Jump to content

Original AFD Artwork Debate


Silent Jay

Recommended Posts

Axl: [Robert Williams]'s like a major underground comic's artist, and paints like one oil painting the size of a window a week! That painting was actually the size of a wall and sold in 1978 for like $10,000 and we leased it from him. But I found it on the cover of a book that he had put out, in a place called the Soap Plant in L.A. I found it and I thought "Wow, that is an intense picture, man." I'd never seen anything like it, and then I went back to buy it and it was gone.

Then I found it on a postcard, submitted it as a joke, and everybody liked it. I wanted it as the cover, but I thought we could never use it even though it was so intense. I just wanted to show everybody, and we all decided to use it. It was really weird that I found it on the cover of a book to begin with, because it's something that's out of print and it's a collector's item, and the Soap Plant shouldn't have had it to begin with. It goes for like $7,500 bucks now, and it was $11 dollars when I found it! When I met the artist and told him where I had found the book, he said it was impossible. So, it was really kinda like a coincidence that we found it. I think it was meant to be, cause even though it's been banned a lot of places, and Warner Brothers refused to print it, so we had to get an outside printer, but now they stockpile it in their warehouse because they get so many demands for it. Where at the time they were gonna make just a few, now and then. I feel that we've got this piece of art work, and some people just go "Wow, gnarly cover," but I think there's a lot of people out there that can really appreciate the artwork of it, and that's what I wanted to show them
[Rock Scene, June 1988].

Axl: We didn't put that out to outrage people. I thought it was a very cool piece of art that would stand the test of time. I don't think it was encouraging sexual abuse at all. I think it's an idea in people's heads that she is attractive, a sexual fantasy. Like, this poor girl got abused and you're thinking about how your husband wants to fuck her so you're upset. People get scared of their own thoughts [Musician, December 1988].

Izzy: I can’t believe everyone made such a big deal out of a postcard [Spin, May 1988].

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, nevergotochurch said:

The artwork is anti-rape. Anyone talking about Axl being a hypocrite for putting this out in 2018 needs to

1. Learn how to grasp simple concepts.

2. Adjust your behavior accordingly (aka shut your stupid fucking mouth)

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.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours 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...

 

at 3:20

That's not the original painting. You can see the white borders and a gold foil stamp in the bottom right corner of it. That's an original lithograph from l'imagerie gallery in 1988. I, along with a handful of other collectors here have one of those as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Blackstar said:

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

I'm sure the Gulf War was televised, even more so than Vietnam. I was just pointing out that the Vietnam War is the one usually referred to as the first televised war.

 

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Like, this poor girl got abused and you're thinking about how your husband wants to fuck her so you're upset. People get scared of their own thoughts

Yes, of course, there can't possibly be any other reason to find rape upsetting. Axl really nailed it there!:facepalm:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

I'm sure the Gulf War was televised, even more so than Vietnam. I was just pointing out that the Vietnam War is the one usually referred to as the first televised war.

If you bother to go through the links you'll understand what I meant and what the novelty was. As @Lio pointed out in a reply in the original thread, it was the first war that people all over the world watched in real time, as it unfolded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I am really, really glad this stupid PC crap hasn't come to Central Europe in its worst form. We can enjoy cracking jokes about how America has gone mad and how it has become the country with the most ridiculous and triggered media in the free world (let alone your snowflakes generation). And yes - all this nonsense remind us our communist past on soooo many levels.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

If you bother to go through the links you'll understand what I meant and what the novelty was. As @Lio pointed out in a reply in the original thread, it was the first war that people all over the world watched in real time, as it unfolded.

You seem like a person who has a very hard time admitting it when you make a mistake.

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

11 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

You seem like a person who has a very hard time admitting it when you make a mistake.

 It's all in my first post about this. In my second post, explaining it, I said "the first war televised" and right after that I specified in what way why it was a turning point. The key phrases were "live" and "like an action movie".

But whatever. It's off topic even in this thread.

Btw, I have no problem admitting I was wrong. But it was clear from the context and from where this discussion originated (Axl's predictions about CNN etc.) that I didn't mean "the first war reported on TV".

Edited by Blackstar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Axl: We didn't put that out to outrage people. I thought it was a very cool piece of art that would stand the test of time. I don't think it was encouraging sexual abuse at all. I think it's an idea in people's heads that she is attractive, a sexual fantasy. Like, this poor girl got abused and you're thinking about how your husband wants to fuck her so you're upset. People get scared of their own thoughts [Musician, December 1988].

What a ridiculous clown he is... :facepalm: but what can be expected from a guy wbo abused so many women.... oh well :shrugs:

Besides, he is so ignorant even of the artist himself. Robert Williams has declared that he likes drawing/painting sexy women and only death will stop him from doing it.... and then we have moronic Axl Rose saying there's no sex appeal in the body of that girl, only in the imagination of a jealous wife? :lol:

24 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Btw, I have no problem admitting I was wrong. But it was clear from the context and from where this discussion originated (Axl's predictions about CNN etc.) that I didn't mean "the first war reported on TV".

How are Axl BS predictions related to CNN and their broadcasting of the Gulf War? :shrugs:

What Zutaut says is that Axl envisioned our current living in fake news because of the power of CNN?

Is CNN considered a craddle for fake news?

Makes no sense to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nevergotochurch said:

The artwork is anti-rape.

Its easy for me to imagine that you are simply speaking in brief as this is a R&R message board, not a socio-political forum on visual art, but stated as you have here; thats a bit reductive, no?

