Greg Gorman's semi-nude photo of Michael?

if it was his wish not to have them released, then why did Greg do it? :

We should defend Mike when Mike is treated unfairly.
But when Mike is an idiot we should not respect his decisions.
And if Mike didn't want us to see this photo then he was an idiot.

Seriously, did I say I LOOOOOVE this photo?
Just look at this and I mean LOOK ! There is no better photo ever made of him!

OcJN5cl.png


:clapping: :yes: :bow: :wild:

Frankly, I don't care why it was released.
Robson/Safechuck/Stacy Brown/Francia/McManus etc. They are his enemies. They are the ones who are hurting his kids.
Not Greg Gorman. Greg Gorman never said a bad word about him, quite to the contrary.


Let's just focus on the real villains. Gorman is not one of them.
 
Last edited:
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.

We should defend Mike when Mike is treated unfairly.
But when Mike is an idiot we should not respect his decisions.
And if Mike didn't want us to see this photo then he was an idiot.


Frankly, I don't care why it was released.


We can play the "maybe" game until the end of time. That doesn't apply when it becomes KNOWN that he didn't want something released (i.e., this pic). And anyone worth their salt knows that Mike's name/image/music is a magnet for a large audience (his fanbase), whether a project/exhibit was geared towards them or not. Those numbers translates into big money, too. It's smart from a marketing pov, but it is unethical and tacky to break a trust just because he's dead.

As for Augustino's comments, that just proves that you're part of the PROBLEM that makes it so easy for some that had relationships (business or otherwise) with Mike to sell him out. I certainly wouldn't call him an "idiot" for wanting to keep parts of his life, his interests to himself, because he was a human being just like the rest of us and had every right to do so. It's not about you and what you "want".

He wasn't our property, nor was he obligated to give his every second on this planet to us fans. I honestly don't know why that basic concept of respect of person is so difficult for some to grasp?
 
I certainly wouldn't call him an "idiot" for wanting to keep parts of his life, his interests to himself, because he was a human being just like the rest of us and had every right to do so. It's not about you and what you "want".


If it was some personal matter I would agree. But this was art he wanted to create. And he certainly was not so eager to keep it from everyone
otherwise he would have asked Gorman to destroy the negatives.

Nor is it something he wanted to keep for himself because then only he would have had the negatives.

If he creates great art and keeps it from us then yes that's idiotic. The flip side of that is when someone releases crap.
So Mike did that stupid video with Eddie Murphy but he won't allow anyone see this photo? Come on. I love Mike but I don't respect stupid decisions.

He wasn't our property, nor was he obligated to give his every second on this planet to us fans.

Letting others see this photo is a far cry from giving his every second to the fans.
He said many many times that he wants to share the gift he got from God so when he keeps great songs or great photos and decides not to share them that's just dumb and contradicts his entire philosophy of why he thinks he is an artist in the first place.
 
We can play the "maybe" game until the end of time. That doesn't apply when it becomes KNOWN that he didn't want something released (i.e., this pic).

Well Karen said about most other posthumusly released material (and basically about everything that the Estate released) that MJ would not want it out there. If she is now considered the ultimate authority on what MJ would or would not want...

And anyone worth their salt knows that Mike's name/image/music is a magnet for a large audience (his fanbase), whether a project/exhibit was geared towards them or not. Those numbers translates into big money, too. It's smart from a marketing pov, but it is unethical and tacky to break a trust just because he's dead.

My point was in response to your post in which you implied we have these kind of releases because of demand by the fans and tried to blame it on fans. I personally do not think this has much do do with demand from the fans. Whether there was or wasn't a demand by fans Gorman probably would have exhibited it anyway - simply as a part of his portfolio.


I wonder if it was just a simple face portrait would there be any fuss and would anyone be going on about how "MJ would not want it released"? I somehow doubt it. Though in reality even in that case we would have no idea whether he would be OK with it being out there or not. Unfortunately we will have to live with this dilemma basically about everything that is posthumusly released.
 
