Whose Image Are You Exploiting?
-
Artist:
-
Album:
Photo: Malcom Brown "June 11, 1963, Thich Quang Duc, a Buddhist monk from Vietnam, burned himself to death at a busy intersection in downtown Saigon to bring attention to the repressive policies of the Catholic Diem regime that controlled the South Vietnamese government at the time." Source - World Famous Photos
What's behind a powerful album cover? Good art work? graphic design? Yep all of those contribute to some of my favorites. I have many different criteria for what makes a good album cover, vs. what makes a memorable one. Memorable album covers seem to have the sole trait of exploiting an event or familiar imagery to make it's point. There always seems to be a certain "in your face"-ness of a album cover that exploits - you have to be the type of band that can stand behind the brazen imagery.
I'll admit to not quite understanding Rage Against The Machines music when I was first introduced to it and heard from my friend Matt. All that stuck out to me was that one of the songs used the word "fuck" 27 times and ended with a "motherfucker". I didn't get it. I didn't really understand the album cover either. Was I a dummy? The font made the cover look like a zine, so it made me want to read the lyrics. It all started to click together, the imagery, the angry lyrics - but this was still pre-internet, so I was still in the dark as to the source or story behind the photo. So it just took on the job of being "The Rage Against The Machine Cover." It wasn't until college I learned about reference and it's place in art, the History of Photography, and the fine line between reference and exploitation.
In hindsight, I would say that this cover, though memorable, exploits it's use of imagery rather than owns it. This album did a lot to educate me (or at least give me the jumping off point to look into some of the subjects they spoke of, on my own), but I question the somewhat punk aesthetic of exploiting this particular event for an album.
It seems in so many ways, hip hop today is only about exploitation. It's a sad fact that so many of today's hip hop artists (not all, mind you) are fronting the same tired imagery, the ghetto fabulousness of the artists who inspired them. The Geto Boys used this image of Bushwick Bill being carted through the hospital with a blood shot eye and bandaged face, escorted by Scarface and Willie D, for the cover of We Can't Be Stopped . Strange thing is, that if this cover is supposed to envoke a certain amount of "toughness" it belies the fact that Bushwick Bill was injured by ??himself??, shooting himself in the eye after his girlfriend refused to. So while the cover may look to represent some heroic invulnerability of life on the street, fact that this was self inflicted and B.B. was really only unable stop himself.
Ween and The Black Crowes have a similar idea, circa 1994??
In 1994 women from the chest on down seemed like the modus operandi of two seemingly disparate bands. Certainly the female anatomy has been foremost on the minds of any heterosexual male (and possibly our rocking saphotic sisters too.) who ever picked up a guitar to attempt this rock n' roll thing, but 1994 was a special year that seemed to offer us two covers that were somewhat like the other. Ween's cover for Chocolate and Cheese follows the certain type of bratiness that I can only describe to as a being akin to having an older brother poke you while saying "stop poking me. stop poking me. stop poking me" The Blacke Crowes on the other hand plays off the easiest way to offend a large portion of flag loving Americans, is to take the American flag and use it in a context that is non flag like. It also in turn pokes at America's puritan underbelly and our squeamishness with all things relating to a naked human body (especially women's) and our offense to the very idea that these "naughty bits" are actually covered in hair.
The Rolling Stones get hands on with Sticky Fingers depiction of Jed Johnson or Joe Dallesandro??
Most bands, and album covers after all are beholden to Mick and the boys for featuring one of the first album covers from a major band to not depict the band - Beggars Banquet. Fortunately, their dedication to the very idea of rock didn't stop there and as if an album cover with a toilet on it wasn't offense enough (at the time, mind you) Sticky Fingers blew it out of the water with a fly you could unzip exposing briefs that were stamped with the infamous words "This Is Not Etc." The infamous trouser bulge was one of two Warhol assistants (Jed Johnson or Joe Dallesandro - whom were probably never compensated). The Stones marriage to Warhol for "Sticky Fingers" was apropos, since the name of Warhols game was exploitation of imagery by the media machine.
Roxy Music's Country Life
Country Life was the first Roxy Music album to break the US top 40 charts. I don't feel at liberty to discuss the merits of this album, having not heard it, but I can only assume, that the appealing cover made a lot of young men give Roxy Music a chance.
Blind Faith Some imagery album art transcends the individual talents on the album. The pre-pubescent image of Mariora Goschen holding a spaceship designed by jeweler Mick Milligan on Blind Faith's eponymously titled album sicks out in my mind as one of the more memorable exploitation covers. Let me digress to say that I saw this album for a good ten years before I ever even knew who was in Blind Faith, but it's so iconic I will probably always know the cover over the actual music. According to wikipedia, Ms. Goschen was paid handsomely, and was photographed with her parents permission, so there's something for you post modern theorists to chew on - does proper compensation or credit for an image still equal exploitation? Further more does it do a band band such as Blind Faith justice to have such a cover, when you have musicians such as Steve Winwood, Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker and Rick Grech playing on the same record. These were by no means un-popular recording artists and the album would have sold regardless of any controversy the album cover possessed.
We are now entrenched in the digital music era, where album art is down loadable and will even appear as the bits and bytes tick off our favorite tunes. The album cover is more like an file icon, or a place marker. The web shocks and exploits everyday, and music - well, music is finding it's way to ears in all sorts of new ways that transcend physicality. Perhaps in the future we will look back at Radioheads "In Rainbows" as one of the first major bands to exploit the Internet medium with teases and clues as to their next album. So now that the mystery is gone, the here and now that record stores invoke in many of us (but I fear not in our future audiophillic digital brethren), what will prod us and push us to "pick up" an album and give it a spin. Radiohead's pricing scheme definitely has me thirsting for a listen, but will it last? Perhaps artists will have to keep pushing our buttons in different ways, if they still want to try to provoke us to press play.
Locating MOG account...
Comments (33)