killuridols Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 43 minutes ago, Waemoth said: What makes you say that the painting isn't difficult to understand, and also that there's no vengeance involved? It seems clear to me that the rapist is being surprised and possibly also scared (posture, exploding lightbulb). And why is it scared? Because there's a big, dangerous red monster lunging at it from behind cover. Because you have the author explaining good portion of it and if you somewhat dedicate some minutes to investigate him and understand where he's coming from, there is not much left to free interpretation. Of course, anyone is still free to make anything out of it, even if the author has explained his intentions. I have two interpretations: 1) the girl sells mini-robots in the streets so the rapist robot hates her because of that. This leads to raping her and destroying her merch. The big monster is a demon instigating the rape. 2) Since Williams explained his artwork was not meant to go mainstream, but to circulate among a small group of comic lovers that understood his art, and were used to it because they were already consumers of the Zap Comix collective of artists, my second interpretation is that those people and Williams himself enjoy this kind of hyper violent comic strips and that's all there is to it. They are fans of a genre and Williams satisfy their needs. He is fully aware that his art was shocking, provoking and non-PC. This is why he warned GN'R about it and in the beginning he was reluctant to hand them this painting. For this reason, I dont believe in the "anti-rape" message or the social justice he mentions, after controversy unleashed. Especially because he has created other characters who are rapists too. This is an artist who doesn't believe in feminism or political correctness at all, so I find it very hard to make a connection between this painting and an "anti-rape" message, when the author himself thinks his representation of women doesnt contribute to their oppression. Either that or his understanding of victim support differs big time from neurotypical individuals. 1 hour ago, Waemoth said: Also, rebelling against that art can't be critizised? Of course it can, no one is stopping you, and the media agrees with you (hence why the cover was censored in the first place). To me, it seems like you're trying to defend your stance by implying that everyone else is doing society harm, while glorifying yourself simultaneously. The thing with censoring something is that it most definitely shuts down the discussion. If the cover wasn't censored in the first place, we'd all be wiser as to what exactly Axl and Williams thought, or pretended to think. Just saying. How am I glorifying myself? I dont see any censoring going on here. The image is available everywhere and it has been since I have memory, because when I bought my AFD album, this picture was inside... so where's the censorship? And now we are discussing it here at a very open public forum... again where's the censorship? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevergotochurch Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 5 hours ago, 31illusions said: Your right. The best way to show support for rape victims is make a poster depicting the aftermath of rape, frame it and hang it on your wall so your mommy can walk in and see it. Art isn't meant to be safe. Again, grasp simple concepts. I don't know what else to tell you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waemoth Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 5 minutes ago, killuridols said: Because you have the author explaining good portion of it and if you somewhat dedicate some minutes to investigate him and understand where he's coming from, there is not much left to free interpretation. Of course, anyone is still free to make anything out of it, even if the author has explained his intentions. I have two interpretations: 1) the girl sells mini-robots in the streets so the rapist robot hates her because of that. This leads to raping her and destroying her merch. The big monster is a demon instigating the rape. 2) Since Williams explained his artwork was not meant to go mainstream, but to circulate among a small group of comic lovers that understood his art, and were used to it because they were already consumers of the Zap Comix collective of artists, my second interpretation is that those people and Williams himself enjoy this kind of hyper violent comic strips and that's all there is to it. They are fans of a genre and Williams satisfy their needs. He is fully aware that his art was shocking, provoking and non-PC. This is why he warned GN'R about it and in the beginning he was reluctant to hand them this painting. For this reason, I dont believe in the "anti-rape" message or the social justice he mentions, after controversy unleashed. Especially because he has created other characters who are rapists too. This is an artist who doesn't believe in feminism or political correctness at all, so I find it very hard to make a connection between this painting and an "anti-rape" message, when the author himself thinks his representation of women doesnt contribute to their oppression. Either that or his understanding of victim support differs big time from neurotypical individuals. How am I glorifying myself? I dont see any censoring going on here. The image is