Last edited:
Why do we argue, just ENJOY watching and be happy that we have an opportunity to see more Michael. Every new material is so valuable.

I agree MJE4ever :yes:

Indeed, at least try to keep this thread 'clean and crisp' :D Let's enjoy, this wonderful ART Photograph!
I understand the opinion that everything 'posthumous' is questionable but please keep the discussion "Respectful" ;)

Also be advised to stay 'Respectful' towards MJ too, Thanks!
 
Last edited:
We can disagree with MJ but calling him names is disrespectful. Although it makes sense him not wanting this photo shoot not being public precisely because how male semi nudity and nudity is perceived by many close minded people, including some of his fans. He started to be plagued with the gay rumors in the late 70's, that picture could have given them more "reasons."
 
Well Karen said about most other posthumusly released material (and basically about everything that the Estate released) that MJ would not want it out there. If she is now considered the ultimate authority on what MJ would or would not want...



My point was in response to your post in which you implied we have these kind of releases because of demand by the fans and tried to blame it on fans. I personally do not think this has much do do with demand from the fans. Whether there was or wasn't a demand by fans Gorman probably would have exhibited it anyway - simply as a part of his portfolio.


I wonder if it was just a simple face portrait would there be any fuss and would anyone be going on about how "MJ would not want it released"? I somehow doubt it. Though in reality even in that case we would have no idea whether he would be OK with it being out there or not. Unfortunately we will have to live with this dilemma basically about everything that is posthumusly released.

Absolutely agree with you Respect. Why are people suddenly up in arms about this unreleased portrait but are perfectly ok with say, This Is It where he was (imo) an awful lot more exposed than this picture? His vulnerability and uncertainty there for the whole world to see. If we are going to take the moral high ground about one instance of something being released without Michaels say so, then we've got to take the same stance in every such instance, otherwise it is a complete hypocrisy. We can't just pick and choose what's morally wrong or in bad taste and then support other releases. Unreleased pictures of iconic figures have been released since the dawn of photography. People like Marilyn Monroe and others have had entire books released.

People are quick to jump down the throats of people who worked with MJ who are now "selling out" for the sake of money, but the estate/Sony are no different, and in a lot of cases people have the right to make a living from their work.

There is absolutely nothing shocking about this picture, Michael looks healthy and young and very beautiful. I honestly don't know why some people feel so threatened by the human body and as Respect said 'would there be the same reaction if it was merely a shot of his face? I doubt it.

Getting back to the actual picture it sort of reminds me of the cover of Princes Lovesexy album even though it looks nothing like it and Prince is entirely naked apart from covering his modesty with his leg. I wonder if Michael took part in this shoot in an attempt to possibly do something as racy as what Prince was doing during this time but wasn't body confident enough to use such an image for album/single or a promotional campaign? The same photographer also took the original album sleeve shot of MJ with the lace over his face, again a very Prince looking image. I love what this photographer did with MJ, their collaborations are some of the most edgiest of MJ's career.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why do we argue, just ENJOY watching and be happy that we have an opportunity to see more Michael. Every new material is so valuable.

you're right...though I can't enjoy the picture, but I will stop arguing...
 
you're right...though I can't enjoy the picture, but I will stop arguing...
Michael's Lover may I ask why you can't appreciate this picture? I thought you were a big fan of MJ's anatomy?

Here's a seperate question for fans, Do you think MJ would have approved of all of the pictures taken of him where he's showing a little more than usual? This is just food for thought.
 
Probably most of the posthumous releases wouldn't have MJ's approval but thanks to the revenue the Estate generates and many of us buying/supporting those releases, they could pay his debts. The album Michael was an absolute disgrace. Sorry I went off topic but it was to reply the issue with TII in which AEG wanted recuperate the money they invested in Michael and the rest of the posthumous material.

