This is something to think on. But what about Morrissey? He has some very funny lyrics, and he also has some deathly serious ones. Meat Is Murder is beautiful because it's so confrontational and condemnatory. The singer is deathly serious about his subject. It's artful in its daring, too. Bob Dylan sang "I'll stand over your grave 'til I'm sure that you're dead," but he aimed that one at the fat cats atop the military-industrial complex, which the multitude could cheer him for—an easy target, compared to Morrissey, who directed his moralizing at the multitude itself. I think that can be the triumph of art, too: "the voice of one crying in the wilderness, saying 'repent.'"
you think meat is murder beautiful. i imagine to some people who arent on board with it's narrative, it might seem a bit cheesey in its confrontation and condemnation. it's lyrics too: "the turkey you fancifully fry", for instance.
if you are on board with it's narrative, then it may seem powerful and stirring. but does powerful and stirring equal art?
to me, art happens in moments that "catch" (for example, ivan (i think) in the brothers karamazov telling his brother "remember i came back twice!") or when new spaces are created in our way of thinking, or when seemingly opposing ideas or feelings are blurred so that you can no longer tell them apart: comedy/seriousness, good/evil, violence/serenity, etc. leonard cohens "if it be your will" is a great work of art because of the violence of the lyrics "in our rags of light/all dressed to kill/ and end this night/ if it be your will" combined with the serene and submissive sound, and i always think when they show explosions and scenes of chaos on tv they should play pie jesu to accompany them.
im not really sure why deathly serious would equal good art
as for michael jackson being comical and absurdist in his attempt to convey a "bad" image, i dont think you understand michael jackson or the context of his videos. michael NEVER tried to convey a bad image. he didnt even like doing the pepsi commercial, because he didnt want kids drinking pepsi. what he meant to convey was a new idea of
bad: someone who, through their commitment to excellence and precision, could take on anyone and win and who, therefore, you damn well better be afraid of. and for a while michael, because of his excellence and precision, really did rule the world, making him the baddest of bad. but, like, he wasnt ACTUALLY bad, as in, he wasnt robbing people, and sexually harassing people, and doing drugs, and beating people up and that kind of thing, which, of course, would've been totally novel and deserving of being taken seriously.