Greg Gorman's semi-nude photo of Michael?

[LindavG]

Which reminds me of Gorman's own words which were quoted here before. Apparently male nudity is often perceived as "gay" in itself, which is so narrow-minded.



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

An even better comparison would be the response to female semi-nudity in that nobody thinks of it as "lesbian art". I'm glad Michael was more open-minded than that. To me it just shows that he was confident in his (hetero-)sexuality that he didn't feel the need to shy away from artistic representations of the male body - he knew the two were not related.

 

[MJE4ever]

Prejudice is ignorance :yes:.

 

[myosotis]

I hope this woman knows just how damn lucky she is.. gosh! :rofl:

BTW, I'm kinda surprised to see so many people, fans included (not on here), label this picture as 'homo-erotic' and 'gay'.. like.. huh? :blink:

Well, the 'rules of society' are still largely imposed by men. Women's morals are highly suspect if they do outrageous things like wearing contour- or body-revealing clothes, or admiring men's bodies. Gay men are apparently now allowed to do this without censure, but not women.

Interesting that you raised this issue, because when looking for similar-pose nudes in the art world, I came across this drawing by Paul Cadmus, who is a gay artist...and I thought better of posting it. But it is entirely 'proper' and very tasteful.

Perhaps there are just not enough female artists and photographers who depict the nude male body....?

http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/p7P3ObKNj][/URL]


As to

I hope this woman knows just how damn lucky she is.. gosh!

.....

On reflection, I don't think I'd volunteer for that job at all. No, I'd volunteer for the very careful makeup removal afterwards....
(I suspect that I might now be in the wrong thread....)

 

[SoCav]

Ah, looks like it was indeed the angle of the original pic that made the face look odd. In the close-up from the video you can clearly see it is Michael without a doubt.

Find it rather strange that some fans are apparently surprised by this given other photos MJ had taken and his love for art. Whether it's shocking I guess depends on one's cultural background and personal opinions on nudity and the depiction of it. To me there is nothing odd or shocking about the (semi-)naked human body.

 

[Doo Doo Head]

That news video cleared it up for me. I see it's him now.

 

[Daryll748]

You know what? I exactly begin to like the red leg sleeves cause they do put the 'focus' on something else otherwise you only stare at 'you know what'

I just love this POSITIVE thread :clap:and of course the exhibition and the fact Michael allowed to take such 'art' piccies of him.

I agree, it simply could be the fact that his legs seem thin and that is 'hidden' away with those red sleeves.

 

[L.T.D]

Wow, I thought this was going to be another case of 'it's not Michael'. Like the Cascio songs and the hologram.

 

[Rhilo]

Karen says there's more. Ohmygawd. That woman's a tease.

 

[HIStory]

Well, the 'rules of society' are still largely imposed by men. Women's morals are highly suspect if they do outrageous things like wearing contour- or body-revealing clothes, or admiring men's bodies. Gay men are apparently now allowed to do this without censure, but not women.

Interesting that you raised this issue, because when looking for similar-pose nudes in the art world, I came across this drawing by Paul Cadmus, who is a gay artist...and I thought better of posting it. But it is entirely 'proper' and very tasteful.

Perhaps there are just not enough female artists and photographers who depict the nude male body....?

I think the way male nudes are often called "gay" (while you don't call a female nude "lesbian" or even "heterosexual") is mainly because of the view that the male body is not supposed to be aesthetically admired. And if you do then you are "gay" (even if you aren't and your admiration is purely aesthetic and artistic and not sexual). But like Gorman said, this is a relatively modern phenomenon, since in antiquity it was natural to admire both the male and the female human form.

Calling it "gay" is also a very patriarchal point of view. Gay for whom? If you are a male and this photo sexually moves you then yes it is homoerotic to you. Don't put this on Michael or the photographer though, because those are your own feelings. Just like we discussed in the Manhood thread, not every female here finds the photo erotic. In fact, most said they don't. They see something else in it artistically. If a female does find it erotic then it is hetero-erotic to her. So from a female perspective it is anything but homoerotic. In any case, what a piece of art means to you is in you. And art usually means different things to different people.

