Original AFD Artwork Debate

[Silent Jay]

The Appetite For Destruction Deluxe Edition is basically supporting rape.

[31illusions]

38 minutes ago, Silent Jay said:

The Appetite For Destruction Deluxe Edition is basically supporting rape.

In a PC world with Axl disavowing OIAM & hating on Trump. Yet he still puts out a poster of a woman being raped. Hypocrisy much?

[uruguns]

5 minutes ago, 31illusions said:

In a PC world with Axl disavowing OIAM & hating on Trump. Yet he still puts out a poster of a woman being raped. Hypocrisy much?

actually it's a monster saving a girl from being raped according to my friend jeff fura

[AncientEvil80]

1 hour ago, 31illusions said:

In a PC world with Axl disavowing OIAM & hating on Trump. Yet he still puts out a poster of a woman being raped. Hypocrisy much?

Hmm... huh? How?  If anyone, after 30+ years, still feels offended about that particular Williams' work or art, it's entirely his/her own fault for getting the "message" completely backwards. Just pure, blind ignorant bigotry. 

Now, leaving out OIAM for PC purposes on the other hand is pretty fucking hypocritical. If anything, fucking stupid.

8 minutes ago, Ubertrout said:

 But at least GNR are giving us a surround mix.

Which, unless you have a dedicated room to properly "feel" the surround effect, is completely useless and as some people stated: CLUELESS.

[Blackstar]

13 minutes ago, Ubertrout said:

Thanks for sharing.  So...Slash has seen pictures of the box as concept art and said "wow."  Duff actually sat down with them and went through the box.  And Axl sent them some pictures but no direct involvement since.

Slash said "wow" about the sound quality of the Sound City demos, because he didn't know they existed in such good quality.

1 hour ago, uruguns said:

actually it's a monster saving a girl from being raped according to my friend jeff fura

That's how Robert Williams had explained it at the time (9:32 mark):

Another explanation given was that it symbolised the rape of the public by the media.

[31illusions]

14 minutes ago, AncientEvil80 said:

Hmm... huh? How?  If anyone, after 30+ years, still feels offended about that particular Williams' work or art, it's entirely his/her own fault for getting the "message" completely backwards. Just pure, blind ignorant bigotry. 

 

Was that a dig at me? You're pretty f--n' stupid if you think that poster is okay. It was banned for a reason. Nudity, sexual content, misogyny. The list goes on and on. I am in no way offended by it. But In today's world, it's hypocritical to be so liberal (as Axl claims to be) and yet release such imagery depicting sexual deviance.

[©GnrPersia]

12 minutes ago, 31illusions said:

Was that a dig at me? You're pretty f--n' stupid if you think that poster is okay. It was banned for a reason. Nudity, sexual content, misogyny. The list goes on and on. I am in no way offended by it. But In today's world, it's hypocritical to be so liberal (as Axl claims to be) and yet release such imagery depicting sexual deviance.

Dude... You a belieber? Take it easy.

Edited June 23, 2018 by ©GnrPersia

[AncientEvil80]

24 minutes ago, 31illusions said:

Was that a dig at me? You're pretty f--n' stupid if you think that poster is okay. It was banned for a reason. Nudity, sexual content, misogyny. The list goes on and on. I am in no way offended by it. But In today's world, it's hypocritical to be so liberal (as Axl claims to be) and yet release such imagery depicting sexual deviance.

In today's world that picture is even more relevant. It's reality more than ever. I won't discuss it any further than this, cause hey, we all have our opinions and sensitivities. 

I agree that Axl is putting himself in a position that I (we) can deem hypocritical, but IMHO it has nothing to do with the Williams picture or releasing a poster that is undoubtedly tied to the history of the record. 

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

That's how Robert Williams had explained it at the time (9:32 mark):

Another explanation given was that it symbolised the rape of the public by the media.

But the rape already happened, so that savior monster is useless and probably just an excuse to have the image of a raped woman.

And the other excuse tried to be passed as metaphor is even lamer.... Why it has to be a woman? Because if it was a raped guy it would have been a real scandal 

[Blackstar]

5 minutes ago, killuridols said:

But the rape already happened, so that savior monster is useless and probably just an excuse to have the image of a raped woman.

Maybe, since his paintings were meant to create a shock effect.

Here, however, he says that the "action" he wanted to depict was vengeance for something unjust (the rape) that happened:

Williams reasoned that there was a story behind the action of the painting, which explained its violent imagery. “We’ve got a girl on the ground that sells toy robots that has been assaulted by another robot,” he says, “and coming up over the fence is an avenging monster to get him. So this picture has vengeance and justice in it.”

