The Man in The Mirror

It's a Michael Jackson post. Not a tribute post though it is of course born out of his death. It was this, K-Punk on Michael Jackson, which led me to reread the section on Michael Jackson in Greil Marcus' Lipstick Traces (a great book by the way) in which I saw this quote which called to mind Ronaldo, or at least the Ronaldo I described in this post on postmodernism:

People were no longer consuming commodities as such thing are conventionally understood...; they were consuming their own gestures of consumption. ...
Confronted with performers as appealing and disturbing as Elvis Presley, the Beatles, or the Sex Pistols, with people who raise the possibility of living in a new way, some respond and some don't - and this, if only for a moment, becomes a primary social fact. It became clear that Michael Jackson's explosion was of a new kind.
It was the first pop explosion not to be judged by the subjective quality of the response it provoked, but to be measured by the number of objective commercial exchanges it elicited. Thus Michael Jackson was absolutely correct when he announced, at the height of his year, that his greatest achievement was a Guinness Book of World Records award certifying that Thriller had generated more top-ten singles (seven) than any other lp- and not, as might have been expected, "to have given people a new way of walking and a new way of talking," ... To say such things would have suggested that in a pop explosion what is at stake is value: that such an event offers as its most powerful aesthetic and social gift the inescapable feeling that the fate of the world rests on how a given performance might turn out. And this was not what was happening. The pop explosions of Elvis, the Beatles, and the Sex Pistols had assaulted or subverted social barriers; Thriller crossed over them ...

In the Guinness World record thing we can't help seeing the similarity with Ronaldo's pleasure at the "historical" figure that Real Madrid paid for him. As a footballer the commercial transaction overshadowed his football. Everything is turned on its head, the "aesthetic and social gift" of Ronaldo does not result in the high price, rather the high price proves the truth of the "aesthetic and social gift." "I am the most expensive player in the world, therefore I am the best," rather than, "I am the best player in the world and a by product of this is that I have been made the most expensive player in the world due to contract left, new galactico policy at Real, etc.." The arbitrary economic realm provides the truth of the aesthetic.
There is a similar comparison in the consumption of the two. In the same way that with Thriller it was not so much about the record's content, but about the consumption of the event of the record - one just had to consume it, whether one wanted to or not, it was ubiquitous, hearing the record or not, buying it or not, one had to be a part of it, even if only negatively, one couldn't ignore it (note that Michael Jackson's death is exactly the same, this Cat and Girl cartoon sums it up perfectly). And can't we see the same with Ronaldo, away fans booing him is just a negative consumption.
We can also take this into linking the aesthetic and the social - culture affecting the social. Let's take as a comparison Zidane. Take a look at this video:



Zidane was an amazing footballer, but not only that, he must be about the most aesthetically pleasing player ever, he played with such style, such grace, effortless beauty in his movement. It wasn't about frenetic activity but about control, he never appeared to be moving fast, he beat people with the movement of his body, mesmerized by his grace one is almost tempted to say. Whenever someone argues that football isn't Art I always recommend they watch Zidane. Ronaldo is the opposite, yes there's moments of beauty, but there's just something missing. It is the awareness of Ronaldo which ruins it. It is a theatrical skill, a skill meant to impress, a skill that says "look at this skill", and always with the undercurrent of "look what this is worth". And this ruins the beauty. And the magic. While this element was always present, the difference was particularly stark last season. The difference between Ronaldo last season and the year before was not in the actual skills on display but in the loss of any remnant of magic. The season before he seemed almost - but not quite - possessed of it, this season, he didn't, and yet he still scored goals, still influenced everything, yet it was at a distance, he was "phoning it in" and as a result any aesthetic pleasure was (on the whole) gone.
And the possibility of social significance. Perhaps it is a leap to link Zidane's aesthetic appeal to the social. But in a similar way to Greil Marcus' linking of the aesthetic and the social, "the inescapable feeling that the fate of the world rests on how a given performance might turn out", can we not also see that the purely aesthetic pleasure of Zidane can be seen in the sense of art as the aesthetic realisation of the not-yet-possible: the Utopian potential of art. Whereas Ronaldo becomes a thing to be consumed for itself - there is no value outside the economic value. This article about Zidane's legacy, points out the social potential of Zidane, even if it didn't immediately amount to anything:

French kids of North African origin are as football-daft as white and black French kids. Until now, they have mostly failed to break through to the top level. Zidane was a great player the greatest of his generation but also a great exception.

Suddenly, three wonderful young French players of Arab origin have arrived together, like buses on a non-strike day.

Hopes that the 1998 World Cup victory of a white, brown and black team would instantly begin a new era of social and racial relations came to nothing. The success of a handful of talented footballers did not reconcile the great mass of young brown and black French people to social exclusion. Why should it? It was depressing all the same to hear those young French-Moroccans booing white and black France players.

And yet and yet. These things take time. The true, political achievement of the 1998 team was to educate subliminally the rising generations of the white, majority population (just as the black footballers of Britain have done).

A generation of French youngsters of all races has been brought up with brown and black heroes. Little by little if not yet enough they have helped to wash away barriers to the sons and daughters of immigrants in other areas of French life.

Even on the television. Even in government.

It could perhaps simply be the "accident of geography" involved in Zidane's birth which makes the difference. However, given that Ronaldo was not exactly blessed with social status from birth, the difference can also be seen to lie in the personal aesthetic of Zidane bringing his background to the fore, against the economic imperative to the fore in Ronaldo's football.
Theodor Adorno has a description of art that fits in nicely here:

[art] epitomizes the unsubsumable and as such challenges the prevailing principle of reality, that of exchangeability.

With his sublime play Zidane epitomises this aspect of art (the languid pace he played at bringing to mind this thesis of Adorno, "aesthetic time is to a degree indifferent to empirical time", he was on the same pitch as everyone else but played in a different time), whereas Ronaldo constantly reminds one, forces upon one, his exchangeability. Zidane challenged "prevailing principles", Ronaldo happily rides on them. This is why the pleasure of watching Zidane and the social effects of his play, are so much greater than anything Ronaldo will ever achieve.