all forgotten YANA where MJ wears even less and actually it is more provokative than this photo.

Ugh, those fans would argue with Michael himself about what he would and wouldn't do :smilerolleyes: There's really no reason to think Michael would never do something like this - he was interested in nude photography after all - but I do believe this was something he did more for himself (not for public consumption) for purely artistic reasons. Therefore not comparable to LaToya's Playboy photoshoot at all (not that there's anything wrong with that either imo).

 

[Dunk96]

I believe it's Michael without a lot of doubt but I would obviously have to see the original photograph (not behind glass) to know for 100% certainty. But damn this is doing things to my body that shouldn't be done.

 

[Rhilo]

I want that in large print, framed and hung on my wall please.

 

[SarahJ]

I think he would do it for artistic purposes and no I doubt he was as shy in situations like this as people think (as Respect mentioned the YANA video) Pretty sure its lighting and the angle of the shot.

All I can really say is "Damn"....
2nd that on the print for the wall.

 

[CaptainEoLove85]

lol, this pic messed with my head. I don't know, I feel kind of like a voyeur looking at it, not that it isn't hot. I wonder why he decided to reveal this photo now?

 

[wednesday]

If you look at the other Gorman portraits of actors etc nothing looks odd about them. The question of whether they are fake or not doesn't even arise. So why does it with Michael's and with his only?

Michael, to me, has always struck me as someone who, no matter what he does, does everything with class and a certain sense of decency when it comes to his public image and his art. I know of no example where Michael, even for and in the private sphere, ever commissioned a work of art/portrait as cheap and vulgar as the "photograph" by Gorman. Michael was shy when photographed by Annie Leibovitz where his shirt was open to his navel. I cannot image that Michael would spread his legs like that for a photographer to reval his tighty whities and simultaneaously wear those ridiculous red socks. In my opinion there is nothing artistic about this "portrait" at all, whereas his semi-nude scenes in the You Are Not Alone-video are beautiful and tastefully done.

I believe this is a scam.

 

[soulmum]

I think it's artistic and extremely beautiful.

 

[HIStory]

I think it's artistic and extremely beautiful.

I agree. I think it is a matter of one's own (or their society's, religion's etc.) limits whether someone sees something as "vulgar" or artistic. Some people see nudity (or even semi-nudity, in this case) "vulgar" and some see it as a sensitive representation of the human body and human beauty. I think Michael had a beautiful body and I can't see anything wrong with the representation here. It's not pornographic, not vulgar.
I also don't see how this is supposedly more vulgar than YANA when in YANA you can even see something of MJ's youknowwhat (or at least it gives that impression). For the record, I don't think YANA is vulgar either. But then I have no problems with nudity. Or how about the Gold Pants? Is that not vulgar then too?

 

[MJE4ever]

It's definitely Michael. The shadows making picture mysterious and and a bit unrecognizable. I like this artwork!

And Michael? Do you know him personally? So you dont know what he could or couldn't . I wouldnt say he is very shy and reminds me "Come Together" image.

 

[HIStory]

Here is Gorman talking about his nudes in general in a book that was published in 2000. I can totally see these qualities in this photo about Michael:

""I think I was going for an innocence and a vulnerability," Gorman said. "For me, those are areas that add a tremendous amount of sexuality and sensuality to a male or female nude."Gorman said he also chose to stay away from "overly muscular, overly masculine guys."
"I had plenty of kids come to see me who were beautiful and who had great bodies, but they came in with too much confidence," the photographer said. "I was not looking to photograph people who were going to be exhibitionists."
Gorman was looking for men with strong eyes and lithe bodies, qualities that he said made the subjects more accessible. A lot of nude photography is interchangeable, he said, with too great an emphasis on physique.
"I'm trying to focus more on the individual and allow you to come into the picture," he said. "And then the body, hopefully, is just a nice adornment to what you've already discovered."
Some may find the photography too pristine and pretty, but Gorman welcomed the criticism: "Some people are going to love it, some people are going to hate it, some people are going to think it's not relevant. But the cross-banter is always good."
Gorman does bristle at the way in which male nude photography is often perceived. Nudes were commonly accepted in antiquity, and the past century has had its share of photographers who have depicted them, from Man Ray and Edward Weston to Robert Mapplethorpe and Herb Ritts.
"Now it's more in vogue to say, 'I can't believe this, it's gay,' " Gorman said. "It's a wanton amount of labeling. People don't look at female nudes and say, 'Oh, these are heterosexual.' "

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Impressive-Bodies-Of-Work-Celebrity-2734669.php

He made nudes of other celebrities as well. Such as Keanu Reeves, Rupert Everett - and the latter is a full nude. The one with Keanu too is more revealing than the one about Michael. So Michael's is actually a more modest "nude" than photos he made of other celebrities.

 

[michaelsson]

thats def our mike. i love the pic

 

[Lil]

No watermark!

This, vulgar? Naked bodies aren't vulgar to me, they're beautiful. If it's purely about how much skin he's showing, he has shown this much before, and more…
I was just thinking the other night about how beautifully done this was. I've always felt that Michael walked the line between being sensual & sexy and being vulgar very well. Always classy, this photo as well - I think it's very intimate, it has a certain vulnerability to it, which I love. The funny thing is that most people think it's not him because it looks like a painting or a statue, which I think is exactly what they were going for with this - it looks like it's heavily inspired by the type of art Michael loved. I think Greg did a wonderful job!

