Original AFD Artwork Debate

[Gnrcane]

Is this really still a debate?  It's an f-ing cartoon painting.  If you are offended by it then stop listening to GNR.  The lyrics of many of the songs sexualize and demean women way more than a stupid cartoon of a woman who may have been raped by a robot.

Or, you could choose the interpretation that the girl was drunk, dropped her panties to pee and then passed out and the robot was coming to see if she was OK.  There, now there is no need to be offended anymore.

[killuridols]

3 hours ago, tremolo said:

Because you have a misunderstanding of what idiotic means. Again, that’s on you. I won’t sugarcoat my posts to avoid hurting your sensibilities, especially when I am not insulting you, but it’s your choice.

Again, it doesn’t mean you are dumb or that your post is dumb, or that you lack intelligence. I already explained the meaning of idiot/idiocy/idiotic. Why do you choose to stick to your wrong interpretation of the word? I don’t have a clue.

I never asked you to "sugarcoat" your posts.... If I say you talk to me in a condescending tone, it might be my perception in first place, but I have many elements to prove that you are doing it, even if you deny it. Maybe this is just the way you are but I don't know you, so my impression of you is what I get from your posts.

----

I don't have a misunderstanding of what idiotic means. And even if I did, I can easily Google it, so here it is:

Quote

 

Idiotic

Adjective
Definition of idiotic
1 : characterized by idiocy
2 : showing complete lack of thought or common sense : foolish

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiotic

 

Also

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/idiotic

 

While you're not directly saying that I am dumb or lack intelligence, you are almost there, by labeling my thought process as idiotic.

Just a recap:

 

* "But the 'problem' actually is in you. Although I wouldn’t call it a problem."

* "Your 5th paragraph is absolutely idiotic. (....) do you realize how idiotic that is? It just doesn’t make any sense."
* "Time to drop the victimhood (...)
* "Also time to start using that not-so-common common sense instead of that reductionism that is pretty stale and doesn’t provide any food for thought (...)"

* "I don’t get triggered, i leave that to feminists and other self-entitled groups..."
* "Nobody is reacting the way you mention (...)"
* "That is more of a weird generalization based on... not sure what, but clearly it is not based on the observation of reality (...)"
* "(...) suggesting it’s out there, and it’s happening all over the place is completely laughable."

* "What you are trying to tie together doesn’t really add up."

* "I’m sorry to break it to you, but there is no magic recipe here (...)"
* "The tone you hear is in your own head and your own interpretation, it’s not mine."

 

They are all examples of mansplaining but mostly, examples of someone telling another person that they lack common sense and/or have trouble with reasoning/logic/intellect, using a very condescending tone.

 

Like I said, you have some good points about the discussion, but the way you have chose to express them puts me off. If you wanted to convince me of something, you're not getting there.

 

And no, it is not me, it is YOU.

 

[killuridols]

3 minutes ago, tremolo said:

It is nothing but a made-up word/concept to perpetuate a narrative where a woman conveniently put herself in the role of a victim just because a man doesn’t agree with them.

I am not victimizing myself. I am pointing out what I see and I am telling you how I feel about the way you talk to me. I am not crying, I am not calling the police on you, I will not post about this in my social media to oversize it.

You can not agree with me but you have a choice in how to say it: con buena onda o con mala onda (that's my Spanish for you )

Yes, we are derailing now but it was important for me to tell you this. I do not have anything else to say about the artwork, I've said enough.

Thanks for reading, at least

[action]

4 hours ago, Gnrcane said:

 

Or, you could choose the interpretation that the girl was drunk, dropped her panties to pee and then passed out and the robot was coming to see if she was OK.  There, now there is no need to be offended anymore.

yeah, you're right. she probably was drunk and peed in the streets, looking as if she fainted. 

what about her tits hanging out of her bloose and traces of blood on them, as if some sort of humanoid robot handled them unsoftly?

Edited June 29, 2018 by action

[DieselDaisy]

She could be a Geordie girl. 

