Michael Jackson’s ‘Opus’ Contains Some Scantily-Clad Surprises

That painting is just inappropriate by all means.

Yet I got a pretty good laugh out of it do to the irony.

People are so immature. There is nothing wrong with this painting. Those aren’t “boys” or “children” surrounding him— they are angels. Cherubs.

Anyone, including the author of this piece, who looks at this preoccupied with the gender of angels and their “crotches” is the one that is being perverted and completely missing the point of the art. Grow up.

I usually do not comment on any site. But that was well said Dina. It is a beautiful painting.

@Dina: Seriously? The average person would look at this uncomfortably regardless of their “maturity” its Michael Jackson partially nude surrounded by little kids who happen to have wings, you can snap out of your little bubble honey this is the real world not everyone is so accepting of this image with this person in particular.

Just when I thought Americans ran out of bad stuff to write about Michael…Geez, if you stopped judging this man and tried to enjoy his art more, you’d be happier. Trust me, you’re missing out:)

American’s are so poorly educated and prone to knee-jerk responses. This Nordahl painting very clearly alludes to William Bouguereau’s painting Le Printemps (The Return of Spring). It’s quite easy to “google.” Cherubs were standard fare for art of that period (with male cherubs having penises). The painting is meant to be ironic, but if you know nothing of art history or world history, then I suppose that is hard to comprehend.

Michael Jackson is an artist who also appreciates all forms of arts. From his music videos, you can see him transforming himself into many different characters, because that’s just how imaginative he is. I can’t believe that every single news articles about the release Opus focuses on nothing but criticizing the “Michael” painting, calling it all kind of ugly adjectives. I guess the writers probably all copied from the same source and add their 2 cents to it. BTW, those “little boys” or “angelic children” are known as cherubs, and they are gender-less. What a shallow bunch of people. I am anxiously waiting my preordered copy of the Opus.

I thought for the briefest moment that after Mr. Jackson’s death, the media might finally let up on him…how foolish of me, how naive.
I’m no art historian, but clearly this and many other paintings belonging to Michael Jackson are alluding quite clearly to celebrated pieces by past artists. Grow up, people. As Mr. Jackson himself stated, HE was never the one interpreting the world through an apparently “average” level of sexual and moral deviance. ( see Mr. Middleton’s comment). Perhaps Mr.Middleton should acquaint himself with a few good art books; then again perhaps he would interpret all art through his perverse perspective.
Thank you media for once again proving your utter inanity.

I found this painting rather charming but then I don’t have a dirty mind. Mr Middleton seems to think he is the voice of the average person. Well I think that both his and the author’s comments reveal a great deal more about them than they do about Michael Jackson. Sadly there are still many people who wish to taint his name through ignorance.

I am amzed what people read into things. Michael has had these images around for years-fantasy image sfrom neverland. What fun to be depicted in these scenes. There is a magic one of Prince as well. These are fairytale classic images-I love this one with the cherubs……..cherubs are based on classical images…Just delightful imagery-all innocent.
It si not the first time these have emerged. it is the Crucify Michael brigade out in force again. What weird minds look at cherub’s crotches????

It`s brilliant! Michael is pure genius!!! I`m gonna buy the Opus in a couple of weeks! I can`t wait! Love you more Michael!!!

@Shelley: what does this have todo with “cherub’s crotches” those kids could be fully clothed wearing hazmat suits and I still would think this painting is uncomfortable to look at.

@EVERYONE ELSE: Doesn’t really matter what fancy mythological name you give them their still children nevertheless and its Michael Jackson its disturbing period, another thing here in “America” we find Crimes against children to be the most heinous furthermore an act of sexual abuse.

Once someone has put them-self in a position to be labeled a child molester let alone having repeat allegations their image is irrevocably tarnished therefor we do not find it in ones best interest to be “say” be painted with himself surrounded by children “or” having sleepovers with children after-the-fact guilty or not.

In conclusion this is an American Blog where American views and opinions are likely to be expressed so for those of you who abhor Americans way of thinking perhaps you should find a blog from your native land to take part in perhaps the atmosphere will be more suited for facetious nature.

Wow thanks Mr. Middletown. You just made all the non-US visitors to this site welcomed. Idolator’s already gone through a tough transition as is. Using the “this is America buddy” attitude to defend your viewpoint will get lost in the argument. Though I agree with you to a certain extent, using nationalism is not the way to go.

