Jump to content

Original AFD Artwork Debate


Silent Jay

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, killuridols said:

I dont think you must be the only one but to be honest, the more I see these unboxing videos and find more information on the packages, the less I want to buy any of it.

I had hopes on the book being a novelty and something really cool but by the looks of it, they are the same pics you can find all over the Internet :shrugs: so I cant tell if I will ever buy some of this....

Same. It's not appealing to me either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, killuridols said:

The rapist punishment justification comes from Robert Williams. I never heard Guns N' Roses using this excuse for the use of the cover.

Neither do I .. It might be a thought that they bring to the light now .. All things considered I am skeptical.. I believe that they just wanted to make a huge impact with something controversial with which sadly many people can relate or take it seriously...like an endorsement.. 😒 I think it more leads the imagination  to objectifying women in order to call the shots, to brag about sexual transcendence of men rather to anything else...That's how I take it... But I appreciate the excuse as well...Not that it changes anything... If some take the message into consideration nowadays then.... idk. We"'ll see...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be *that* person, but: what the thought process behind a picture chosen as an album cover 30 years ago was, really doesn't matter at this point. I just stopped trying to understand it and accepted it as a piece of art, and as history. 

Edited by Waemoth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go so far as to say the artwork is promoting rape, but I can't take it seriously as an anti-rape message either. In my eyes, it's nothing but an entirely unnecessary depiction of rape, intended to shock and offend, and therefore I don't particularly like it. It's safe to say very few women and even fewer rape victims would appreciate seeing this picture and the sexist manner in which the victim is depicted in it. If you take a look at Williams's other works, it's also easy to see he's not exactly a feminist. To just accept the explanation that was given about the picture being anti-rape is very naive.

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait didn’t someone recently say Axl wanted the rape cover because he saw the rise of media and news cycle as taking over only trying to exploit people in their worst moments, and thus cashing in on people’s appetite for destruction. 

http://www.laweekly.com/music/tom-zutaut-guns-n-roses-aandr-man-talks-about-the-making-of-appetite-for-destruction-8425626

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, IncitingChaos said:

Wait didn’t someone recently say Axl wanted the rape cover because he saw the rise of media and news cycle as taking over only trying to exploit people in their worst moments, and thus cashing in on people’s appetite for destruction. 

http://www.laweekly.com/music/tom-zutaut-guns-n-roses-aandr-man-talks-about-the-making-of-appetite-for-destruction-8425626

Yes, Tom Zutaut said it. I had forgotten about that. But I don't know, because he has said some exaggerated stuff over the years. But on the other hand, this interpretation had been given at the time also by Bryn Bridenthal, so it's possible that Williams had explained it to Axl that way or maybe Axl just interpreted it that way.

L.A. WEEKLY: How did the Robert Williams artwork land on the original cover?
Axl showed me a card with the Williams painting and said, “You realize … this is the future,” then he pointed to the woman: “This is the victim; this is the media, and above them is the monster that the media creates.” He predicted, in 1986, that we were going to live in a world of “fake news,” where we’d feed on tragedy. It depicted human nature and the ugly need we have for an appetite for destruction. Axl told me that CNN was going to change the world by feeding that appetite. He saw the future in that painting, and because GNR had 100% creative control in their contract, the label had to use the artwork.

Edited by Blackstar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to pass any judgment  to a thing that has a timeless and extremely wide appreciation and success... I love AFD and I don't stuck to the cover... Although I've always believed that exchanging of views and critical approach is constructive to say the least... Nobody's judgement  can take away the success and also the powerful messages of songs....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, IncitingChaos said:

Wait didn’t someone recently say Axl wanted the rape cover because he saw the rise of media and news cycle as taking over only trying to exploit people in their worst moments, and thus cashing in on people’s appetite for destruction. 

http://www.laweekly.com/music/tom-zutaut-guns-n-roses-aandr-man-talks-about-the-making-of-appetite-for-destruction-8425626

Thanks, dude. That's a pretty good article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

Yes, Tom Zutaut said it. I had forgotten about that. But I don't know, because he has said some exaggerated stuff over the years. But on the other hand, this interpretation had been given at the time also by Bryn Bridenthal, so it's possible that Williams had explained it to Axl that way or maybe Axl just interpreted it that way.

L.A. WEEKLY: How did the Robert Williams artwork land on the original cover?
Axl showed me a card with the Williams painting and said, “You realize … this is the future,” then he pointed to the woman: “This is the victim; this is the media, and above them is the monster that the media creates.” He predicted, in 1986, that we were going to live in a world of “fake news,” where we’d feed on tragedy. It depicted human nature and the ugly need we have for an appetite for destruction. Axl told me that CNN was going to change the world by feeding that appetite. He saw the future in that painting, and because GNR had 100% creative control in their contract, the label had to use the artwork.

Yea part of the original story is Axl seeing the picture on a post card, so Axl showing it to him on a card is accurate and the painting was originally called “Appetite for Destruction” the band bought the rights to the name from Williams for a small amount. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IncitingChaos said:

Yea part of the original story is Axl seeing the picture on a post card, so Axl showing it to him on a card is accurate and the painting was originally called “Appetite for Destruction” the band bought the rights to the name from Williams for a small amount. 