[Scream of the Butterfly]

17 hours ago, wasted said:

Axl also wanted a pardon for the Idonesian drug mules. He wrote a letter to the prez of indo. I’m not sure how they were executed. They were women drug mules forced to do it. 

Maybe Axl felt like the UYI line up was creatively dead but he was anti death penalty. So he carried on trying. 

Only one of them was a woman and she wasn't executed.

17 hours ago, Blackstar said:

Maybe. But the U.S. has the death penalty too and it would have made more sense if he'd written a letter to the president of his own country.

Maybe he's in favor of the death penalty for murderers as it exists in the U.S. (or at least not as unequivocally against it).

[RussTCB]

Repost:

I'm curious to hear what @killuridols and anyone else who is offended by the artwork has to say about this:

 

I have a serious question for those offended by the original AFD cover:

How do you justify having paid for that piece of art? Sure, the cover itself was banned but that artwork is still included in every version of AFD that's ever been produced on any format. 

So if that piece is incredibly offensive, how it is OK to own an album that still features it on the cover or inside? 

[ZoSoRose]

Yall should look up the cover of X Japan's first album, Vanishing Vision, if you want to see offensive

[MrMojo]

10 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

Yall should look up the cover of X Japan's first album, Vanishing Vision, if you want to see offensive

Say that went down a treat in 88

[killuridols]

3 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

I have a serious question for those offended by the original AFD cover:

How do you justify having paid for that piece of art? Sure, the cover itself was banned but that artwork is still included in every version of AFD that's ever been produced on any format. 

So if that piece is incredibly offensive, how it is OK to own an album that still features it on the cover or inside? 

First to say that I am not "offended" by it.... It is more something about disliking the painting, IMO it's in bad taste and after learning the explanation given by the author, I've become more cynical about it.

Anyway, to respond your first question:
- When AFD got to my hands, I was around 12-13 years old, so I did not pay for it. My parents did because, well, where would I get money to buy things?
I liked the band and the music, I was getting into them so I barely knew anything about them (this is the early 90's I'm talking about) and I wanted to catch up because I was kind of late to the party, you know?
Add to this that my English was pretty basic, as I had started to learn it when I was 9.... and of course, I was taught children stuff, not the level to be able to understand the kind of lyrics in GN'R songs.

- My CD has the AFD cross in the cover. The booklet inside has many pages with photos, lyrics and there is the Robert Williams painting as well, but the quality of print is kind of bad, I'd say. The image is sort of darkened.

- While I was reading this thread, I was trying to remember what was my first reaction to it.... I honestly do not recall much.... I remember being desperate for hearing the songs, so I must have just looked at it and dismissed it, like I did with most CD booklets.

Second question:
- Like I said, I am not "incredibly offended" by it and I have the cross cover version, so I don't have to permanently look at it. Also, I have no CD's lying around. They are all boxed somewhere, I do not play CD's anymore, I have replaced most of it with digital files.
- I have not played GN'R albums in more than 15 years.... I guess that if I ever go back and open one of those CD's, they will just become dust in my hands. So, I am not exposed to that painting at all.
- I do not think it is a matter of being OK or not to have it.... I own tons of books that are considered "offensive" and I will not burn them or throw them just because of that.
- What I don't have around me are visual elements that I dislike.... my walls are mostly blank, I do not hang any posters of anything.... only my living room have some paintings, and they are all landscapes, flowers and more landscapes (pretty boring, yeah).
- I stand by saying I do not like that painting and I don't want to look at it or have it hanging in my walls.... That's how all of this started, right? In the AFD Box thread, because a poster of it comes with the box now, so I think I was talking about that and the thread got derailed with this argument.

 

[DieselDaisy]

Houses of the Holy (Led Zeppelin) and Blind Faith have provoked the ire of the paedophilia brigade. You also have Track Records (nothing to do with Jimi) version of Electric Ladyland as evidence of misogyny. 

