IRENE KAORU

David Brooks, in an op-ed piece in the NY Times, has a question, oh females: Would you rather A) Win an Academy Award but find our your husband is a lyin’ cheatin’ jerk or B) Have a Happy Marriage? He’s so confident you’ll agree with him that he boldly asserts, “if you had to take more than three seconds to think about this question, you are absolutely crazy.”

Huh? He continues:

Marital happiness is far more important than anything else in determining personal well-being. If you have a successful marriage, it doesn’t matter how many professional setbacks you endure, you will be reasonably happy. If you have an unsuccessful marriage, it doesn’t matter how many career triumphs you record, you will remain significantly unfulfilled.

It deeply pisses me off that he uses Sandra Bullock’s personal misfortune to question whether “CAREER” or “FAMILY” is more important. Somehow this question never centers around men, yet it gets brought up for women all the time. No one wrote this article about Tiger Woods, for example. Instead, we got articles about how “powerful men” are entitled to cheat. Now, we have the flipped scenario where the famous and powerful woman was cheated on, and how does the wise news media respond? With articles about how much it sucks to “sacrifice” your family for your career, which just so happens to be the same boatload of crap that always gets shoveled at working women in attempts to discourage them from leaving the house. Apparently even a world famous Oscar-winning actor like Sandra Bullock is not immune to said crap. Men can and should have it all, you see. Men can expect professional AND personal fulfillment. No one ever wonders if a man can be a powerful executive AND a good father; no one wonders if having children will be a detrimental distraction for him. Women, though, are 79% less likely to be hired if they have children. Funny, huh?

To answer the question, Mr. Brooks, I’ll take option C) Take my Academy Award and my millions of dollars and the respect and admiration of my professional peers and fans around the world, divorce my gross, cheating husband, continue with my life and maybe marry again one day, but only if I feel like it.

“Did I scare you?”: The Curious Case of Michael Jackson as Gothic narrative, by Dennis Yeo Kah Sin, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

On June 25, 2009 , Michael Jackson died. Universally hailed as a musical genius and pop icon, Michael’s tale is shrouded by rumor, speculation and mystery. Even as this article is written, controversy rages not only over the cause of his death but also the legacy he has left behind.  Michael manifested all that we loved and loathed of our humanity – a desire to restore the innocence of the world and yet a dark inclination towards deviant transgressions. He was very much an enigma that many imitated but few identified with. Although he was a hypersensitive recluse victimized by an abusive childhood, his transformations of physiognomy caused him to be the focus of uninterrupted media attention. He reportedly gave millions to charitable organizations yet left behind an inheritance of debt and lawsuits. Pursued by fans and paparazzi, persecuted by accusation and litigation, Michael was paranoid of exposure and betrayal. His eccentric behavior created such an aura of simulacra around him that no one could tell if what the tabloids were saying were authentic or made up. In short, his life read very much like a Gothic narrative, a haunting which was strange, fantastical and Other.

In the short film Ghosts (Winston, 1997), a mob of townsfolk who gather to chase away the local spook is confronted by a cloaked skeleton. The skull of the skeleton is a mask that is removed to reveal the Maestro played by Michael Jackson who says his first words “Did I scare you?”. This line does not merely parody the Gothic genre, but also playfully comments on Michael’s own life. Following his death, the Special Commemorative Edition of Time June 29, 2009 described him as a “creepy curiosity” but hardly made any mention of the influence of the Gothic in his music and short films. From the maniacal laughter that begins the title track of Off the Wall to his Thriller and Ghosts videos, Michael established himself from the start as Dorian Gray, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Frankenstein’s monster and Dracula rolled into one. In many ways, Michael Jackson embodied the Gothic. His surreal life was a fusion of fantasy, science-fiction and horror and revolved around “themes of abuse and parasitism, loneliness and terror” (Hirshey 223). The narrative of his life is a bricolage of his songs, music videos, interviews and short films. Likewise, his autobiography, other alternative biographies and articles written about him create an intertext of competing narratives and sub-texts about his life. Michael’s demise did not just spell the end of an era in pop culture; it also concluded a Gothic narrative.

via Studies in Gothic Fiction; via leucocrystal.