Yeah. Robert Williams did an interview last year and gave more details on the story:

http://ew.com/music/2017/07/24/appetite-destruction-cover-art-robert-williams/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

L.A. WEEKLY: How did the Robert Williams artwork land on the original cover?
Axl showed me a card with the Williams painting and said, “You realize … this is the future,” then he pointed to the woman: “This is the victim; this is the media, and above them is the monster that the media creates.” He predicted, in 1986, that we were going to live in a world of “fake news,” where we’d feed on tragedy. It depicted human nature and the ugly need we have for an appetite for destruction. Axl told me that CNN was going to change the world by feeding that appetite. He saw the future in that painting, and because GNR had 100% creative control in their contract, the label had to use the artwork.

:lol:

What a pair of ignorants, really!! Zutaut and Axl make me cringe...

The effects of media were studied 30 years prior to Axl's "predictions" :facepalm: and the fake news are not brought by CNN but the rise of Internet and social media.

Either way, it is more bullshit and lame excuses, since depicting a girl raped by a robot and sexualizing it has nothing to do with media, fake news or the pile of BS the three of them spread. It is way closer to be about the satisfaction of their own fantasies and seeking joy in watching a woman being abused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IncitingChaos said:

But apparently Robert Williams hates Axl if that’s who Axl bought the original from for $600,000. But I can’t translate well so...

In the interview from last year I posted a link to though he says he likes him.

1 hour ago, killuridols said:

The effects of media were studied 30 years prior to Axl's "predictions" :facepalm: and the fake news are not brought by CNN but the rise of Internet and social media.

There were studied even before that, but we know that Axl and the other members of this band weren't/aren't scholars, don't we? And most likely Zutaut isn't either.

There were fake news though before the rise of internet. They just weren't spread and reproduced so rapidly.

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

There were studied even before that, but we know that Axl and the other members of this band weren't/aren't scholars, don't we? And most likely Zutaut isn't either.

There were news though before the rise of internet. They just weren't spread and reproduced so rapidly.

That's why I say they are ignorants because Zutaut makes it sound as if Axl was kind of visionary who saw "the future of media" and that's the cringe part.... One can be ignorant but humble. These guys are ignorant and arrogants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, killuridols said:

That's why I say they are ignorants because Zutaut makes it sound as if Axl was kind of visionary who saw "the future of media" and that's the cringe part.... One can be ignorant but humble. These guys are ignorant and arrogants.

Regardless of Axl's "predictions", an artist (and any other person, for that matter) can be a vsionary without being an academic.

The early 90s had marked a breaktrough in regards to the effect of the media btw, and it was led by CNN and its coverage of the Gulf War.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Regardless of Axl's "predictions", an artist (and any other person, for that matter) can be a vsionary without being an academic.

The early 90s had marked a breaktrough in regards to the effect of the media btw, and it was led by CNN and its coverage of the Gulf War.

How did the 90s mark a breakthrough in the effects of media? :question:

Technology and progress is what helped media to be more present in people's lives: industrialization, transportation, commerce, telephone, radio, tv, cable tv, computers, Internet... It's bigger than what we know by 'media'. It's bigger than CNN.

Axl did not envision anything regarding power of communications. That's what I am talking about here and about Zutaut being an idiot for believing and spreading that.

Edited by killuridols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, killuridols said:

How did the 90s mark a breakthrough in the effects of media? :question:

We're way off topic (so I'll stop after this post) but the Gulf War was the first war that was televised. People watched a war live on CNN from  their living rooms like an action movie and that caused a trivilalized perception of the war.

(I'm not saying that Axl "envisioned" that)

@Scream of the Butterfly

http://www.atlantamagazine.com/90s/desert-storm-the-first-war-televised-live-around-the-world-and-around-the-clock/

(Thanks for posting the link, @Lio )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Gulf_War#U.S._television_coverage_and_the_CNN_factor

https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/gulfwarrevisited.htm

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tremolo said:

It's called art and nothing is out of limits –just like in comedy– and everything is play field. What you make out of it is your own interpretation, and you cannot attach that to the author/creator of the piece. We process art through our own experiences and the outcome is filtered through that. What you make out of it is nothing but your own interpretation and it says nothing about the author's intention. Let alone claiming what can and cannot be subject of art... that is preposterous.

In this case, the author explained something about this 'piece of art' and solely based on that I can give my opinion, if I want to.

http://ew.com/music/2017/07/24/appetite-destruction-cover-art-robert-williams/

The painting is not really that complicated to understand or open to one hundred interpretations, even when he thinks this was meant only for a "select group of intelligent art connoisseurs:lol:

My interpretation of it is pretty simple and in some ways, similar to his own explanation of it. The only part that I fail to see is the vengeance presence or the act of justice he mentions.

I am rebelling against the perception of art as a sacred cow that cannot be discussed, dissected, objected or criticized and that we all should just watch (or listen or read) and shut up because the artist is some kind of almighty God. It is more preposterous to spread this idea than anything else.

 

Edited by killuridols
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...