We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.

Opinions on MJ drawing

Dear all,

I have found this drawing which the auction house (also the issuer of the certificate of authenticity) claims was made by Michael Jackson: https://www.gottahaverockandroll.com/michael_jackson_signed_and_ins...

Although, at first sight, the signature seems alright, I find it sketchy that the description is rather sparse in information. I was expecting to see more details about the source (friend, collaborator or family member of MJ's), the year in which it was made, etc.

From what I've read on other threads, GHRR is a mixed bag and I'm afraid my initial instinct may be right. So, what do you think? Is it genuine, too difficult to tell or is it the work of a known forger?

The reason why I'm curious is because I would like to have a drawing of MJ's tattooed and I feel that this one in particular brings together his personality and artistic interests best.

Thank you in advance and I really appreciate the work you're all doing in keeping the fanbase aware of people who are only trying to profit off of MJ's legacy.

Tags: Jackson, MJ, Michael, drawing, signature

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lizzie on August 18, 2022 at 2:41pm

Actually.... I believe it has pretty much been proved that MJ used photos as the basis for many of the portraits in the 'Kunstwerke' book, and also the 'Wright Brother's' drawings. I don't know if he traced them directly, or more likely used a projection method to 'blow up' the image sizes. The drawings in the book mare mostly very large, drawn on paper that measures about 100 cms x 70.cms. The various designs (for chairs, keys etc) are original, but again may have been drawn using a projected' baseline' drawing, with the intricate designs added afterwards. The paper was specially made, and apparently has a unique watermark, which is why some drawings are drawn on the reverse of others- the paper supply was limited. . Many of the baseline photos will have been historic images, but if any were still in copyright, it could be difficult for anyone to make / sell prints of them, because unless an art image is 'substantially changed' from the original phhotograph, the copyright is usually deemed to belong to the photographer. A legal case involving portraits by Andy Warhol is due to go to the Supreme Court in the autumn. ''The new case concerns Warhol himself. On Oct. 12, the justices will consider whether he violated the federal Copyright Act by basing a portrait of the musician Prince on a prominent photographer’s work.'' Interestingly, there is a legal precdent involving a photo of the 3 Stooges, which is often cited. ''In 2001, for instance, the Calif. Supreme Court ruled that an artist named Gary Saderup could not sell charcoal drawings of the Three Stooges without their heirs’ permission, saying the images violated a state law on the commercial use of celebrities’ likenesses..'' https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/15/us/warhol-prince-supreme-court-c...