BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Album Covers: Tart Or Art?

 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
21:01 / 04.12.01
Because the 'sexist Strokes' thread is currently immobilized, and because it's kind of moved on onto a more general discussion which interests me more, I'd like to pose the question: what's the difference between the following two images?





Are both/either of them offensive, exploitational, empowering, boring, sexy, unnecessary, appropriate or inappropriate? What assumptions about the nature of the artist, their music and their role in the process of selecting an album cover do we make that lead us to the conclusions we make when answering my last question? If, as Jack the Bodiless suggested in the Strokes thread, 'context is all', what do we think is the context of each image, and on what basis do we form our impression of that context?
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
21:25 / 04.12.01
I was going to ask the same thing of this cover:

last night, before my laptop crashed and I couldn't be arsed bringing it back to life. Not sure what thoughts are on the topic yet, but I was wondering if a big fuss would be kicked off by oiled men rather than oiled women on album covers? Eye-candy versus discrimination/exploitation? I'm not sure. I guess this one in particular is meant to play on the whole idea of a "look! we're tough! but we like flowers!" dichotomy; but is it necessary. Is any album art necessary, come to that?

For both those images you posted, Fly, my initial reaction is "put your shirt back on!". In Nick's case, because he's scrawnman, and in Lil' Kim's case, because it looks - with the wind machine - like she'd be freezing to death.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
21:49 / 04.12.01
Well, a lot of that is your opinion, isn't it SFD. Nothing worng with that, but it is a personal aesthetic preference (as you say).

I find the two that Flyboy posted less controversial because in each case it is the artist hirself who is presenting hirself in a particular way - not using imagery of someone else. All done within a visual style attched to a genre, of course, but nonetheless the issues of control of the image are less complicated in these cases.

[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: Kit-Cat Club ]
 
 
suds
10:01 / 05.12.01
females are assaulted more than males but does this have a direct link to sexual images of women, shortfatdyke?
i am a fe-muh-nist and will be for a long time, and yet i don't get riled by sexual images of women and or men. in fact, i prefer sexual images of women because naked men aren't all that pretty (no offence boys, i'm sure you agree).
if the woman in case isn't being forced against her will or in pain, then why on earth should i have a problem with it?
sure, use of female sexuality to sell products *is* old and boring but i can still think of plenty more feminist issues to get riled about. plenty more.

flyboy, your comments in the courtney love thread made me want to stand up and applaud! and i was going to add some comment in there myself as well as tell you that you are in fact the bees knees, and then i realised that the thread won't let me in. pah!

[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: suds ]
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
10:03 / 05.12.01
quote:Originally posted by shortfatdyke:
this is because i continually hear female singers/musicians being referred to primarily in terms of whether they're good looking, with men it's usually about the music.
Well, not entirely. For older "serious" music, then certainly this is an argument - people are more likely to comment on Marianne Faithfull looking old on her album covers than to say the same thing about a Keith Richards disc (he's "craggy", rather than ugly, isn't he?) - but I think that in terms of highly-marketed pop, both sexes live and die by the airbrush. In the world of the boyband, it's certainly more about style over substance: the genius of the songwriting of Five, Blue et al will always come after their haircuts and physical appearance because they're primarily a source of eye-candy, with incidental music attached, surely?
 
 
moriarty
10:54 / 05.12.01
quote:Originally posted by shortfatdyke:
the bands i like tend to have more arty covers. r.e.m.'s covers i particularly like, and that attitude - putting a b/w still of a truck on a record cover instead of a pic of the band - is part of why i like them so much.


Fellow Aerosmith fan?
 
 
Cavatina
11:15 / 05.12.01
Re JtB's 'context is all' in the 'Strokes' thread (to which I can't gain access; it seems to have died), it can be useful to consider interpretation as the application of various sorts of framing set out in Framing and Interpretation:

extratextual framing - interpretations based on 'outside' or extra information. Here we're drawing on our knowledge of the world gained experientially or textually.

intratextual framing - interpretations based on the flow and relationships of words and graphics within (intra) the text.

intertextual framing - interpretations which relate one text type to another, for example generically or by linking a book (or album cover) with a particular discourse. And we also call on extratextual knowledge of the discursive field to make this connection between texts.

circumtextual framing - interpretations made on the basis of the title of the text, its circumstances of presentation, the material location of the product in space (say in a book or record shop).