[RussTCB]

26 minutes ago, killuridols said:

First to say that I am not "offended" by it.... It is more something about disliking the painting, IMO it's in bad taste and after learning the explanation given by the author, I've become more cynical about it.

Anyway, to respond your first question:
- When AFD got to my hands, I was around 12-13 years old, so I did not pay for it. My parents did because, well, where would I get money to buy things?
I liked the band and the music, I was getting into them so I barely knew anything about them (this is the early 90's I'm talking about) and I wanted to catch up because I was kind of late to the party, you know?
Add to this that my English was pretty basic, as I had started to learn it when I was 9.... and of course, I was taught children stuff, not the level to be able to understand the kind of lyrics in GN'R songs.

- My CD has the AFD cross in the cover. The booklet inside has many pages with photos, lyrics and there is the Robert Williams painting as well, but the quality of print is kind of bad, I'd say. The image is sort of darkened.

- While I was reading this thread, I was trying to remember what was my first reaction to it.... I honestly do not recall much.... I remember being desperate for hearing the songs, so I must have just looked at it and dismissed it, like I did with most CD booklets.

Second question:
- Like I said, I am not "incredibly offended" by it and I have the cross cover version, so I don't have to permanently look at it. Also, I have no CD's lying around. They are all boxed somewhere, I do not play CD's anymore, I have replaced most of it with digital files.
- I have not played GN'R albums in more than 15 years.... I guess that if I ever go back and open one of those CD's, they will just become dust in my hands. So, I am not exposed to that painting at all.
- I do not think it is a matter of being OK or not to have it.... I own tons of books that are considered "offensive" and I will not burn them or throw them just because of that.
- What I don't have around me are visual elements that I dislike.... my walls are mostly blank, I do not hang any posters of anything.... only my living room have some paintings, and they are all landscapes, flowers and more landscapes (pretty boring, yeah).
- I stand by saying I do not like that painting and I don't want to look at it or have it hanging in my walls.... That's how all of this started, right? In the AFD Box thread, because a poster of it comes with the box now, so I think I was talking about that and the thread got derailed with this argument.

 

First things first; I thought you'd be saying you were offended by the painting. Seeing as you're not offended by it, the rest of this may not apply to you. I'd still love to hear from anyone who IS offended by it on the original points I made above and everything below:

I see some of your points but to me it comes back to that painting being part of the overall package. My point is: whether or not you knew it was in the package when you first got it, it's still in there. Whether or not you look at it ever, it's still part of the album. Whether or not you paid for AFD, you still own it and thus the painting that's part of every physical release of it.

I'm not, nor would I ever suggest burning art. However, you don't have to support it either. Does the songs you (not YOU killuridols specifically, but anyone reading this) like being on the album outweigh the dislike, disgust or offensive taken at the painting included in the package?

[killuridols]

36 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

I'm not, nor would I ever suggest burning art. However, you don't have to support it either. Does the songs you (not YOU killuridols specifically, but anyone reading this) like being on the album outweigh the dislike, disgust or offensive taken at the painting included in the package?

Well, of course!
I feel shame for saying this but I got AFD after getting the Illusion albums first because that's how I got to know GN'R (I was late to the party, remember?)
I remember reading reviews of UYI that said AFD was the seminal album and much better than the Illusions, so I became curious, I needed to hear those songs.

The painting I consider it a burden that you have to put up with if you want to own the original album and not a copy. It is exactly what is happening now with the re-edition of AFD, Super Deluxe and Deluxe packagings... if you just want to own the music in physical format, you also have to pay for the "added bullshit" they impose you: rings, fake tattoos, lithographs, bandanas, the painting, etc......

From what I am reading here many fans do not want any of that, they just want the CD's or the vinyls, everything else is a burden attached to it and there is no other option if you are a collector of CD's, for example.

Now that I am an adult and can make better choices for myself, I am thinking of what I am going to do in order to just purchase the music and dismiss the rest.