I automatically get suspicious when any journalist takes as given the terms of Michael’s life as “surreal” or “weird.” I don’t think this automatic other-ing of MJ really serves any serious examination of his life when IMHO the most interesting angle from which to examine his life is to first accept that he was an essentially normal human being, changed and shaped by circumstance as all of us must be. What’s interesting about MJ is the way most of the world cast him as Other over a long period of time as a way of dealing with his rejection of societal boundaries (such as assumptions about race, gender and human ability).


“Ghosts” (1996)

The above is an odd essay in that I suspect the author really wanted to talk about ‘Ghosts’ and forced the connections between ‘Ghosts’ and the rest of Michael’s work a bit.  I remember being kind of amused/bemused at the way Michael made the connection between himself and the Gothic/Romantic hero so explicit in much of his work, especially when I first saw ‘Ghosts’. His every comment about his loneliness and the isolation of his charmed/cursed life seems to beg the comparison to the Gothic, the Romantic, but it seems almost too OBVIOUS to me. Let’s review, the elements of the Gothic novel include: depiction of a fallen world, a lone/isolated wanderer, usually a man, usually a protagonist who is cursed by his intelligence or sensitivity. In a sense any great artist is a kind of Gothic protagonist; the creation of art is just another way of describing the search for the Sublime.

michael jackson in thriller

In his article, Yeo Kah Sin wants to demonstrate that Michael conforms to the archetype of the Gothic monster, and he mashes together the events of Michael’s life, his song lyrics and music video films in such a way as to create that monster. One could compare Michael’s musical output to Frankenstein’s creation, lauded as he is for taking inspiration from every genre of music and dance. Combining and rearranging culture needn’t always be scary, though. This isn’t a frightening monster. It’s synthesis, like all artistic creation.

Zombie Wedding Cake

March 27th, 2010

I love that this exists. Note especially the little bits of zombie flesh flying from the lawnmower. (I’d be sad I didn’t think of this first, but we’d already decided against a wedding cake altogether.)

Via musicmachinery.com:

It’s a beat-reversed version of Lady Gaga’s Bad Romance. The code to create it is here: vreverse.py


Bad Romance – the memento edition from Paul Lamere on Vimeo.

Om Nom Nom Books: 2009

January 3rd, 2010

I read these books in 2009. Changing commute times meant more time for sleep, less time for reading. I was proud of myself for reading more in 2008, looks like I slacked a bit, though I did a lot less re-reading. Better next year!!

What was your favorite read of the year?

JANUARY
Offbeat Bride – Ariel Meadow Stallings
Intimate Weddings – C. Friedrichson
Jo Garten’s Weddings – J. Garten
The Graphic Design Reader – S. Heller
Sword and Citadel (Book of the New Sun 3 and 4) – G. Wolfe
Opening Up – T. Taormino
The Player of Games – Iain Banks
Beautiful Botanicals – B. King

FEBRUARY
After Dark – Haruki Murakami
Watchmen – Alan Moore
The Boleyn Inheritance – P. Gregory
Portrait of a Lady – Henry James
Your Vintage Wedding – Nancy Eaton
Things Fall Apart – C. Achebe

MARCH
Atonement – Ian McEwan
The Conscious Bride – Sheryl Paul
A Widow For One Year – John Irving

APRIL
The Winds of War – H. Wouk
The Eight – Katherine Neville
The Omnivore’s Dilemma – M. Pollan

MAY
The Robber Bridegroom – Eudora Welty
Delta Wedding – Eudora Welty
The Ponder Heart – Eudora Welty
Ethan Frome – Edith Wharton
Summer – Edith Wharton
The Lime Works – Thomas Bernhard

JUNE
Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World – H. Murakami
The Logogryph – Thomas Wharton
House of Leaves – Mark Danielewski
The Necklace and Other Tales – Guy de Maupassant

JULY
Spook Country – W. Gibson
Portnoy’s Complaint – Philip Roth
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time – Mark Haddin
Veronica – N. Christopher
Vile Bodies – E. Waugh

AUGUST
Kakfa on the Shore – H. Murakami

SEPTEMBER
Love & Money – Opdyke
Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson – Helperin
The Constant Princess – P. Gregory

OCTOBER
The Man in the Iron Mask – A. Dumas
War and Remembrance – H. Wouk

NOVEMBER
A Room With A View – E. M. Forster
I’m So Happy For You – Lucinda Rosenfeld
The Michael Jackson Tapes – Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
Remainder – Tom McCarthy

DECEMBER
One Michael Jackson – Margo Jefferson

The Way You Make Me Feel

December 11th, 2009

If you weren’t paying close attention, you might think of “The Way You Make Me Feel” as one of Michael Jackson’s weaker, less interesting music video films.  However, this video has always interested me much more than the song alone. Everything Michael Jackson did as an adult came back to an exploration of himself, of course, as a symbol for many concepts–celebrity, masculinity, gender, race, beauty–and this video is dear to me for all of that.