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

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, 31illusions said:

Was that a dig at me? You're pretty f--n' stupid if you think that poster is okay. It was banned for a reason. Nudity, sexual content, misogyny. 

Nothing wrong with nudity. Nothing wrong with sexual content. Misogyny? How is the poster mysogynistic in the sense that it promotes hatred towards women? 

[Blackstar]

A report (October 25, 1988) about the reaction on the AFD artwork by a local activist group in Santa Cruz, California:

In the next day's issue there was an editor's opinion article against the attempt to censor the album because of the artwork (to support their position, the author of the article uses controversial books and movies as examples, one of which is the film Deliverance which contained a graphic scene of raping a man):

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by Blackstar

[soon]

40 minutes ago, killuridols said:

And the other excuse tried to be passed as metaphor is even lamer.... Why it has to be a woman? Because if it was a raped guy it would have been a real scandal 

I agree that on a case-by-case basis there is room for concern about using a male lens to tell a womens story. Or using a broken female body as nothing more then a tool/device for a male to tell a larger story, which seems to be the case here.

I do think that the type of analysis Im putting forward can be over applied. Like my ex used to get mad if a movie or tv show had a female character who sexually pursued a married man, calling it a "lazy an unproductive depiction of women." But I always maintained that, 'If it exists in real life, art should be able to address it. Not everything is a conspiracy to keep people down. And its depicting one women, not all woman.' So for me, like i say, its case-by-case.

Im not sure what I think or feel about this picture. And I think that mostly comes down to the fact that this genre of art, which to my untrained eye seems to be cartoon, doesn't appeal to me. And I find it hard to take seriously no matter what its depicting. It certainly doesnt strike me as a medium that can or should be used to make serious commentary. But I understand that the fact that I think its just dumb isnt really a measure of its actual impact.

Edited June 23, 2018 by soon

[adamsapple]

An anti rape artwork is still banned, yet those images of tanks aiming at the audience are totally cool or what? Welcome to 2018. Where's that puke emoticon when you need it?

Art should never be censored, but today artists censor themselves. To still not use the cover they really wanted and to omit OIAM from all versions of the re-release as if it never happened speaks volumes about artistic integrity going down the drain for a little more money.

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

Here, however, he says that the "action" he wanted to depict was vengeance for something unjust (the rape) that happened:

Williams reasoned that there was a story behind the action of the painting, which explained its violent imagery. “We’ve got a girl on the ground that sells toy robots that has been assaulted by another robot,” he says, “and coming up over the fence is an avenging monster to get him. So this picture has vengeance and justice in it.”

He can say whatever he wants but I dont buy it. To me, that sounds like a made up excuse after controversy. Anyone who thinks rape is an injustice, would not make a painting depicting the injustice, simply because you dont want victims reliving that situation. It is a cruel thing to do that.... besides, the body of that girl is totally sexualized in the raping act, look at her firm breast and the panties round her knees, is it a coincidence one of the songs in the album have those lyrics?

The monster is not doing jack shit but just floating in the air. It leaves room to any interpretation, as I could also come up with the idea that monster is commanding the robot to rape the girl 

1 hour ago, soon said:

I do think that the type of analysis Im putting forward can be over applied. Like my ex used to get mad if a movie or tv show had a female character who sexually pursued a married man, calling it a "lazy an unproductive depiction of women." But I always maintained that, 'If it exists in real life, art should be able to address it. Not everything is a conspiracy to keep people down. And its depicting one women, not all woman.' So for me, like i say, its case-by-case.

The problem with depicting things from real life is when they get repeated to a point people start believing that's the way everybody from one or the other gender are.

Yes, there are women who pursue married man, and men who pursue married women as well. Now when you have 50 movies (or songs, or paintings, or books) reproducing the stereotype, something goes wrong.

As for William's painting, I really cant see all the justification he's done about it and in some ways, this reminds me of the OIAM controversy, because when you have to explain your art then there's a problem with it. 

Of course, people can make anything out of it. I only see a woman who's just been raped and I find it repulsive. I wouldn't like to have that hanging from my walls. I am aware there are people who love it and will have it hanging from their walls... I just hope they never have someone in their families going through such an awful and devastating experience. I really hope it never happens to them either, because then they would realize how stupid it is to support this 'art' bullshit but... to each their own... 

