Michael Jackson is objectively the greatest artist of all time. Following Antoine Fuqua’s 2026 biopic Michael, it feels as if everyone is talking about the king of pop again. Almost 17 years after the singer’s death, Billie Jean was ranked number one on the Billboard Hot 100, alongside other six charted singles. Six of his albums place in the charts, becoming the sixth artist to do so posthumously. He is additionally the first and only artist to score top-ten Hot 100 hits in six different decades (Zellner, 2026). That’s a lot of sixes, and, knowing MJ’s affinity with the spiritual world, I think he’d appreciate the synchronicity.
All that is to say, the film introduced Michael Jackson to a new generation, one too young to appreciate his music as it was coming out. The fascination with this man’s greatness is a universal sentiment. With all the media resurfacing about him, I have found myself immersed in MJ’s depth of research when it came to understanding, adopting, and referencing the approach of the greats before him. In a manifesto written on the back of a tour program by 21-year-old Michael, he states ‘I will study and look back on the whole world of entertainment and perfect it, take steps further from where the greats left off.’ This essay explores how greatness doesn't stem from absolute originality, but from one’s ability to curate and reference, and Michael’s genius is the proof.
First, we have to agree on what originality means. The general consensus is that an original idea, let’s say, is one that has never been thought or executed before. A completely novel concept, independent of anything that precedes it. Contrasting this, Virgil Abloh coined the 3% rule, whereby an existing concept can become entirely new by altering it by 3%. People have criticized this theory as establishing the grounds for plagiarism, but the line between referencing and outright intellectual theft will be delved into towards the end of this essay. I think both of these perspectives are relatively narrow, but I lean closer to Virgil’s understanding of the term. No idea can be inherently original, especially in the 21st century, because everything has been done before. There’s only so many melodies, only so many stories, only so many products. Thus, striving to be unprecedented doesn’t require the discovery of something entirely new. In fact, originality in its purest sense is unattainable. Taking films for example, there are established genres and filmmaking conventions that every text (overtly or covertly) follows. Even when it deviates significantly, there is always experimental cinema as an umbrella term. Yet, every few generations, there is someone - a filmmaker, an artist, a musician - that manages to create something the world has not seen before. At least not executed in the expected way. Which brings me to the point of the argument, originality isn’t the ability to conjure something new, rather the ability to understand what has been done, and how that can be improved, adapted, and approached differently.
People are a collection of their life experiences. Every choice and reaction is informed by personal history. The way one sees the world is a direct response to how they have been shown to perceive and understand it. Style is, therefore, an accumulation of people that came before you. The way you paint can only be informed by what you understand painting to be. A person that has only been exposed to Da Vinci replicas in their uncle’s house, compared to another person who has visited the Tate, the MOMA, the Louvre, will have different comprehensions of what painting is, and more importantly, what it can be. As much as we love to separate creation from consumption, they are two sides of the same coin and perpetually inform the other. Hence, this is where curation separates the average from the great, and the great from the genius.
Michael Jackson’s style is incredibly distinct and transcendent. Berry Gordy, founder of Motown Records, said ‘Michael Jackson was not an artist who comes along once in a decade, a generation, or a lifetime. He was an artist who comes along only once, period.’ His originality however, was an extensive research project, where MJ studied the quirks and patterns of the greats before him. In his early career, Michael had no formal dance training. Instead, he mastered the motions of Charlie Chaplin and Fred Astaire, finding the ability to translate emotions through the smallest movements fascinating. Michael also found the interdisciplinary excellence of Chaplin to be a driving force in his own career. He was never just a singer, or just a dancer, he also produced music, initiated social change, and maneuvered his personal brand’s creative direction. When it came to classical arrangements, he studied the works of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, perhaps the greatest classical composer to ever live. Another one of his most pivotal influence was soul legend James Brown. He fixated on Brown’s footwork, charisma, and stage presence from early on in his childhood. Studying the minutia that made up legends like Chaplin and Brown, Michael curated his own curriculum of greatness that he not only followed, but improved upon. ‘I will study and look back on the whole world of entertainment and perfect it, take steps further from where the greats left off.’ Even though Michael is undoubtedly unprecedented, he didn’t as much invent, as connect seemingly unrelated concepts: an actor’s movement, a composer’s arrangement, a singer’s stage presence. His originality is his catalog of references. Isolating traits and outlining behavioral patterns in the lives and careers of the people he deemed to be the greatest, provided him with a blue print of what it means to be great and how to hone genius. In selecting aspects that certain individuals did best and mastering them, Michael evolved into a hybrid of the greatest traits from the greatest artists.
If we are all but a compilation of external influences, if our originality stems from the unique blend of references, where do we draw the line between paying homage and flat-out plagiarism? The difference is in the intention. Are you trying to learn and adapt the technique in a way that flows with your individualism, or are you simply imitating a process that worked? Curatorial referencing thus becomes a separate entity to appropriation. You are the active agent deciding what element you adopt from what category, you improve on them in a way you view fit, and by the time you are done researching, the element has developed an independent life outside of its origin.
But, if pure originality doesn’t exist, and true individualism is in remixing what already exists, how is an artist supposed to outshine AI. Generative Artificial Intelligence can only produce based on what has already been invented. Isn’t that what curation is? Referencing as an isolated practice does not correlate to greatness. Imitation isn’t originality. It is the individual response to the material, the adaptation of what came before, that can create greatness. Establishing links between different sources, filling the gaps in your research, contributing within an existing context, that’s where greatness is formed. It is futile to create in a vacuum, ignoring the work that precedes yours. It is, however, primordial to tailor your consumption to serve your personal purpose. Having good taste and the necessary creativity to be able to interpret genius is ultimately what can create greatness. Crucially though, the pursuit of greatness, as in the case of Michael Jackson, came from concentrated independent practice based on the teachings of his forerunners. So, while having a guiding syllabus is essential, more so is one’s ability to dedicate to and master the craft.
Zellner, X. (2026). Michael Jackson Rules Artist 100 Thanks to ‘Michael’ Biopic Success. Billboard.
Really insightful! Loved it <3
Another great research👏👏Made me wanna watch the movie!!