Ugh, those fans would argue with Michael himself about what he would and wouldn't do :smilerolleyes:

lmao, so true :rofl:

I think this photo may look a little 'different' because Greg Gorman's own team did Michael's hair and makeup

Ah! Thanks for that quote, that would explain why the hair looks so different to me

 

[myosotis]

There has been a very interesting reaction to this photo, and I do think it should be a massive wake-up call to the Estate. Here we have a highly reputable photographer, who is known to have photographed Michael, whose previous photos are well known, pictured standing next to his MJ portrait, in a highly reputable photographic museum. But it seems to me that half...maybe more than half ...of the fans posting comments online (including on FB etc) don't believe it is a genuine photo of Michael. Which made me wonder why that would be? We seem to be living in an age of forgery, fakery and deception on an unprecedented scale. The means to 'photoshop' pictures, alter sound recordings and create believable 'virtual reality' images are within the reach of everyone who can afford the technology...which is becoming cheaper by the day. We are bombarded every day by news stories of the latest attacks on our credulity; internet hackers purporting to be genuine bank / paypal etc sites, fraudulent products and fraudulent claims for products (exploding balance boards! VW automobiles!)

In the 'MJ world', just in the last month alone, there has been a televised claim of a family relationship - transparently shown to be false via DNA testing. And a book of genuine MJ drawings, which has attracted some comments about them 'not being by Michael' - probably related to previous history between MJ and Mr Weisner. And of course every day it is possible to find multiple fake products, autographs and drawings for sale, which purport to be by Michael. So why do I think the reaction to this new photograph is a 'wake up call' to the Estate?

It is hardly possible now to find another MJ fan who believes the same 10 things about MJ events post -June 2009 as oneself- no matter which views you hold. We know there is a minority of 'Believers' (who seem to believe that MJ is still alive), but I think the majority of the 'unbelievers' have become something else...'disbelievers'. And I do hold the Estate partly to blame for this. When there were rumours that TII included footage of Michael which had been posed by an impersonator for continuity reasons, I don't recall the Estate coming forward with cogent arguments and high-definition footage, supported by statements from the film technical staff that this was not (or was) the case. When 'Michael' was released, the rumours that 3 tracks did not feature Michaels' voice were not sufficiently, rapidly and transparently argued, with relevant proof - and this has now of course deteriorated into a fans vs Estate court case. When the MJ Hologram was released, I do not recall a transparent announcement in advance that this had been created by an impersonator, with a bit of photo trickery added to create the effect. Instead it was left to the fans to work this out (as they inevitably would), and cry 'fake'. And Xscape, although released with original demos, was primarily a release of re-mixed tracks which Michael never heard in this form.

The only (and most precious) thing that the Estate posseses which makes their 'entity' any different from the multitude of fakers and hackers who will parasitize Michael's legacy, is AUTHENTICITY. But in order to capitalise on that, every single release and new initiative MUST be 100% original Michael, and it must be made 100% transparent in advance if any aspects, enhancements etc . are not 100% original Michael. I am reminded of the fable of the 'boy who cried wolf', who was not believed when the real wolf appeared. In similar (but reverse) fashion, it seems that fans have been presented with 'not 100% Michael' so often, that now '100% Michael' is not believed. I am very sad that Michael's legacy is being left in this disarray, and I hope that at least Estate future releases, in what ever shape or form, will make a fresh start in helping to bring 'disbelievers' back together as one MJ fan community.

(And just for clarity, I am not linking the exhibition of this new portrait photograph with the Estate, I am just using the photograph as an example of a '100% Michael' item or event that attracts disbelief.)

 

[ILoveHIStory]

Its a weird photo and I have always wondered why MJ took these pics with 3T:

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

The pic has already made it to the manhood thread... :crackingup:

It's a sad pic, not sexy.

 

[Rhilo]

Ick...please none of those 3T pics in here. Totally dampens the hotness.

 

[Daryll748]

I think its quite artistic and as I said before would love to have it on my wall for the 'artistic' reason.
On the other hand, if you focus on the pic. I think its decent and thoughtful.

Michael's serious expression is like "I know what you're staring at, my eyes are up here" :blush:

I also wonder now since I stared long enough at it to WHY is Michael wearing those extra red sleeves on his legs. It painfully reminds me of what he said to Michael Bush " Never let the fans see my legs, they would hate me for it"
What is up with it. Are they blotches? Are they wounds? and WHY should we exactly hate on him for that? That's another story, I know. Just that thought crossed my mind, that's all.

I don't see anything vulgar about it too as we have seen MUCH more before. Just check the Manhood thread

 

[Paris78]

Here is short (really short)clip about the exhibition in the regional TV-News in Germany

i think you clearly see his vitiligo..

starts at 3:20

Link: http://mediathek.rbb-online.de/tv/r...mentId=32017422&topRessort=tv&bcastId=3907840

 

[HIStory]

I also wonder now since I stared long enough at it to WHY is Michael wearing those extra red sleeves on his legs. It painfully reminds me of what he said to Michael Bush " Never let the fans see my legs, they would hate me for it"
What is up with it. Are they blotches? Are they wounds? and WHY should we exactly hate on him for that? That's another story, I know. Just that thought crossed my mind, that's all.

I wonder if he thought his legs were too thin and he wanted to make them look thicker with that red thing.

 

[SarahJ]

With that footage taken at a better angle it definitely is Michael. Beautiful and sensuous image taken of a beautiful and sensuous man.
Have any fans in Berlin gone to see it yet?

Leg warmers were big in the 80's and I think it adds colour and contrast to the image. Maybe it was just for artistic reasons. Can't say I'm really focusing on the leg warmers though.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

The picture without the glass needs to be shown and footage of that photo shoot as well. I hate not to be certain and torn apart.

 

[HIStory]

The picture without the glass needs to be shown and footage of that photo shoot as well. I hate not to be certain and torn apart.

I don't think photo shoots are typically filmed so you may be waiting in vain for a footage. I hope though that more pictures of that session come out for those who are still sceptical, although I am not one of them.