In the media circus that surrounds Michael Jackson's funeral, it is hard to reach out and grab what is significant, if anything. It is easy to condemn all the hoopla surrounding it, and I have not been shy in my disapproval of a rubbernecking media. I have no idea what Michael Jackson was or wasn't in his personal life, but I am sure, like Elvis and Marilyn before him, these sordid details will consume many for years to come.
Even that, is an ephemeral concern. There was a show I saw recently on The History Channel called The Secrets of the Founding Fathers. It was interesting, and may have shed some light on some things, but in the long run, it is not what the Founding Fathers are known for. They are known for the documents that shaped this country's destiny.
So, in a hundred years, what will Michael Jackson be known for? What makes any celebrity endure? It is their works that endure, not their lifestyle, not even their performances. Will anybody be singing his songs a hundred years from now? Will they be considered "Michael Jackson" songs? Will we remember him, like we do Shakespeare, Beethoven and Mark Twain? Historians and others may be able to preserve the colorful personalities for us, but it is by their works they shall be known.
In this regard, one of the harsh realizations I have come to, is how ephemeral the acting profession is. You would think with the advent of film, certain actors and actresses would be watched and adored for generations to come. But I fear that is not the case. Footage and effects look old, remakes supersede the original, there is less interest in actors you cannot fantasize about really meeting.
I'm open to discussion, and here's the question...what artistic performers and creators from the last half of the 20th century do you think will still be watched and appreciated in the last half of the 21st century? And remember, it's the general public I'm talking about, not just historians and enthusiasts. Please, please comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment