Latest on MJJC

Greg Gorman's semi-nude photo of Michael?

When Shana Mangatal shared the semi nude pic, people posted in the comments a color version of him with his pet tarantula and she replied it was its skin taped over his face and not the actual tarantula. I'm not knowledgeable on that subject, so I didn't know it changed its skin with its hairs/fur as well. That's why it looks like the actual spider. Anyways, I'm glad both Michael and Greg enjoy their time working together.
 
It was Greg who shared it

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/city-life/05-16-11-the-amazing-photography-of-greg-gorman/

Michael Jackson, 1987

"Michael was a perfectionist beyond your wildest imagination. Every time we would shoot, he would call me and we'd have a two-hour conversation to discuss what it was we were going to do and how we were going to go about it. He had pet tarantulas; they actually shed their skin. This is the casing of the tarantula that he brought with him.
"He never traveled with a big entourage. He was very genuine and really loved photography. I dearly miss him. He was a tragic individual but an amazing human being."
Click to expand...
 
Wow, it looks like an almost alive tarantula. You can learn something new everyday!

The one on the left is its skin shed.

Tarantula.bad_.molt_.full_.separated.jpg


I'm not a huge fan of spiders but Michael and Greg made the pictures looking bad ass and beautiful thinking it was his alive pet tarantula.

-Tarantula-michael-jackson-9075997-458-470.jpg


If I ruined you the epicness of the pictures, I apologize. Even if it's shed skin, it's still epic to me.
 
I remember that story about the spider and its shed. here's some other pics with the shed
spiderp.jpg


b10d183a2efedd1ecc33bff5f7fd7cc0.jpg
 
Last edited:
Wow!!! How interesting. I always assumed it was the actual thing. I didn't realize they shed their skin like that.
 
I don't like spiders most of them make feel a combination of disgust and a little fear but not to the extreme of arachnophobia; however, I love learning (maybe useless) stuff that I find curious and interesting such as knowing how what I thought it was his pet tarantula stood perfectly still for the pictures. It's bad ass nonetheless, who else can rock a tarantula carcass on the face? JUST MICHAEL!
 
Seriously though, every time I open this thread I am frantically scrolling down so I don't have to look at those pictures of a black hairy spider carcass poking in Michael's eye :unsure: And then I'm afraid to go up again to go to the forum menu. I know, it's sad -_-
 
Electro said:
some more semi-nude tarantula fun:


:D
Click to expand...
wow, that was cool and fascinating! I actually petted a tarantula once, they're quite soft. I've often thought about getting one myself
in the suggested videos that comes up after the video ends, there was one where showing the process of a tarantula killing a mouse and then eat it...very cool!!!
 
Last edited:
Linda, I totally agree, I'm a serious arachnophobe and those pictures and video are kinda ruining this thread for me too tbh! I'd much rather talk about almost-naked Michael, lol ;)

..so to get back on topic, I think there's a very big chance this shoot was commissioned by Michael much like the paintings he commissioned of himself and it was never intended to be used as promotion in any way - it's not really the type of picture for it either. I think he took photography seriously as the art form it is, and this was more of a personal project for him - he might not have felt the need or seen the opportunity to release them at the time, but I don't think that necessarily means he didn't ever want to have any of it released.
There's quite a difference between this photo being part of an exhibition by the photographer himself, or Karen Faye throwing some random shots on twitter imo, so I agree she shouldn't do that (tho I'm dying to see them, dammit!). Personally, I think some of the remixes they made of his music without any of his input - being sold with his name on it - would be a lot more offensive to Michael than his picture being part of an art exhibition.. Unfortunately we'll never know.
 
respect77 said:
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.
Click to expand...
She would know more about that than any of us, which makes her and anyone else that had Mike's trust suspect in selling him out. That is what disgusts me, along with some fans being so eager to see him compromised just so they can have more of him. We weren't supposed to have his everything. I'm cool with Mike wanting to keep something to himself. I don't want or need to consume everything. I didn't become a fan yesterday, trying to play catch up.
 
Lil said:
I'd much rather talk about almost-naked Michael, lol ;)
Click to expand...

me too....I just want to look at this pic all the time, I can't stop looking at it, and when I'm not looking at it I can't stop thinking about it :cloud9:
 
I hope some German fans could take a really good picture with no reflections, Because this picture is so beautiful it deserves to be posted in perfect condition.

I hope some German fans will take a really good quality picture so we all can see it. At first i thought it was a fake picture, but i would love to see it without thw shadows and reflections because it so beutiful
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I saw it first, I thought that it was a painting not a picture.
 
Last edited:
innuendo141 said:
Am I the only person who is glad this photo wasn't ever used for anything?
Click to expand...

No. Most likely you, myself, others, Michael, his handlers, and Sony.

Most of these photo shoots were commissioned by Michael for publicity usage such as the results of the Herb Ritts' photo shoots. In the Bad25 documentary, it was discussed that Michael's handlers and Sony preferred Michael maintain a more grittier image for the Bad era. Thus, the rejection of the "lace" photo as also discussed in the documentary and Michael chasing the female lead in TWYMMF.

As someone who was present when Bad was originally released, the discussion of the day regarding the album cover was mostly about Michael's skin color change and if he could be considered more urban (although the term was not urban at the time). I personally do not remember much discussion of Michael appearing effeminate on the cover. This was also the time much of the commentary began that Michael was so wealthy from the success of Thriller that he was somehow not in touch with the struggles of "the man on the street," as some said then. Those debates were fought heavily when the Bad short film premiered.

I do not see this as Gorman (or Faye) dishonoring Michael's wishes at all. Other photos from Gorman were used as publicity shots, simply not this one. Stands to reason as this shot is more art than grit.
 
Last edited:
I've never seen so many people flip over a photo when the person in it actually has his underwear on :rollin:
 
^haha. True. I finally saw the picture on a proper computer screen instead of a phone, and realize why I thought the right side of his face was distorted.
It's the curl that falls right over his left eye that threw me off.
 
Dilan said:
why is he only releasing it now so long after?
Click to expand...

He certainly had decades to ASK (or inform) Mike if he'd be ok with this pic being released for an art exhibit (or otherwise). I'm sure he's had other exhibitions of his work during those decades, being that he's well known. How convenient that he releases this now that Mike is dead. That's what is shady imho.
 
Last edited:
InvincibleTal said:
I've never seen so many people flip over a photo when the person in it actually has his underwear on :rollin:
Click to expand...
and that's just how it is when you're the most beautiful and gorgeous human being that ever lived
 
Last edited:
wednesday said:
Then they quote Gorman saying that Michael was a hard worker, concluding that that is evident in the portrait, since nothing is real/genuine about Michael Jackson. Isn't that nice!
Click to expand...

Before it gets misrepresented and misattributed to Gorman: it is not Gorman who says nothing is real/genuine about MJ, but it is the journalist who wrote the article.
 
wednesday said:
Then they quote Gorman saying that Michael was a hard worker, concluding that that is evident in the portrait, since nothing is real/genuine about Michael Jackson. Isn't that nice!
Click to expand...
Doesn't this just get old, though? Does the trash talk have to go on forever and ever and ever?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top