Going back to to the picture, I agree there's nothing shocking in it, it's quite artistic and conveyed perfectly the qualities Greg Gorman looks for in his photographs. But nudity and semi nudity can be a very private and personal matter that the majority of high profile individuals are not willing to share with everyone.
 
Getting back to the actual picture it sort of reminds me of the cover of Princes Lovesexy album even though it looks nothing like it and Prince is entirely naked apart from covering his modesty with his leg. I wonder if Michael took part in this shoot in an attempt to possibly do something as racy as what Prince was doing during this time but wasn't body confident enough to use such an image for album/single or a promotional campaign? The same photographer also took the original album sleeve shot of MJ with the lace over his face, again a very Prince looking image. I love what this photographer did with MJ, their collaborations are some of the most edgiest of MJ's career.

Yes, the Prince photo came to my mind as well (although MJ's body is a lot more elegant, I have to say :p). Also let's not forget that Gorman did that alternative Bad cover too (with the lace over his face, that you mentioned), which was not released eventually because Sony vetoed it because they thought it was too feminine. So who knows what were MJ's real reasons for not releasing this pic? Whether it was him who did not like it or whether he thought if Sony vetoed that other one maybe they would have a problem with this one as well. Or he liked it but was shy to show it to the public (although it seems later he became less shy during HIStory era)? Or he did not release it exactly to avoid being accused of wanting to copy Prince. There could be many reasons why it was not released before which we may never know.

We can disagree with MJ but calling him names is disrespectful. Although it makes sense him not wanting this photo shoot not being public precisely because how male semi nudity and nudity is perceived by many close minded people, including some of his fans. He started to be plagued with the gay rumors in the late 70's, that picture could have given them more "reasons."

Someone who thinks a photo like this is "gay" is someone who probably also thinks a man wearing makeup is "gay", so I am not sure how much that kind of ignorance would have bothered him, if it did not bother him when he put on his makeup.
 
Probably most of the posthumous releases wouldn't have MJ's approval but thanks to the revenue the Estate generates and many of us buying/supporting those releases, they could pay his debts. The album Michael was an absolute disgrace. Sorry I went off topic but it was to reply the issue with TII in which AEG wanted recuperate the money they invested in Michael and the rest of the posthumous material.

Going back to to the picture, I agree there's nothing shocking in it, it's quite artistic and conveyed perfectly the qualities Greg Gorman looks for in his photographs. But nudity and semi nudity can be a very private and personal matter that the majority of high profile individuals are not willing to share with everyone.
I'm pretty sure AEG recouped every penny THEN SOME for TII when you consider they had our money for a few weeks RESTING in a bank making a hell of a lot of interest while we were given the option of getting our cash back or getting our tickets "that Michael had a hand in designing" and then the film was the biggest popumentary of all time, THEN they released the DVD and Blurays! They prostitued Michael Jackson a whole lot more at a time when it was considered by many to be in extremely bad taste and completely the wrong time. Let's not also forget about that clown who physically HIT Michael. I was going to TII 5 nights, opening night, 2 nights in the middle and the last night, and was hoping to go a further 5 nights, I saw the film in the theatre, bought the DVD, HMV exclusive, Blu Ray, CD Vinyl, so I'm as guilty as any, and I regret having completely unrealistic expectations as he obviously felt under tremendous pressure to not let fans down, but let's not kid ourselves or pick and choose what suits us. Michael obviously enjoyed working with this photographer and trusted him a great deal to pose for this shoot at a time where he was at the peak of his powers.
 