available everywhere and it has been since I have memory, because when I bought my AFD album, this picture was inside... so where's the censorship? And now we are discussing it here at a very open public forum... again where's the censorship? Of course it's meant to be shocking and provoking (I agree that it's a shitty move to use rape to get attention and indirectly make money). That, however, does not mean for certain that the message in and of itself has to be bad. With all due respect, I don't see how the demon can be seen as instigating the situation. It's appearing (look at the jets of air below it) after the girl has been raped, and there's nothing that would indicate that the rapist expected it to do so. It's precense is neutral at worst, since it's taking interest in the rapist rather than the victim. Not arguing that you spoke in favor of censorship, but that there's nothing rebellious in what you're saying - it's been the norm where I live for at least five years, and was clearly agreed with 30 years ago. "While glorifying" was a poor choice of words, my bad. What I meant was more along the lines of "thereby trying to make yourself out as the better person". (Obviously just my opinion). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 A dopey rock singer saw that painting and thought, ''controversial maan, rapey, sell a lot of albums'' and put it on the front cover. It is that simple. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waemoth Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: A dopey rock singer saw that painting and thought, ''controversial maan, rapey, sell a lot of albums'' and put it on the front cover. It is that simple. How is "rapey" even part of the equation here? I get the opportunistic part of it, and wholeheartedly agree with it. But... what's the difference really from wanting a picture of the Challenger disaster, in terms of trying to profit from someone else's misfortune? Sure he was a junkie, but that's hardly a character trait. Edited June 24, 2018 by Waemoth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishgunnerII Posted June 24, 2018 Share Posted June 24, 2018 I've never once felt that the original AFD cover promoted rape in any way. To me it said that a rapist or potential one won't get away with it. The (for lack of a better term) appetite monster is coming over the fence to stop or attack the robot rapist. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackstar Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) Some other Williams paintings that were used as album artwork. An 80s punk album, an experimental project of Marc Almond, a compilation with various artists and a compilation album by Babes In Toyland (female band of the grunge era): Spoiler Edited June 25, 2018 by Blackstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killuridols Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 50 minutes ago, Waemoth said: Of course it's meant to be shocking and provoking (I agree that it's a shitty move to use rape to get attention and indirectly make money). That, however, does not mean for certain that the message in and of itself has to be bad. I'm sorry but that is not what I think... Maybe I don't make myself clear or something (it's possible). After learning what Axl said about the painting, I'm not even sure that he used it for provocation or getting shock effect for his album. It seems to me that he had (and has) a total disconnection with the real world. He lives in his own world of non bounderies, where women are objects he can destroy whenever he wants and people in general are tools. Maybe this is related to the way he has processed his own alleged sexual abuse.... I don't want to talk shit I know nothing about but it rings a bell in my mind. As for the message being good or bad.... like I said before, in the mind of a neurotypical, the image looks like rape and I doubt many people would hang this picture in the walls of their homes. In the mind of an artist, or people who have an attraction for the odd, they probably think there's nothing wrong with it or they are not affected by it because they can detach from reality. My question here is: would men (and women too) react "positively" to the image if instead of a young woman this would have been a young man? If it was a child? What about the possibility of being a non-attractive female? There's a trick in that painting.... The assaulted girl is sexually attractive but not even Axl wanted to admit her attraction, because if you are attracted to the vision of a raped woman, what happens? You have to start asking questions about yourself and the answers might not be pleasing. Williams said this: "My paintings are not designed to entertain you; they are meant to trap you, to hold you before them while you try to rationalize what elements of the picture are making you stand there." 1 hour ago, Waemoth said: With all due respect, I don't see how the demon can be seen as instigating the situation. It's appearing (look at the jets of air below it) after the girl has been raped, and there's nothing that would indicate that the rapist expected it to do so. It's precense is neutral at worst, since it's taking interest in the rapist rather than the victim. You can't see it because your brain or mind is different than mine. Jets of air could mean just movement of the monster. It takes interest in the robot because robot is the tool to perpetrate the rape. Monster has the power to give orders (manipulate) a stupid weak robot and wash his hands off of any crime. 