 

[Blackstar]

4 minutes ago, killuridols said:

He can say whatever he wants but I dont buy it. To me, that sounds like a made up excuse after controversy. Anyone who thinks rape is an injustice, would not make a painting depicting the injustice, simply because you dont want victims reliving that situation. It is a cruel thing to do that.... besides, the body of that girl is totally sexualized in the raping act, look at her firm breast and the panties round her knees, is it a coincidence one of the songs in the album have those lyrics?

The monster is not doing jack shit but just floating in the air. It leaves room to any interpretation, as I could also come up with the idea that monster is commanding the robot to rape the girl 

It's surely open to interpretation, yes.

I don't think Robert Williams personally cared about the controversy, since he had a 20 years presence in the underground circles before that and had made a lot of other paintings like that - it was his style (the AFD painting was from 1978, it wasn't related to the album).

[killuridols]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

That's ridiculous. So anyone who think murder is an injustice, would not make a movie depicting the injustice, either? Or violence? Or any amoral act? Following that logic, art could never depict anything that is wrong. 

A movie can give much more context than a still image like this painting. 

I have watched 'Irreversible' and I think it is a great movie.

[soon]

31 minutes ago, killuridols said:

The problem with depicting things from real life is when they get repeated to a point people start believing that's the way everybody from one or the other gender are.

Yes, there are women who pursue married man, and men who pursue married women as well. Now when you have 50 movies (or songs, or paintings, or books) reproducing the stereotype, something goes wrong.

As for William's painting, I really cant see all the justification he's done about it and in some ways, this reminds me of the OIAM controversy, because when you have to explain your art then there's a problem with it. 

Of course, people can make anything out of it. I only see a woman who's just been raped and I find it repulsive. I wouldn't like to have that hanging from my walls. I am aware there are people who love it and will have it hanging from their walls... I just hope they never have someone in their families going through such an awful and devastating experience. I really hope it never happens to them either, because then they would realize how stupid it is to support this 'art' bullshit but... to each their own... 

 

Very good points. I wouldnt wanna look at it or hang it on my walls either.

I wanna clarify that when I said about 'happening in real life', I was speaking only to that example about chasing married men. It may have come across like I was say that since rape happens it should be depicted in any which way. I do not think it ought to be depicted so callously and as you point out; it certainly shouldnt be depicted in such a sexualized manner. 

I have a problem with men who hide behind being artists as a license to utilize their unnuanced and patriarchal ideas about women as a short hand symbology for unrelated themes. The more I reflect on this, it seems to me that if Williams one explanation about the image being against the media is true that this is just a case of a male using the image of a broken female body (who still looks sexualized) to tell an unrelated story. Im not for that.

I still cant been viscerally moved by it one way or another, though. Personally I'd suggest to anyone who thinks this picture is deep or meaningful to get to an art gallery at their earliest convenience. A docent will bring each and every painting to life by unpacking its intent, meaning, context and reception more then Axl could ever do. And Id suggest that the meanings and stories of many of those pieces will be more informed and rewarding then this picture. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by soon

[Blackstar]

52 minutes ago, killuridols said:

A movie can give much more context than a still image like this painting. 

I have watched 'Irreversible' and I think it is a great movie.

What about classic paintings depicting killings, executions, or other violent actions? Like paintings by Goya or "The Murder" and "The Rape" by Cezanne? Do you think they promote violence?

(I'm talking about the content, not about the artistic value which is not comparable).

Edited June 23, 2018 by Blackstar

[Lio]

10 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

What about classic paintings depicting killings, executions, or other violent actions? Like paintings by Goya or "The Murder" by Cezanne? Do you think they promote violence?

(I'm talking about the content, not about the artistic value which is not comparable).

Yeah, I was just thinking. Rubens had a few rape paintings too. It's art.

[SoulMonster]

39 minutes ago, killuridols said:

A movie can give much more context than a still image like this painting. 

I have watched 'Irreversible' and I think it is a great movie.

A movie may give more context, sure, and art must always be assessed in its context, but a viewer may not understand the context that makes a violent movie "acceptable" nor the context that puts depiction of violence in paintings "acceptable". By saying that paintings shouldn't depict rape, or any other amoral things, because paintings are more likely to not provide sufficient context to excuse the injustice shown, you are overreacting. People aren't that dumb. Most people don't see paintings showing violence, torture, warfare, rape, and think, "ah, this justifies it!" People realize that the violence is there for a reason, either because it is part of the story the painter is telling (like episodes in history or mythological stories), because it is social commentary (like this painting by Williams) , or because there can be beauty also in things that are awful.