Mr Middleton… You obviously have never looked at art before have you? What do you think of Bottchille’s Birth Of Venus? A nude woman standing there with two naked cherubs.
Also, Michael Jackson had mental difficulties, he did see things as ‘normal’ people do. 2 boys accused him of molestation, out of over 300 he had been in contact with, that, from my personal experience, is NOT a paedophile.

@LilSoulBrother: My statements certainly weren’t intended on having the “this is America buddy” attitude however People do have their own opinions from culture to culture I feel it was irrelevant for them to have mentioned America in the first place.

My point wasn’t at all to scare anyone away but for those so obviously in vain of “American” views to, “perhaps” find a place more suited to them. Otherwise come one come all.

@Vicky Actually I have seen and appreciate Art I go to the Art Musem of Cincinnati every spring with my nephews. My family including myself have even made donations to the Richard and Lois Rosenthal Foundation which funds several art related projects in the Cincinnati area.

I dont understand why people have ambiguously rushed to weather Ive seen art. This isn’t about “my value of art” its about my take on this particular piece of “art” which I am obviously not a fan.

All I have to say is it takes serious balls to commission a print like this, especially given the history of subject and young boys.

I think my co-workers/friends would look at me a little different if I had a picture of myself superimposed on this print and hung on my wall.

Hmmm well its not even michaels body just the head!! But anyway, its art i mean look at the statue of David….huh gross??? No ART!!! JUST ART!! Dang yall grow the hell up and stop being so dang immature…my preteen understands devine art better than some of these ppl on this dang post… i could go on about dumb ass ppl..but..if i wanted to waste time on trash i would become a trash woman….

What a lot of fuss over a mythical image – how could this bit of art make anyone feel uncomfortable? It’s only meant to be a bit of fun.
What is not fun is continuing to label Michael Jackson a child molester when he was found not guilty in court.

Mr. Middletown I am an American and believe in American justice. Michael Jackson was found NOT GUILTY by an American court which had Americans in the jury. This even though the judge allowed “evidence” from the first allegations to be shown to the court. The problem was the “evidence” turned out to be hearsay; for the most part from people who got paid to talk to the media.

Jackson obviously had no self defense mechanisms in place to stop him from putting himself in compromising situations, but that does not make him a criminal.

From Dusen ” All I have to say is it takes serious balls to commission a print like this, especially given the history of subject and young boys.”

I actually read in another article that the artist said Jackson considered the painting to be satirical. That’s just an incredible sense of humor if true – and the artist should know he communicated with Jackson about it.

I’m glad he’s dead.

@boobookittie: Your comment is completely irrelevant here do to the fact that this isn’t about the statue of David or any other forms of art other than this ones take on Michael Jackson “in-particular” which has clearly been pointed out.

To like one Piece of Art isn’t to like all Art, to dislike one piece of art isn’t to dislike them all.

@Carole: The label isn’t being applied but the very idea still exists.

@Tom Joyce: I’m no ambassador for America and certainly dont speak for everyone, I too believe in the justice system however I do not put my faith behind it 100%.

Mr Middleton – label, idea, call it whatever you like. The point is that some people will not let go of their “ideas” of Michael Jackson regardless of what the court ruled. It appears that once something is alleged about a person they are smeared for life (and in death) whatever the truth.
I wonder if someone else’s face was on the painting, would you feel so uncomfortable? Myself, I rather like Michael’s sense of humour and spirit that is depicted in the art despite all the difficulties he had to deal with.
I would also like to make it perfectly clear that I find “crimes against children to be the most heinous furthermore an act of sexual abuse”.

This painting is nothing new, it was in the 2003 documentary “Living With Michael Jackson”. The Martin Bashir documentary. MJ had the painting in his music studio. Also, the paintings of David Nordahl were featured in a USA Today story a few months ago after MJ’s death. Unfortunately MJ is always going to have a cloud over his name due to the allegations against him. I would like to believe in his innocence but it’s hard. I’m sorry he had to live with his issues, he really did have enormous God given talent but he had issues. I don’t know why his parents didn’t get him help many years ago, everyone knew he had psychological issues. When he was at the height of his success no one in the media really cared that much about his emotional issues which they were all well aware of in Hollywood. May he now r.i.p.