To take the Rammstein cover (which I found interesting btw) as an example. When I first bought the CD, I reflected on the cover and related the title Herzeleid (Heartache) intratextually to the background of golden sunburst flowering and and what seemed to me to be the cohesion of the group as represented, their closeness, the historical moment of which may all too soon pass. Hence perhaps the sombre, reflective expressions on the faces of the band, who can be rendered vulnerable by heartache, despite what appears to be their great physical strength? A further connection along these lines can be made with the lyrics from which the album takes its title:

Bewahret einander vor Herzeleid
denn kurz ist die Zeit die ihr beisammen seid

Denn wenn euch auch viele Jahre vereinen
einst werden sie wie Minuten euch Scheinen

Herzeleid

Bewahret einander vor der Zweisamkeit

(Save each other from heartache
for short is the time you have together

For even if you are united for many years
one day will seem like minutes to you

Heartache

Save yourselves from the loneliness of pairing off)

It may well be, however, that a Germanist could come up with some sort of intertextual links for these lyrics which would add a further dimension. Or someone like Rothkoid, who's had the good fortune to see the band perform live, might add some other (extratextual or circumtextual) details which could change my interpretation.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:38 / 05.12.01
Perhaps it might be relevant (in the context of Herzeleid) that one member of the band had had an affair with the lead singer's wife. I have read that that album is specifically concerned with relationship problems within the circle of the band - which seems to me to provide some extratextual framing for the record - reflecting on the tensions caused by relationships for individual members and between members.

Rammstein (or one member of the band, in a group interview) have also been quoted as saying that whereas a lot of HM is saying 'I am a man and I'm going to fuck you' or 'I am a man and no one will fuck me', they are more concerned with saying 'I might be a man - do you want to fuck me?' I think this particular cover isn't saying that, though it is quite overtly part of the image.
 
 
Cavatina
11:44 / 05.12.01
Wow. That's interesting.
 
 
grant
14:12 / 05.12.01
There's also two big textual differences in the top two images:
the color pink, and eye contact.
Sexual cues absent from Nick Cave.
His nakedness is much more red/black/purple/shadowy - sort of wounded.

There's also this, decidedly non-seductive use of naked skin/flashing imagery:



(It's the original sleeve to Richard Hell's "Blank Generation" - the writing says "you make me feel ___")
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:21 / 05.12.01
Interesting that, while all three of them have writing on their bodies, Lil' Kim is the only one who actually has it inscribed in her flesh (unless it's a fake, and I'm afraid I don't know - Flyboy?). Evidently for Kim it's a statement about herself, or her persona, whereas for the other two perhaps it's not. Or rather, their personae are less important to the presentation. Nick Cave seems to be saying 'I am vulnerable'. Richard Hell is confrontational - he's saying 'I may be saying I feel blank, but bloody hell I'm angry about it'. And I think that image is seductive...
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:22 / 05.12.01
I think he's saying 'well, come on then - come and have a go...'
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:26 / 05.12.01
I'd agree that it's a bit short-sighted to say the least to say that there are no sexual cues in the Nick Cave or Richard Hell covers. They're just not aimed at heterosexual men, are they?

Disappointingly, I think that Lil' Kim tattoo is fake.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:29 / 05.12.01
Oh, bah. Well, it's meant to look like a tattoo at any rate, so it's almost the same thing (er-hem).
 
 
rizla mission
14:37 / 05.12.01
In a similar vein, what do we all think of the cover to Raw Power? (I'm afraid I don't have it to hand, maybe someone else could find a link).

Apparently, Iggy didn't choose it and hates it to this day (maybe because the photo makes him look so camp). It's clearly an erotically charged image (though exactly who it's aimed at is anyone's guess) - so, is old Iggy being exploited?
 
 
Jack Fear
16:17 / 05.12.01
Raw Power:

 
 
Matthew Fluxington
09:18 / 06.12.01
Lil Kim does not actually have that tattoo.

Anyone who's seen her semi-naked in any of the photos and videos she's been in since would know that!

I think Lil Kim is really sexy, in an over the top sorta way...
 
 
grant
14:07 / 06.12.01
quote:Originally posted by Flyboy:
I'd agree that it's a bit short-sighted to say the least to say that there are no sexual cues in the Nick Cave or Richard Hell covers. They're just not aimed at heterosexual men, are they?


Oh, I'm not saying they're absent of sexual cues - I'm saying that Lil Kim is using more overt ones (those being eye contact and pinkness). I'm far from convinced those cues are limited to heterosexual men, either - specially not eye contact. Although Dick Hell is using that one, now that I look at him.

It's interesting that he and Cave have pretty obviously home-made sentiments expressed on their bodies, while Kim's looks more professionally done - that might key into another difference, too. She's slick, while Cave & Hell are rough. Rammstein also has a slicker look, with obvious photoshopping going on to juxtapose their bodies with the flower.
So - "slickness."

I can see where Hell is inviting you to do something, yeah, in a challenging way, but it's there. But as far as the skinny white guys go, Iggy's definitely the sexiest. Don't know what that does to my argument. He's got lipstick for one thing, and a polished "pose" he's working. I dunno.
 
 
mondo a-go-go
21:54 / 06.12.01
with regards to the writing: nick and richard have it on their chests. kimmy has it going into her trousers, drawing attention to her crotch. it's much more overtly sexual, whereas the guys draw more attention to what's above the waistline. it's pretty much the same with rammstein and the igster, although iggy does have that phallic mic-stand thing working for him, it still draws attention up his body to his head.
 
  
Add Your Reply