Michael's Lover may I ask why you can't appreciate this picture? I thought you were a big fan of MJ's anatomy?

of course I am!!!!! I don't know....I'm just not feeling it with this picture...don't know why
 
Yes, the Prince photo came to my mind as well (although MJ's body is a lot more elegant, I have to say :p). Also let's not forget that Gorman did that alternative Bad cover too (with the lace over his face, that you mentioned), which was not released eventually because Sony vetoed it because they thought it was too feminine. So who knows what were MJ's real reasons for not releasing this pic? Whether it was him who did not like it or whether he thought if Sony vetoed that other one maybe they would have a problem with this one as well. Or he liked it but was shy to show it to the public (although it seems later he became less shy during HIStory era)? Or he did not release it exactly to avoid being accused of wanting to copy Prince. There could be many reasons why it was not released before which we may never know.
Ah! Glad I'm not the only one who sees the Prince influence/resembleance from both this and the Bad lace shoot. Yeah, I would say Michael is a lot more elegant and understated than some of the Prince shots, and I'm a big Prince fan and actually found the Lovesexy cover quite brilliant. And you make some great points about the possibilities of why this shoot was vetoed. I'm a big fan of the Bad lace on face and spider on his face shot also, and kind of wished MJ had the brashness and stubbornness of Prince to go over the record labels heads and use it for Bad but perhaps it would not have been the 30+ million blockbuster it was if he did? Which throws up a whole other conversation about comercial success verses artistic success. I think Bad had both though and I love the shot from the short film shoot against the brilliant white with the perfectly toned red Bad font. :D
 
Ah! Glad I'm not the only one who sees the Prince influence/resembleance from both this and the Bad lace shoot. Yeah, I would say Michael is a lot more elegant and understated than some of the Prince shots, and I'm a big Prince fan and actually found the Lovesexy cover quite brilliant. And you make some great points about the possibilities of why this shoot was vetoed. I'm a big fan of the Bad lace on face and spider on his face shot also, and kind of wished MJ had the brashness and stubbornness of Prince to go over the record labels heads and use it for Bad but perhaps it would not have been the 30+ million blockbuster it was if he did? Which throws up a whole other conversation about comercial success verses artistic success. I think Bad had both though and I love the shot from the short film shoot against the brilliant white with the perfectly toned red Bad font. :D

Ironically the actual album cover ended up being pretty controversial as well. People said he looked doll-like, feminine and of course there were lots of speculations about his skin color. I am not sure if the lace cover fitted with the album though. It definitely did not fit with the title song. Maybe with Liberian Girl. :D
 
The lace picture Michael made, I see it more as an inspiration from Gloria Swanson than Prince IMO.

Picture taken by Edward Steichen in 1924.

edward-steichene28094gloria-swanson-1924.jpg


It's the same concept. Probably that picture didn't transmit a BAD image but to me it didn't scream feminine. He looked ethereal.
images
 
Last edited:
^^started collecting and reading books on old Hollywood when I was a kid so this portrait immediately came to mind too.
(Not familiar with Prince's albums so I wouldn't have thought of that).

The Bad cover is perfect to me. He's not only hotter than hell, but he does look "bad" in more ways than one.
Who did the black and white dance poses inside? Was that Gorman?

(Those pix look inspired by Bob Fosse and Gwen Verdon).
 
Last edited:
The lace picture Michael made, I see it more as an inspiration from Gloria Swanson than Prince IMO.

Picture taken by Edward Steichen in 1924.

edward-steichene28094gloria-swanson-1924.jpg
Ah yeah, I remember this now. Definitely inspired by this. I probably tend to see everything boundary pushing that wasn't used from the 80's as Prince-esqe because of the absolute confidence to push the feminine side of himself to the point where to this day many people still question Prince's sexuality and are still somewhat threatened by him to this day because he projects such a strong image.
 
I'm starting to like this pic...:wild:
 
Last edited:
His feet also look gigantic.
well, he did have big feet. I think also his fingers looks super long. I know he had big hands/long fingers, but I will never get used to how big they actually are. whenever I see his hands, I'm always so fascinated with them
 
Last edited:
well, he did have big feet. I think also his fingers looks super long. I know he had big hands/long fingers, but I will never get used to how big they actually are. whenever I see his hands, I'm always so fascinated with them

Actually the one thing that "scared me" a bit at first was that his feet seemed too short for MJ from that angle. Then I saw another angle and it showed his big feet in their full glory. LOL.
 