@Carole: I have said “in particular” so many times when referring to this painting I dont know how it isn’t clear.

it is this painting with Michael that I do not agree with so, to answer your question no I wouldn’t feel so uncomfortable if it was someone else’s face plastered on that painting.

Carole: “label, idea, call it whatever you like. The point is that some people will not let go of their “ideas” of Michael Jackson regardless of what the court ruled. It appears that once something is alleged about a person they are smeared for life”

Yes I have said this point blank basically, have you not read a thing I have written?

Anyways With allegations of certain crimes such as child molestation they tend to stick with people right “or” wrong.

Mr Middleton – yes I have read what you written so please do not be condescending, and it is clear that you are anti-Michael Jackson in art or anything else for that matter. We will have to agree to disagree.

I wish MJ still was alive; then we could all go back to making fun of his face without any repurcussions.

Don’t you remember how Michael used to always say he saw God in young children’s faces? Only someone as innocent and loving as Michael would have the nerve to portray himself this way in a piece of art. I think he got incredible peace and joy from picturing himself as innocent as a child, since he was so robbed of this experience in his youth. Leave him alone. The average human will never, ever understand the brilliant, innocent mind of an artist like Michael Jackson. More people should embrace his message and this would truly be a better world.

Good god please shut the fuck up. He was a singer and great songwriter, albeit one with some serious demons and issues. That is all.

“the average human will never” understand him?? Again, please shut the fuck up.

@Carole: ~Sigh~ I am not “Anti-Michael in Art or in anything else” I do not like “THIS” painting its “one” thing.

@Wacko jacko /& Ranger: Why do people like you even bother? You have added nothing of substance to this debate/argument in any way his ability to “sing and song write” have nothing todo with this painting.

sc341:
You seem to have trouble deciding whether or not MJ was innocent. Please educate yourself. First google the article by Mary Fischer entitled “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” This will explain in great detail the plot to extort money from MJ in 1993. Next go to the Aphrodite Jones website. She is a court reporter who wrote a book about the 2005 trial, exposing how the media, biased as it was against Jackson, did not accurately let the public know what actually happened in the courtroom. The whole thing was a farce; the family accusing him were liars with a history of extortion attempts. Once you have educated yourself you will know that there is not a single shred of evidence that Jackosn molested children. Please be careful where you get your information–there is a lot of tabloid-style junk out there!

@Middletown: I am a long-time reader, very infrequent poster. However, when people start posting ludicrous hyperbole like “The average human will never, ever understand the brilliant, innocent mind of an artist like Michael Jackson.” I call bullshit.

The real question is, why do YOU even bother? It seems like you like to give your 2 cents, no matter how banal, to just about every other Idolator post.

I particularly enjoyed the argument you had on the artistic merits of Chris Brown a few weeks ago. With a semi-literate 12 year-old. I truly appreciated the substance you brought to that debate/argument.

@WackoJacko Well I am glad you “appreciated the substance” on said posts regardless of its irrelevance here and as a matter of fact I do like to give my two cents. Your use of the word “banal” is both grandiloquent and ironic here.

You live for Internet arguments, don’t you? Unfortunately I ain’t biting. I do appreciate your use of fancy words though!

Good night and I look forward to your future valuable insights on the Pussycat Dolls.

This commission is a wink and a nod to the very famous Bougereau paintings, which had stylized nudes and cupids and such. Jackson was funny AND well educated, both traits nearing extinction in this country.

Yes, MJ did enjoyed classic art as well as a wicked sense of humour. Maybe he would have liked Australia where we tend to be more laid back and not get uptight over a painting that’s meant to be amusing.

I wonder why the news is giving so much attention to this Bougereau homage, when he also commissioned one of himself in J.W. Waterhouse’s Hylas and the Nymphs. I guess the media would rather not focus on a portrait of Michael surrounded by beautiful naked women because it wouldn’t sell as many copies as this so-called “scandal.”

the book isnt 250 pages, its 400 pages..

THANK YOU DINA! BRAVO! It’s about time SOMEONE said it!

Whatever else it is — innocent, art, not art, bad art, satirical — you have to admit it IS a little creepy. Period.

I’m sad you aren’t
:C

Technially cherubs don’t have a sex nor should they have belly buttons nor should they have nipples. All of these things are part of reproduction and cherubs and angels do not reproduce. So that means technically they are neither male nor female, they are simply cherubs.

good post. ı like this ih blog admin good template