Posted By: LondonOntarioI don't remember anyone bitching about Rage Against The Machine's self-immolation cover.
Posted By: ShootToThrillPosted By: LondonOntarioI don't remember anyone bitching about Rage Against The Machine's self-immolation cover.
Yes, but that was before "cancel culture" started.
Posted By: LondonOntarioI don't remember anyone bitching about Rage Against The Machine's self-immolation cover.
Posted By: DustDevilNO ONE GIVES A FUCK.
Posted By: RichraffDidn't his skeleton become a side-show in itself, with even Michael Jackson owning it at some point? Seems like a 2nd-tier comedian calling his album after the Elephant Man would be the thin end of the wedge for these people getting upset.
I hope none of those twats ever listen to Rejection ;-)
Posted By: nimeta
My armpits are more offensive frankly
Posted By: BillyBollocksIs using a photo/drawing of a chronically disabled person on a record sleeve offensive?
I don’t know.
Posted By: ShootToThrillPosted By: LondonOntarioI don't remember anyone bitching about Rage Against The Machine's self-immolation cover.
Yes, but that was before "cancel culture" started.
Posted By: ToiletWallPoetPosted By: ShootToThrillPosted By: LondonOntarioI don't remember anyone bitching about Rage Against The Machine's self-immolation cover.
Yes, but that was before "cancel culture" started.
Oh really? What do you think the satanic panic was? AC/DC got a show cancelled because of them in 1985. To the extent that "cancel culture" is a real thing and not just a politically manufactured culture war narrative, it has always existed.
Nobody criticizes RATM because their message is clearly in solidarity with that Monk.
I'd like to know what the artist has to say about the purpose of the imagery. I don't think simply depicting a disfigured person is disrespectful, and if that's the only reason some people are upset, I think they are misguided and inadvertently furthering the idea that there's something to be ashamed of if you're disfigured. But without knowing the full context, it would be stupid to assume anything about either the artist or the people who are supposedly offended. It's too bad that won't stop people from furthering their narratives though...
Posted By: RichraffDidn't his skeleton become a side-show in itself, with even Michael Jackson owning it at some point? Seems like a 2nd-tier comedian calling his album after the Elephant Man would be the thin end of the wedge for these people getting upset.
I hope none of those twats ever listen to Rejection ;-)
Posted By: Alex LebanonGood points well made. Offence is very subjective, very personal. If you're a Christian you might be offended by the HTH cover/title, if you're not you probably won't be. Re the depiction of Merrick I feel a bit on the fence but it's interesting to make comparisons. Would the depiction of, say, a real life murder victim be seen as more or less tasteless? Or if that victim was a child? And Carlos raises an interesting point - if you used one of the photos of, say, Jack the Ripper's victims on an album cover it would probably draw some flack but less so than if you referenced a more recent murder. I think nothing is off limits per se, it's all about having something to say beyond just getting people's attention. As someone posted above, putting Merrick in a swanky suit is actually quite empowering and celebratory of Merrick's outsider status, so I'm prepared to give Matt Berry the benefit of the doubt.
Posted By: jonnyano publicity is bad publicity. I had never heard of Matt Berry.
Posted By: Alex LebanonPosted By: ToiletWallPoetPosted By: ShootToThrillPosted By: LondonOntarioI don't remember anyone bitching about Rage Against The Machine's self-immolation cover.
Yes, but that was before "cancel culture" started.
Oh really? What do you think the satanic panic was? AC/DC got a show cancelled because of them in 1985. To the extent that "cancel culture" is a real thing and not just a politically manufactured culture war narrative, it has always existed.
Nobody criticizes RATM because their message is clearly in solidarity with that Monk.
I'd like to know what the artist has to say about the purpose of the imagery. I don't think simply depicting a disfigured person is disrespectful, and if that's the only reason some people are upset, I think they are misguided and inadvertently furthering the idea that there's something to be ashamed of if you're disfigured. But without knowing the full context, it would be stupid to assume anything about either the artist or the people who are supposedly offended. It's too bad that won't stop people from furthering their narratives though...
Good points well made. Offence is very subjective, very personal. If you're a Christian you might be offended by the HTH cover/title, if you're not you probably won't be. Re the depiction of Merrick I feel a bit on the fence but it's interesting to make comparisons. Would the depiction of, say, a real life murder victim be seen as more or less tasteless? Or if that victim was a child? And Carlos raises an interesting point - if you used one of the photos of, say, Jack the Ripper's victims on an album cover it would probably draw some flack but less so than if you referenced a more recent murder. I think nothing is off limits per se, it's all about having something to say beyond just getting people's attention. As someone posted above, putting Merrick in a swanky suit is actually quite empowering and celebratory of Merrick's outsider status, so I'm prepared to give Matt Berry the benefit of the doubt.
Posted By: azel"On whose behalf are you offended by it would be my question".
Exactly this. Too many people in these times being offended on other people's behalf.
Posted By: jonnyano publicity is bad publicity. I had never heard of Matt Berry.