Edited June 29, 2018 by killuridols

[Scream of the Butterfly]

What good would it do to throw the album away even if you do find the picture offensive? There might be some things that you like about it even if the picture isn't one of them. I think most of us are critical of one thing or another about this band, but we are also adults and can tolerate a certain amount of unpleasantness. Everybody has to decide for themselves what crosses the line to such extent that you don't want to be a fan anymore.

[killuridols]

1 minute ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

What good would it do to throw the album away even if you do find the picture offensive? There might be some things that you like about it even if the picture isn't one of them. I think most of us are critical of one thing or another about this band, but we are also adults and can tolerate a certain amount of unpleasantness. Everybody has to decide for themselves what crosses the line to such extent that you don't want to be a fan anymore.

Yeah and most of us bought the album because of the music, not because of the artwork, which is something attached to it and while it is not completely "outsider" to the concept of the band, the artwork is not an essential part of the album or the music. You can totally do without the booklet.

[RussTCB]

38 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

What good would it do to throw the album away even if you do find the picture offensive? There might be some things that you like about it even if the picture isn't one of them. I think most of us are critical of one thing or another about this band, but we are also adults and can tolerate a certain amount of unpleasantness. Everybody has to decide for themselves what crosses the line to such extent that you don't want to be a fan anymore.

 

30 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Yeah and most of us bought the album because of the music, not because of the artwork, which is something attached to it and while it is not completely "outsider" to the concept of the band, the artwork is not an essential part of the album or the music. You can totally do without the booklet.

If you own it, you're supporting it and everything included with it, right? Again, perhaps my question isn't directed at the two of you. My question is directed at anyone who finds the painting offensive. 

[wasted]

5 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

Only one of them was a woman and she wasn't executed.

Maybe he's in favor of the death penalty for murderers as it exists in the U.S. (or at least not as unequivocally against it).

Dizzy wasn’t executed. 

So more equal rights than anti death penalty. 

[killuridols]

48 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

If you own it, you're supporting it and everything included with it, right? Again, perhaps my question isn't directed at the two of you. My question is directed at anyone who finds the painting offensive. 

Not necessarily.... I also own the Hitler book... does that make me a Hitler supporter? 

I got it because I wanted to learn from the mouth of the horse, if that makes any sense.

Same happens when you vote a politician... you vote someone that represents your ideas or ideology but that person might make mistakes when they are in power, does it mean you support everything that person does? Some might support them no matter what and others could be critical of the things that they deem not okay.

I dont think these things are all black and white or that you have to take an extremist position.

If I wanted, I could do something about that painting which is part of my AFD album... I could rip the two pages it occupies in the booklet. Or I could vandalize it with some Sharpies.... and the music would still play because that's what really matters to me.

I see the booklet as something disposable. Artwork is part of the booklet, it does not intervene in the act of listening to the album.

[Gnrcane]

10 hours ago, action said:

yeah, you're right. she probably was drunk and peed in the streets, looking as if she fainted. 

what about her tits hanging out of her bloose and traces of blood on them, as if some sort of humanoid robot handled them unsoftly?

It's art.  You can interpret it however you want.  Maybe she was hot and opened her blouse.  Maybe she had a bloody nose.

My point was that is in an effing cartoon.  The robot rapist doesn't appear to have the equipment to be able to rape.  Why be "offended" or upset by it when you are fine with listening and singing along to "It's So Easy" that clearly degrades women.  "Turn around bitch I've got a use for you" doesn't require any interpretation.  Being a fan of GNR, yet offended by that artwork is hypocritical to the extreme.

[killuridols]

2 hours ago, Gnrcane said:

Why be "offended" or upset by it when you are fine with listening and singing along to "It's So Easy" that clearly degrades women.  "Turn around bitch I've got a use for you" doesn't require any interpretation.  Being a fan of GNR, yet offended by that artwork is hypocritical to the extreme.

Each fan experience is unique and personal. 

The artwork is part of the album packaging but it is not an integral part of the process of listening to the music.

- You can be offended by the artwork and also be offended by ISE but at the same time you could not be offended by SCOM.