Beyond Michael’s personal mirror, I see the film and its choreography as a hymn to gender fluidity and a melodramatic reenactment of traditional masculinity as a performance and the chasing/conquest of women by men as performance for other people rather than for the actual pleasure of the man or woman involved in the chase. His seduction is really a show-off to the admiring dudes watching in awe.

This is complicated by his appearance and, for that matter, Tatiana Thumbtzen’s appearance. The song appeared on Bad, which means the year was 1987. The 80s could be called the decade of the Supermodel. Who were the icons of feminine beauty back then? Elle Macpherson, Christy Turlington, Claudia Schiffer, Linda Evangelista, Christie Brinkley, Helena Christensen, Cindy Crawford. Compared to the constantly changing almost faceless cast of female fashion models today, those women were icons, superstars, and compared to the bony, starved, androgynous body type preferred by the industry today, those women were buxom, curvy, sensuously fleshy. Compared to those women, the late 80s standard of the feminine, Tatiana Thumbtzen is downright hard, sinewy, broad-shouldered, boyish…in a word, androgynous.

twymmftatiana

Sublimated gender and androgyny are some of Michael Jackson’s most consistently explored topics and this video is a nine and a half minute visual dissertation on them. Michael is the protagonist in the video and is clearly the least traditionally masculine in appearance, surrounded by loud, posturing men, some fat, some big and imposing, some tattooed and sporting unkempt facial hair, swaggering and engaging in ghetto male rituals of playacting violence with one another. The older man advises Michael to stop trying so hard to act like that kind of man, to admit that he doesn’t want to be that kind of man, that kind of person, and to “just be himself.” The group of hoodlums teases Michael, saying he doesn’t know anything about women (implying: he knows nothing about being a man; implying: being a man is being an aggressive hoodlum), and then we get our first close shot of Michael’s face.

And it’s a strikingly delicate, pretty face, with smooth, light, even skin, eyeshadow and eyeliner. A tendril of wavy hair fallen in front of one eye. It’s almost viscerally shocking, how much more “feminine” he looks compared to the group of tough guys we were just watching, how much prettier he is than the girl he’s supposed to be pursuing, how much more delicate and frail he looks than her, strutting by with her wide shoulders and bare, well-formed arms. She passes him and we linger on his face as he takes a deep breath, his chest heaving like a woman in a Victorian novel. Something builds in him. Just past the three minute mark, it escapes in a yell, teeth bared like an animal: “Hey!”

twymmf3

When he turns, he has swapped gender cues again, he’s a man, he’s going to show you that he’s a man, baring his teeth, curling his lip like Elvis, emphasizing his jaw. His pivot is not womanly, it’s stiff and tense, like a gunslinger at dawn after ten paces, deeply reminiscent of scenes from Sergio Leone’s “Once Upon A Time in the West” and other such classics. To reinforce that old Western movie image, we get a quick cut to Michael’s hand as though he might pull out a weapon but it’s just a trick; his fingers explode in the vague shape of a gun. We smile; don’t we?

Only after all this does the song actually start. There’s no need to analyze in depth the choreography that we know so intimately by now, but the one important thing about it in this case is how crudely sexual it is, in diametric opposition to the lyrics he’s singing. Take, for instance, the sequence just before the five minute mark, where he exhorts the woman to “kiss me baby and tell me twice that you’re the one for me.” These lyrics seem sweet and childlike in their simplicity, something the boy next door would say–yet he grimaces through them at the head of a menacing crowd of men, while pantomiming a vigorous grinding with his hands and thrusting hips. The woman, momentarily disgusted, shakes her head and runs away. The action seems designed to obtain this result from nearly any woman, but the actions are not for the woman–they never are. The acts are for the benefit of the men watching, who had fallen into step with Michael and become satisfied that he is a real man.

He pulls away from the crowd to chase her and again the lyrics and dance moves flip, opposing each other. He catches up with her and proceeds to shuffle, hop and point in some cross between Bob Fosse, hiphop and ballet styles of dance, showing off his precise, elegant, dare I say feminine, moves, occasionally thrusting his pelvis to remind us of his cock, while singing that he’ll work all day to buy her things (like a man should, right?). Around 6:15 he breaks into a hip-jutting runway model walk. This sequence is like putting gender in a blender. And in the end, he gets the girl.