The picture is beautiful and very artistic! Michael is beautiful!

And to those asking why Michael would choose not to release it... Think of it this way: this was not a picture that Michael himself would send around to newspapers and ask to be put on front pages. This was a picture that needed a special occasion to be released and what's more special than presenting it for the first time in a museum?! That's where it belongs. And it also means that only a selected few would get to see it. Just my 2 cents on this ;)

If you wanna talk about photos that shouldn't have been released to the public, than you should talk about the ones taken after Michael's death...
 
I don't know if it's the angle, the light or his feet being in constant movement but got some reason his loafers made them look small, when he wore boots, it was another story though. Michael's feet are as huge as his hands indeed! :dropdead:
 
Michael's Lover may I ask why you can't appreciate this picture? I thought you were a big fan of MJ's anatomy?

Here's a seperate question for fans, Do you think MJ would have approved of all of the pictures taken of him where he's showing a little more than usual? This is just food for thought.

Intriguing question :D

I do think he would have a somehow 'contradicted' answer to it cause Michael doesn't see himself as 'sexy'.
He's a gentleman, right?
Then again, I know he would love to read all the comments made. Just think of the 'Gold pants' thread that he loved. :blush:
Anyway, this is still a 'decent' photo as we've seen much more 'on stage', right? :busted:
 
I wish I had known about this forum when MJ used to actually visit here. That would've been so cool.
 
An interview with Gorman:

[h=1]Greg Gorman: as a Photographer You have to Boost Celebs’ Egos a Little[/h]
<time>December 4th, 2015</time> by sleek team & filed under Art

web2_Greg-Gorman_Julianne_Moore_Dublin-2004_copyright-Greg-Gorman-copy-2.jpeg
Greg Gorman, Julianne Moore, Dublin 2004, copyright Greg Gorman



Few photographers can claim to have worked so intimately with some of the world&#8217;s greatest entertainers. Greg Gorman is one of them and for the first time in Germany he&#8217;s showing 25 of his colour portraits of popular culture figures including John Waters, Grace Jones and David Bowie at the Helmut Newton Foundation in Berlin. His exhibition &#8220;Color Works&#8221; starts today, alongside &#8220;Pages from the Glossies&#8221;, a show displaying Newton&#8217;s iconic fashion photography for print that spans four decades. We met Gorman in advance of the opening to discuss Michael Jackson&#8217;s creative input in photo sessions, why Leonardo DiCaprio is a great subject and why a photographer also has to play the role of a psychologist.


Sleek: you&#8217;re better known for your black and white photography. Why the transition?
Greg Gorman:
I wanted to do something different from what people expected of me and most of these works are actually commissions, some for movies, album covers, some for my personal collection.
web9_Mick_Jagger_Daylight-Wall_Los-Angeles_1984_copyright-Greg-Gorman.jpg
Greg Gorman, Mick Jagger, Daylight Wall, Los Angeles 1984, Copyright Greg Gorman



Helmut Newton was a close friend of yours, what was your friendship like?
When Helmut hit his first show in Los Angeles in 1975 for &#8220;White Women&#8221; I went to the opening and met him there that night for the first time. I was always a fan of his work in terms of what he&#8217;d accomplished, his classic image making and how prolific he was as an artist. We became friends and I got to know June [Helmut Newton&#8217;s wife] and had a lot dinner parties in my home in LA, up I the Hollywood Hills.
web5_Helmut-Newton_The-Story-of-O_American-Vogue-1975_copyright-Helmut-Newton-Estate.jpg
Helmut Newton, The Story of American Vogue 1975, copyright Helmut Newton Estate



One of the things that always amazed me with Helmut, which is very different to my style, is how concise and conservative he was with his captures. From what I understand he wouldn&#8217;t take a lot pictures. He&#8217;d only use two rolls of film in his shootings. When you&#8217;re working with celebrities and fashion sometimes it takes a longer of time, so I personally tend to take many more pictures. But I certainly loved his stark black and white, energetic and S&M-like images.