- You could love listening to Estranged and hate listening to OIAM .

- You could be a fan of Chinese Democracy only and reject the rest.

It is art and fans can do whatever they want with it. Fortunately, we have advanced in technology so much that we can isolate tracks now, no need to listen to the whole if we like only a couple of songs. Digital formats have made it possible to get rid of booklets and packaging.

 

 

[baldek]

I love the original cover and remember spending a few years tracking one.

I think it's way more interesting than the dull 5 skull cross, which should have been a merchandising representation of the band, only - its icon status as an album cover was merely achieved because the album itself is legendary, otherwise things would be different. 

In the original cover you can sort of see a visual representation of the music within, which, to me, is really cool; the danger, sleaze, shock, no boundaries, recklessness, all elements that made up the album.

If you don't have it, buy one and frame it.

[wasted]

Itsa hard to imagine being offended by the artwork and not by It’s so Easy. 

But if you reject it based on those two things, you miss SCOM. Art can be just this is our life, this is what we are seeing. And even in Easy, Axl kind reflects on it, it’s kind of like a sad confession. Like Brownstone isn’t glorifying addiction it’s saying what a drag it can be. To limit art to just say the right thing would make it pretty boring. In that painting there is no good guy, things aren’t going to work out. That might be your experience of life. 

[Scream of the Butterfly]

I find the artwork more objectionable than the lyrics. A picture paints a thousand words. Plus, I've never interpreted that line in ISE as a reference to rape, even if it is offensive/misogynistic.

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, wasted said:

Itsa hard to imagine being offended by the artwork and not by It’s so Easy. 

"To me, authorship does not equal approval, just as listenership does not equal approval. It's important when analyzing this type of music to not draw a connection between lyrical statements and the personal views of an artist "just because." Oftentimes a bad boy persona is just that — a persona — so when is a sexist message ironic or subversive, and when it is a hateful call to action? Since I'm not interested in digging into a stranger's psyche (and I know the futility of such an exercise), my engagement with an artist's intentions only goes so far. Once a piece of music is released into the world, it's my belief that each listener can imbue a work with his or her own meaning, too. That doesn't erase the original impetus for a song, but it can change it, if only for the individual listener."

(...)

"For me, handling the hypocrisy of loving sexist metal, punk, and hip hop was easy as a teenager — just don't think about it, right? — but I'll admit that as I've got older, it's gotten a bit harder to ignore. However, if there's anything I take away from my exercise of asking other women about their misogynistic musical tastes, it's an affirming reminder that there is no "correct" way to consume music and culture, just as there is no "correct" way to be a feminist — and what you put out into the world is more important than what you take in. People (and especially artists) are complicated, messy, cross-sections of contradictions. You are not necessarily complicit in a message because you choose to mindfully consume it. And while it would be far easier to only listen to empowering songs by Beyonce or Bikini Kill and live in a feminist-friendly bubble, I wasn't built that way. I'm just as intrigued by rage, by misogyny, by turmoil and by lyrics that provoke me and make me question and confront my own demons. And if they happen to be set to a sick beat? Even better."

https://www.bustle.com/articles/66184-can-you-be-a-feminist-and-listen-to-misogynistic-music-women-reflect-on-loving-both-gloria

[wasted]

27 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

I find the artwork more objectionable than the lyrics. A picture paints a thousand words. Plus, I've never interpreted that line in ISE as a reference to rape, even if it is offensive/misogynistic.

I see it the other way round. Rape is something that happens. But the tone of Easy is sort of celebration of drink driving, treating women like shit, banging some guy’s sister, hitting people because you can. You know all the things worth living for. There’s a hint of this isn’t great but I can't prove it, as usual I do not have a source. 

I guess it’s the artists voice that counts. The painting is clear it’s about a cycle of violence. Whereas Easy is what the robot is listening to when he rapes the girl. 

They are for me pieces of the puzzle, details in the biggest work of art that I’m imagining in my mind, life itself. 

Edited June 30, 2018 by wasted