1 hour ago, Waemoth said: Not arguing that you spoke in favor of censorship, but that there's nothing rebellious in what you're saying - it's been the norm where I live for at least five years, and was clearly agreed with 30 years ago. Lol, when I say I am rebelling I mean that I am going against the popular opinion in this thread. 1 hour ago, Waemoth said: "While glorifying" was a poor choice of words, my bad. What I meant was more along the lines of "thereby trying to make yourself out as the better person". (Obviously just my opinion). But that's the meaning that YOU are giving to my stance. How do I make myself out as the better person? Because I have no appeal to the drawing of a raped woman? In that case, you are putting me in the box of the "better person" that you have inside your head. I am not a better person for not liking it. I am just a person with a set of very personal values (I've spoke about this before) but I never meant to say that my values are the right ones and other values are wrong. Maybe my values coincide with the way most people see rape or feel about it. Maybe my values coincide with the way most nations legally treat rape and sexual abuse. It is just coincidence, though. I am flawed, like everyone else. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom-Ass Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 Is this really a debate over the original Appetite artwork or did I miss something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedYourIllusion Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 A depiction of something is not an endorsement of it, obviously. The original album cover, which I prefer, albeit graphic, does depict a heinous act; but, the robot is about to be destroyed by the avenging dagger-creature (what it’s actually called escapes me). Any blocking of the freedom of expression, that isn’t inciting violence or going to cause direct harm-the classic “fire” in a crowded theatre, should be stopped. Im not saying that this is an album that should be given to children, but come on, this painting and works like it aren’t what cause rape and violence against women. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modano09 Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 I like it as the booklet artwork it was used for. Without getting into the "is it pro-rape" debate, it's just cheesy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
31illusions Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Tom-Ass said: Is this really a debate over the original Appetite artwork or did I miss something? I guess. My argument was they put it out again after Axl being so PC about stuff like OIAM. Makes no sense to me. Commit one way or the other but don't be a hypocrite. Then the thread went rogue. Edited June 25, 2018 by 31illusions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom-Ass Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 5 minutes ago, 31illusions said: I guess. My argument was they put it out again after Axl being so PC about stuff like OIAM. Makes no sense to me. Commit one way or the other but don't be a hypocrite. Then the thread went rogue. Insanity.............. Love this fucking band... \m/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holographic Universe Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said: A dopey rock singer saw that painting and thought, ''controversial maan, rapey, sell a lot of albums'' and put it on the front cover. It is that simple. Dopey? Rapey? I doubt your version of events bares any resemblance to the reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holographic Universe Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 Any member here know what the original is worth? I saw an artist print 1/50 on Etsy for 20k. But Axl said he purchased his for 600k. That’s quite a disparity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scream of the Butterfly Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 I always assumed the monster jumping over the fence was symbolic of the media or perhaps the judicial system going after the rapist. That doesn't make me like the picture any better and I still don't see any anti-rape message in it. It's still an unnecessary depiction of rape. The victim is still depicted as a sex object. An element of vengeance doesn't magically make it right or pro-women. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittiara Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 I know my mind works in weird ways, but... if the art was meant to contain an anti-rape message, isn't it kinda odd that GN'R's Nightrain membership packages contain a t-shirt and laminate (and maybe more, haven't checked in a while as I let my membership expire) of the rapist robot? Like, "We're totally anti-rape, of course, but we think you really want to wear rapist robot stuff!" If the monster is the good guy in this scenario, shouldn't they put him/her/it on there instead? When Appetite was released I was a kid and didn't look into it/think about it too deeply. But if that's the message being sold what with the unpacking of the box, then yeah, I don't really see that piece of art in that light. And that comment from Axl about women getting jealous because they think their husbands want to fuck the lady in the picture... Like @killuridols, I don't think those of us not buying into this being an anti-rape thing are the ones who are removed from reality here... 