As for the photographers. Thing is most photographers are male. There are few female ones in comparation. The human body was forever a subject of artistic representation and it is no different in photography, so of course you will find male photographers doing male nudes. Some are gay, some aren't.

 

[myosotis]

Karen says there's more. Ohmygawd. That woman's a tease.

It would be very unusual to go to the extent of setting up a shoot with full body makeup etc and only taking 'one' pose....... so there are several obvious questions...how many and ??????? ......

 

[Victor]

 

[Victor]

 

[barbee0715]

Reminds me of the controversy when they did the YANA vid and everybody screaming about the "overt nudity". Contrived, calculated, obscene, etc.
When it was based on an extremely famous painting.

I love the red leg warmers. Adds to the softness.

 

[Rhilo]

Why why why is that bottom part covered? Karen, stop being a bish

 

[Lil]

If you are a male and this photo sexually moves you then yes it is homoerotic to you. Don't put this on Michael or the photographer though, because those are your own feelings.

Exactly, I'm not even sure how a picture of a single person can really be homo-erotic..? Since it can be erotic to both gay or bisexual men and women, it should simply be called 'erotic' if anything. Homo-erotic would have to contain at least some type of interaction between two men imo, but okay. Either way, I think it's very narrow-minded to label a picture of a man showing some skin 'gay' - I really don't get it. I guess I shouldn't even be surprised anymore (especially being an MJ fan), but it still annoys me when people are so quick to label and judge.

^Wow, he's so gorgeous.. I wonder if it's covered why I think it's covered.. :shock:


Some more interesting tweets:

@wingheart is there anymore photo shoots like this that we don't know about? RT @applehead__mj58: Yes...but then, I have no idea what all the fans know about. Fans find out so many things. You are amazing detectives ?

When she was asked to share them she said:

I have a collection of photos and items. I have a treasure trove of memories. For those who spread rumors and lies about me, I have not ever stolen from a fan, wrote or sold a book, auctioned off items, or lied. I will not share photos from that shoot, because Michael decided he did not want them released. ?? please be satisfied to just enjoy what the photographer (probably shouldn't have) released. Greg Gorman is an artist too, that Michael CHOSE to shoot this. I find this very different from having his unreleased music finished by lesser artists chosen by the estate and sold. This photo is really Michael, it is beautiful and authentic.

As much as I want to see every single photo that was taken, I gotta say I respect her for that - especially if they're um.. more revealing than the picture Greg shared. I would probably just roll over and die if something like that ever came out tho :')

 

[SarahJ]

Not to subtle the way she posted that picture is she?

 

[8701girl]

Reminds me of the controversy when they did the YANA vid and everybody screaming about the "overt nudity". Contrived, calculated, obscene, etc.
When it was based on an extremely famous painting.

I love the red leg warmers. Adds to the softness.

Michael & lisa's nudity wasnt that over the top and it wasnt like we saw their "naughty bits" it was done in a tasteful way imo

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Reading what Karen has replied regarding not sharing pictures because it was Michael's wish not releasing them, I wonder if it will be the last one we see. I truly understand he made this photo shoot more to himself than the public but Greg and Karen left me more intrigued, I'd love to see at least ONE more. It's all I ask.

 

[Michaels Lover]

Reading what Karen has replied regarding not sharing pictures because it was Michael's wish not releasing them, I wonder if it will be the last one we see. I truly understand he made this photo shoot more to himself than the public but Greg and Karen left me more intrigued, I'd love to see at least ONE more. It's all I ask.

if it was his wish not to have them released, then why did Greg do it?
and why did she do it??? just because you can only see his head on that one she put out, doesn't make it ok...if he didn't want them released, he didn't want them released. period. that does not make it ok to release some of it :smilerolleyes:

 

[CherubimII]

This photo is new and exciting. Thank you, Mr. Gorman.:woohoo:

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

if it was his wish not to have them released, then why did Greg do it?
and why did she do it??? just because you can only see his head on that one she put out, doesn't make it ok...if he didn't want them released, he didn't want them released. period. that does not make it ok to release some of it :smilerolleyes:

This is what she said, I guess she contradicted herself then.