How much talking do you have to do with your sitters?
I have to do a hell of a lot of talking. I mean, a part of my job is to play the role of a psychologist and try to get into their heads and be able to bring them to my level and draw out of them who they are as individuals. I just establish a sort of a banter and try to make them feel comfortable and relaxed so that they trust me and have confidence in me and vice versa and that will allow me to do my things and also for them to feel good about themselves. You have to boost their egos a little bit because they&#8217;re often much more comfortable playing a character than themselves.


greg_gorman_michael_jackson.png
Greg Gorman, Michael Jackson, Los Angeles, 1987. Available for purchase here


Which was the most challenging session out of all of these?
Most of these people were all pretty good but some were a little intimidated before I met them. Bette Davis insisted on meeting one day before the shoot. I&#8217;ve only worked with very few super challenging people (to the point that I didn&#8217;t like them) and they&#8217;re of course not in this show.


How was Michael Jackson?

It was an interesting story with Michael. I&#8217;d worked with him over the years and he really liked my pictures and I loved working with him, he was a real artist. He took photography very seriously and prior to our shoots and we&#8217;d talk for hours on the phone about what we were gonna do, how we&#8217;d go about it. He&#8217;d have ideas and we&#8217;d spring them together. He loved my female and male nudes and he wanted to shoot something provocative but obviously not a nude so that&#8217;s how it came about. It&#8217;s never been seen before. He was very easy to work with, never in a rush and always very direct.


Greg Gorman, David Bowie, New York, 1984. Available for purchase here


What have been the most memorable moments of every decade of your career?
That&#8217;s a tough one. Well, I started in the late 1960s by shooting Jimi Hendrix; in the 70s I moved to California and finished college with a degree in film but realising that I was too much of control freak to pursue that career and going back to photography.

In the late 70s I started working for a PR agency and that&#8217;s when I shot Bowie for the first time, and Iggy Pop, which launched things but it was in the 80s when my career really took off, shooting for big film campaigns including Scarface. In the 90s I worked lots with the Bond movies and towards the mid 2000s I thought I&#8217;d been there and done that and started my teaching. After that doing workshops and making wine; I have a real passion for wine.


web10_Greg-Gorman_Graces-Jones_Close-Up_Los-Angeles-1989_copyright-Greg-Gorman-copy.jpeg
Greg Gorman, Grace Jones, Close Up, Los Angeles 1989, copyright Greg Gorman


When you say you&#8217;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&#8217;t do any of that [laughs] but I have my team who reproduce my vision.


What can you say about Grace Jones? Her makeup looks great.
Grace Jones has been a very dear friend of mine for the last 35 years or so. I recently went to Jamaica where I did the book cover for her memoirs actually. Just like in any profession a lot a times you get so caught up in the work you do that you end up becoming good friends with the people you work with. So a lot of the people on the walls are my friends and Grace is a very good one. A lot of people have many different impressions of her but she&#8217;s very down to earth, with great sense of humour and doesn&#8217;t take herself too seriously and yet she&#8217;s been able o maintain her mystique all these years.


WEBGreg_Gorman_small-copy.jpeg
Portrait of Greg Gorman


How about Leonardo DiCaprio, was he fun?
I worked with him from the very beginning of his career. I love Leo because he was never particularly caught up in being too masculine of too feminine in a picture. He was one of the people who I thought really evolved in front of the camera and was never shy or regimented and that made for a very good subject in front of the lens.


And after a series of photo books and making wine what&#8217;s next for you?
I guess more books and more teaching. I&#8217;m currently making cabernet sauvignon and will probably start making some pinot noir and keep improving on my wine.


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