I also can't help myself but think that you wouldn't at all have reacted this way if the painting showed some other form of injustice, like a robbery or tax fraud. You wouldn't have been up in arms over a painting showing someone speeding, saying that it is wrong because the painting doesn't provide enough accessible context to make it clear to everybody that breaking the speed limit is wrong. You reacted the way you did because it showed a woman as a victim of an assault. And I appreciate that, I think I understand where you are coming from and I think we are on the same side here, but condemning paintings simply because they depict an assaulted women, is going too far, in my opinion. 

[Lillie]

I don't think that it's about punishing the raper..Axl firstly wanted to put a cover that depicted the Challenger disaster as far as I know... They wanted to depict something that would create an impact,that would catch the attention.. It hasn't been heard before anything about punishment of rapers and pay justice and correct me if i'm wrong....Although I strongly believe that any form or work of art should be open to various interpretations.And I think that interpretations have to do with interpreter's way of thinking and emotional state to a serious extend..We can't be exactly attached to the thing an artist have in mind..Neither enjoying art in a mimicking kind of way is constructive imo..We can enjoy art even though we don't totally  agree with what it demonstrates or criticizes....in a more creative way by taking it as a reason for further thinking... 

[killuridols]

39 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

What about classic paintings depicting killings, executions, or other violent actions? Like paintings by Goya or "The Murder" and "The Rape" by Cezanne? Do you think they promote violence?

(I'm talking about the content, not about the artistic value which is not comparable).

I dont think they "promote" violence and I don't think Williams painting promotes rape either. 

I think they've been made to satisfy a personal need to reproduce those actions and situations, for reasons I dont know and never will.

These comparisons you make do not work in trying to break me from what I am saying. I dont care if it's Goya, Cezanne or William's... I have never said they should be censored or the artists should stop doing what they are doing. I have no power over them or over their audience, all I have is my own power to give my unsolicited opinion and my own power to not purchase this art or hang it from my walls.

In my list of personal values, rape and rapists are the worst crimes a human can commit against others. Even above murder. But I repeat these are my personal values and I am aware it might not be the same for others.

So since I conduct my life according to these values, William's painting is a giant turd in my eyes. I will never have that hanging from my walls or wear it in a t-shirt. 

I dont care what other people think or do with it. This is my stance.

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

A movie may give more context, sure, and art must always be assessed in its context, but a viewer may not understand the context that makes a violent movie "acceptable" nor the context that puts depiction of violence in paintings "acceptable". By saying that paintings shouldn't depict rape, or any other amoral things, because paintings are more likely to not provide sufficient context to excuse the injustice shown, you are overreacting. People aren't that dumb. Most people don't see paintings showing violence, torture, warfare, rape, and think, "ah, this justifies it!" People realize that the violence is there for a reason, either because it is part of the story the painter is telling (like episodes in history or mythological stories), because it is social commentary (like this painting by Williams) , or because there can be beauty also in things that are awful.

I also can't help myself but think that you wouldn't at all have reacted this way if the painting showed some other form of injustice, like a robbery or tax fraud. You wouldn't have been up in arms over a painting showing someone speeding, saying that it is wrong because the painting doesn't provide enough accessible context to make it clear to everybody that breaking the speed limit is wrong. You reacted the way you did because it showed a woman as a victim of an assault. And I appreciate that, I think I understand where you are coming from and I think we are on the same side here, but condemning paintings simply because they depict an assaulted women, is going too far, in my opinion. 

If for you, rape is in the same level as robbery or tax fraud, that's your thing. Read my response to Blackstar above.

But telling me that I am overreacting over this is a cheap shot. Just because I am female it doesnt mean that my opinion derives from hysteria and emotions. I am not overreacting, if I was, I'd be burning posters in the streets and starting a campaign against Williams.

My opinion derives from my personal values, not my emotions. Robbery and fraud imply material things I dont give a fuck about. Personal integrity is much more valuable to me than money.

[SoulMonster]

Many artists feel that provocation in itself is art. The objective is to create a reaction in the viewer that affects internal change or discussion leading to external change. That's the art. Not the painting or movie itself. It just becomes a vector. One might argue that Axl thinks this way, too. Someone else pointing out him wanting an image of the Challenger explosion on the front sleeve of AFD, and 'Don't Damn Me' is also a whole defense of Axl's right to provoke: "My words may disturb but at least there's a reaction".

[Blackstar]

11 minutes ago, Lillie said:

It hasn't been heard before anything about punishment of rapers and pay justice and correct me if i'm wrong

It was said at the time of the release. See the video I posted on a previous page.