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 I don't think the band back then, or today, gave lots of thought into the rape part of the art. They just thought it was a bad ass painting and wanted it on the cover. It was likely not meant to convey any message regarding the morality of rape, whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killuridols Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Kittiara said: I know my mind works in weird ways, but... if the art was meant to contain an anti-rape message, isn't it kinda odd that GN'R's Nightrain membership packages contain a t-shirt and laminate (and maybe more, haven't checked in a while as I let my membership expire) of the rapist robot? Like, "We're totally anti-rape, of course, but we think you really want to wear rapist robot stuff!" If the monster is the good guy in this scenario, shouldn't they put him/her/it on there instead? At this point I am lost but the "anti-rape" bullshit is something a couple of members of this forum are trying to pass as the "message" R.Williams intended to bring with his painting. Actually, the only thing Robert Williams said about it is that the monster represents an avenger who is about to punish the rapist robot, and some people here are taking it as he meant the painting is a an "anti-rape" message, but they do not make clear that this is just their interpretation of it and probably a personal agenda to protect their idols. I also find it strange that out of all the GN'R imagery, the band has picked this rapist robot to use it in many items of the new merch they are selling now. Edited June 25, 2018 by killuridols 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 Axl also wore a t-shirt with Manson's face on it. Doesn't mean he approves of cult killings, either. The band was always good at creating controversies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 Oh, I got it now. It's obviously anti-copyright theft. The girl is selling un-licensed play robots. The IP owning robot doesn't approve of patent infringement and messes her up. So this is GN'R taking a stance against bootlegging. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scream of the Butterfly Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 2 hours ago, killuridols said: At this point I am lost but the "anti-rape" bullshit is something a couple of members of this forum are trying to pass as the "message" R.Williams intended to bring with his painting. Actually, the only thing Robert Williams said about it is that the monster represents an avenger who is about to punish the rapist robot, and some people here are taking it as he meant the painting is a an "anti-rape" message, but they do not make clear that this is just their interpretation of it and probably a personal agenda to protect their idols. I also find it strange that out of all the GN'R imagery, the band has picked this rapist robot to use it in many items of the new merch they are selling now. It was also said by that UME guy in the super deluxe unboxing video that the true meaning behind the painting was actually an anti-rape message. So apparently that is how they are marketing it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scream of the Butterfly Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 2 hours ago, SoulMonster said: Axl also wore a t-shirt with Manson's face on it. Doesn't mean he approves of cult killings, either. The band was always good at creating controversies. I never understood his reasoning for wearing that shirt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waemoth Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 3 hours ago, killuridols said: At this point I am lost but the "anti-rape" bullshit is something a couple of members of this forum are trying to pass as the "message" R.Williams intended to bring with his painting. Actually, the only thing Robert Williams said about it is that the monster represents an avenger who is about to punish the rapist robot, and some people here are taking it as he meant the painting is a an "anti-rape" message, but they do not make clear that this is just their interpretation of it and probably a personal agenda to protect their idols. I also find it strange that out of all the GN'R imagery, the band has picked this rapist robot to use it in many items of the new merch they are selling now. Agree completely. I think that anti-rape could be switched with pro-rape, and we get the whole picture of the discussion here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted June 25, 2018 Share Posted June 25, 2018 14 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said: I never understood his reasoning for wearing that shirt. Maybe he cynically exploited the fact that controversies cause PR and is likely to result in more sales within the young adolescent market segment, or maybe he was just immature and thought it was cool, or maybe he like Dj is addicted to the friction, or maybe he felt that Manson had been unfairly treated, or maybe he just found it funny to juxtapose the famous 'Charlie don't surf' quote from Apocalypse Now with the image of Charlie Manson? Maybe a mix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.