I have a collection of photos and items. I have a treasure trove of memories. For those who spread rumors and lies about me, I have not ever stolen from a fan, wrote or sold a book, auctioned off items, or lied. I will not share photos from that shoot, because Michael decided he did not want them released. ?? please be satisfied to just enjoy what the photographer (probably shouldn't have) released. Greg Gorman is an artist too, that Michael CHOSE to shoot this. I find this very different from having his unreleased music finished by lesser artists chosen by the estate and sold. This photo is really Michael, it is beautiful and authentic.

Some interviewer would need to ask Greg Gorman why did he release the picture now if Michael didn't want the shoot to be public.

 

[Deleted member 9375]

Seriously beautiful portrait. I love it. The composition, pose, the vulnerability and two colours I always felt looked amazing on him, white and red. These past few months have been amazing between footage (Dirty Diana other version, Pepsi Price of Fame, the MJB.e.a.ts blitz) audio and now this incredible picture. We've gotten some incredible material this year and it's great that the fan community is buzzing.

 

[Michaels Lover]

This is what she said, I guess she contradicted herself then.



Some interviewer would need to ask Greg Gorman why did he release the picture now if Michael didn't want the shoot to be public.

well, I think that's very disrespectful then, for them to release these photos! But what else is new, seems like everyone who knew him, have been disrespectful to him, since he passed away. It doesn't matter who it is anymore. It's been such a huge letdown, and it just keeps getting worse and worse. I thought at least some of those people would be trustworthy, but I guess that's done and over with. I Don't care who it is anymore, I don't have faith in anyone that knew him, anymore. I'm done

 

[HIStory]

The dilemma of whether MJ would want it released or not lingers over almost every posthumus release. Whether music, drawings, paintings, demos, other photoshoots, all the unreleased material leaked by fans in 2000 Watts and so on.

 

[HIStory]

Michael & lisa's nudity wasnt that over the top and it wasnt like we saw their "naughty bits" it was done in a tasteful way imo

I don't see over the top nudity on this photo either.

 

[innuendo141]

Am I the only person who is glad this photo wasn't ever used for anything?

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

well, I think that's very disrespectful then, for them to release these photos! But what else is new, seems like everyone who knew him, have been disrespectful to him, since he passed away. It doesn't matter who it is anymore. It's been such a huge letdown, and it just keeps getting worse and worse. I thought at least some of those people would be trustworthy, but I guess that's done and over with. I Don't care who it is anymore, I don't have faith in anyone that knew him, anymore. I'm done

The main reason he's constantly being betrayed and disrespected by those that knew him is simple supply and demand. You can add the FANS to that list of betrayers; to learn, to know that there were parts of his life he wanted to keep to himself and some fans push that aside for their own selfish wants is disgusting and sad to me. The fans are supposed to be the last wall that stands AGAINST the exploitation and disrespect to Mike's legacy and life, but are (in many cases) too willing and too eager to say "f*ck it, I want MORE."

Wow...

 

[HIStory]

This photo is not aimed at fans. It is exhibited in a museum and I don't think fans have anything to do with Gorman's decision to exhibit it. It's just one of his many photos exhibited there.

 

[myosotis]

^^ I'm not sure (in view of the post-2009 allegations that no-one could have foreseen) that 'enforced secrecy' about general aspects of Michael's life eg his drawings etc is necessarily helpful. Imagine if someone sympathetic to the accusers had started rumours about the existence of near nude photos being taken, but that they had to be kept secret because Michael didn't want them released. I'm sure that would sound a lot more 'salacious' than the photos actually are.

 

[HIStory]

Whether Gorman is ethical with releasing this posthumusly is a question because indeed maybe Michael would not want it released. But then maybe Michael would not want Xscape or the Michael album released either. Maybe Michael would not want his fans to release his bootlegs. Maybe Michael would not want Dieter Wiesner and Brett Livingstone Strong to publish his drawings in a book. And we could go on and on and on. I think there are very few fans who are absolutely not guilty of buying or looking at or supporting anything that was not approved by Michael.