No, it’s not his biggest budget number, it doesn’t have the best story or the coolest costumes and graphics. It’s not the technological achievement that “Scream” or “Black or White” was, nor the smash hit that “Thriller” was. But taken in the context of the artists’ life and oeuvre, it is a fascinating music video, that’s for damned sure.

Gaga for the 80s

December 10th, 2009

When “Poker Face” first came out, it was “featured” on last.fm so I watched it. I thought it was really well-produced with a great video, but found the music itself totally bland and lacking any personality or redeeming value. Now, I’ve watched Lady Gaga reach impressive heights of adulation and ubiquity in a very short amount of time and accidentally read about her in publications from Rolling Stone to the New Yorker and been subjected to the ill-advised semi-nudity of many imitators in bubble costumes this Halloween. After the continuous unrelenting all-media onslaught of promotion I have broken down and am listening to her entire album. I’m giving it a good try, three or four spins. And damned if it still does not sound like well-produced but essentially soulless, pointless and often melodyless eastern european 80s pop.

gaga
Lady Gaga: The formula seems to be Lite Fetish + Thierry Mugler + Sunglasses – Pants

I do love some of her outfits, I like her videos, I guess her dancing is ok. But it’s not like she designed the outfits, did she? Her fashion is fun but still not as creative or unexpected as Bjork in her heyday. Her videos don’t really go with her songs and I’m sorry to beat a dead horse but the degree to which the dance routine in the “Bad Romance” video rips off and does not pull off the “Thriller” zombie dance is just….. well.

bjork
Bjork: Still awesome over the decades.

So I ask you why? Why is she so popular? Is it just her clothes? Are we so starved for entertainment as a culture that we’ll listen to absolutely anything if it’s forced on us enough? Is it her aesthetic closeness to a cartoon character that makes her easy to understand and mentally digest? Is there something about her actual music that I am missing? I’m bewildered.

A portrait depicting Michael Jackson on horseback, dressed in regal garb and attended by two cherubs, has been sold at auction for $175,000, a US art gallery said.

“Equestrian Portrait of King Philip II,” commissioned by the late pop star, who died on June 25, was sold to a German collector at the Art Basel show, said Kathy Grayson from New York’s Deitch Projects gallery.

The large portrait, which Jackson never saw in its finished form, measures 3.51 (11.5 feet) by 3.1 meters (10.1 feet), and is the work of New York-based artist Kehinde Wiley.

equestrian-portrait-of-king-philip-ii

Equestrian Portrait of King Philip II, Kehinde Wiley

“I was receiving messages saying Michael Jackson wants to reach you,” said Wiley of being commissioned for the work in 2008. “I ignored them because quite honestly I thought it was a prank.”

Telegraph.co.uk Article

Add Art

December 6th, 2009

I wholeheartedly love and support Add Art (the brilliant Firefox plug-in that replaces web banner ads with random art with about 99% success) but I just have one small suggestion for making it better. I would like easy to navigate access to all past sets of Add Art and the ability to create a profile, save and choose my favorite sets, maybe even uploading my own sets without having to submit them to the larger population. Because the last three or four sets have just completely sucked to the point where I would almost rather see the ads and all I want in the world is to go back to the set where every banner ad was replaced by a picture of this Koons sculpture and just stay with that for the next year or so.

koons

Jeff Koons (American, b. 1955). Michael Jackson and Bubbles, 1988.
Ceramic. 42 x 70 1/2 x 32 1/2 in. (106.7 x 179.1 x 82.5 cm).

I happened to mention Add Art at work in a marketing meeting where we were discussing banner ad campaigns and I was shocked to receive a bunch of confused blank looks. From a room full of marketing people! I had thought a huge percentage of people used some kind of ad blocking plug-in these days. Once again my estimation of the general population betrayed my laughable optimism. (I suppose that’s a good thing as long as my company’s banner ad campaigns continue to perform well.)

Are you running Add Art? Something different but similar? If not, why not? Do you like looking at ads? Do you just not see them anymore or find them easy to ignore?

Proudly powered by WordPress. Theme developed with WordPress Theme Generator.
Copyright © IRENE KAORU. All rights reserved.