Comments on: Why didn’t Michael Jackson become Rembrandt or Shakespeare?

By: Brian In NYC

Brian In NYC — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:00:26 +0000

Yes, but on the other hand artist became more free to express their own artistic vision once they were freed from being exploited as mere tools of religious propaganda. Frankly Mark I’m still puzzled as your use of the life of either Rembrandt or Shakespeare, neither had the life you invoke. Both lived and worked in states that were becoming increasingly secular by the standards of the day. Both were commercially successful without receiving state or church support. In fact one can easily make the argument that Rembrandt’s decision to live and work among the Jews of Amsterdam was a means of flipping the bird to the Christian hierarchy of the day.

By: Matt Stroud - The Prison Dilemma - Weekend Relapse: Thousands Of Prison Inmates Performing ‘Thriller’ - True/Slant

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:51:17 +0000

[...] Why didn’t Michael Jackson become Rembrandt or Shakespeare? [...]

By: Mark Stricherz

Mark Stricherz — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:12:34 +0000

Brian,

I agree: Mozart would be a more accurate comparison to MJ, as both were child prodigies. Of course, our historical period does poorly in the comparison. Mozart’s brilliance lasted decades longer than MJ’s.

Remember, Percy’s point was not that our age could not produce great artists. It was that our great artists are not supported by a nurturing and triumphant artistic culture, one in which someone like MJ could feel he was part of a real community, perhaps like the 12 Apostles or scientists today.

By: Brian In NYC

Brian In NYC — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 05:13:41 +0000

Don’t you think Mozart would be a more accurate comparison to MJ than either Rembrandt or Shakespeare in terms of life experiences?

“I am not saying that great artists can’t excel in our post-religious age…”

Mark this an absurd statement and ignores the great art movements of the last 300 years.