Williams may or may not have meant this to be the statement. He has given at least two distinct meanings.

But his intentions are one thing, another thing is his ability to convey it as intended. Another thing is his degree of insight and understanding of the subject. Another thing is his self awareness of how he relates to and conceptualizes the opposite gender. Another thing is how the intended audience of an underground artist may connect threads, themes and symbology with his other works of that era, which arent intended to speak clearly to a random seeing a single work used on a major pop music sensation.

An artist can be misguided, you know what I mean? Artists can fail. Artists can unwittingly reveal more about themselves then their intended subject matter. And add in that a separate and unrelated artists is utilizing the work through their own understanding and intentions.

 

  • Like 2
  • GNFNR 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, killuridols said:

How are Axl BS predictions related to CNN and their broadcasting of the Gulf War? :shrugs:

What Zutaut says is that Axl envisioned our current living in fake news because of the power of CNN?

Is CNN considered a craddle for fake news?

Makes no sense to me...

Why are you asking again? I thought I replied yesterday.

17 hours ago, Blackstar said:

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)

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

Sorry for quoting myself, but...

As for CNN/fake news, read the last two links.

Edited by Blackstar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Because I read your original post and not this anotated edition you seem to have done 3 hours ago. 

Im sorry Im not re-reading the comments every single time :rolleyes:

The bolded part was there yesterday, in the original post. I added only the links and the shoutouts 3 hours ago.

Edited by Blackstar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, soon said:

Williams may or may not have meant this to be the statement. He has given at least two distinct meanings.

But his intentions are one thing, another thing is his ability to convey it as intended. Another thing is his degree of insight and understanding of the subject.

From what I read about him, he got to illustrate in a comic magazine that circulated in underground environments of the counterculture of the 60s and the 70s.

His other work is pretty similar to the AFD cover... and I also find it similar to what Slash usually posts on his Instagram: very sexy women, usually naked or wearing bondage gear, with prominent breasts and butts, inmersed in metalic worlds of cars, factories, urban scenery and there's usually some sort of demon or monster guiding them or close to them.

He has said to the criticism of his art "I do not believe that my representation of females aids in their oppression. It is my artistic right to render the images of woman as my imagination sees fit. Remember, I will gladly accept the title "Bad Person" to continue my expression. In other words, nothing short of death will stop me from painting nekkid ladies"

:shrugs:

Like I said before, he can say whatever he wants and he is entitled to defend his art and ideas, as much as we are entitled to set our positions and opinions about it.

There shouldn't be sacred cows in art when it comes to criticism, the same way artists ask to have freedom of making art out of any subject or topic.

  • GNFNR 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rayno said:

Sometimes I am really, really glad this stupid PC crap hasn't come to Central Europe in its worst form. We can enjoy cracking jokes about how America has gone mad and how it has become the country with the most ridiculous and triggered media in the free world (let alone your snowflakes generation). And yes - all this nonsense remind us our communist past on soooo many levels.

PC usually exists on the internet. I rarely encounter a person in the real world who truly cares. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rayno said:

Sometimes I am really, really glad this stupid PC crap hasn't come to Central Europe in its worst form. We can enjoy cracking jokes about how America has gone mad and how it has become the country with the most ridiculous and triggered media in the free world (let alone your snowflakes generation). And yes - all this nonsense remind us our communist past on soooo many levels.

Amen to that. It’s disgusting 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, killuridols said:

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.

 

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.

Now, you could interpret this three ways in my mind. Either as that the monster used the girl as bait for whatever reason, that it's random and doesn't mean anything, or that it's intended to depict some kind of messed up vigilante justice. 

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. 

Of course, I could be wrong on all points. As could you. Or perhaps neither is right, but that's life, isn't it? 

7 minutes ago, The Holographic Universe said:

PC usually exists on the internet. I rarely encounter a person in the real world who truly cares. 

Might be down to where you're from, but here in Sweden PC culture is a thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 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.

Now, you could interpret this three ways in my mind. Either as that the monster used the girl as bait for whatever reason, that it's random and doesn't mean anything, or that it's intended to depict some kind of messed up vigilante justice. 

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. 

Of course, I could be wrong on all points. As could you. Or perhaps neither is right, but that's life, isn't it? 

Might be down to where you're from, but here in Sweden PC culture is a thing. 

My point is that it’s stronger online than in the real world. People aren’t as easily offended in real life as they are on the internet. People become indignant easily online but in real life people have thicker skins for the most part.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Holographic Universe said:

My point is that it’s stronger online than in the real world. People aren’t as easily offended in real life as they are on the internet. People become indignant easily online but in real life people have thicker skins for the most part.

Yeah a lot of people act considerably tougher on the internet than they normally do. The advantages and disadvantages of anonymity and all that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Creed said:

It was a fortune that the publishers blocked the art work, because its too overloaded (like CD is overloaded musically) and the band member cross is simple and simply better  in any case.

Beside that...the sex image would have  harmed the sales and image of the band. I'm not prude, but imagine that art work and songs like  cornshucker, utlh, rocket queen on AFD plus the ISE bondage video. GnR would have get a porn rock image. Songs like SCOM or NR wouldnt have been  that convincing. The most dangerous band with romantic rock songs  image was a very wise choice.

The choice for that album cover was excellent because it led to the band creating the cross image, which is iconic. Had Geffen and the band stuck with the original album cover It would not be an iconic image. And as you said there is too much going on with that artwork to be digestible in the way the cross is.

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...