Interesting talk about Nothing's Shocking art

Jane's Addiction news & discussion
Post Reply
User avatar
Mike
Addicted Archivist
Posts: 5971
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:20 am
Location: In the mud
Contact:

Interesting talk about Nothing's Shocking art

Post by Mike »

Image
Singer with LA band Jane´s Addiction, Perry Farrell designs the artwork for the LP sleeves, basing his ideas around sculptures and collages. Sleazy and unconventional, his images draw attention to his interest in three-way sex and his appreciation of the female body - and, of course, they annoy the American so-called 'moral majority'. He has been working on a Warner Bros-sponsored feature film to be entitled the gift. "The first thing I ever sold professionally was at the age of seven. My father was a jewellery designer and in the early Seventies I made this peace sign which was a bestseller. When I left home I took some jewellery tools with me, so I could always be sure of finding work wherever I went. I didn´t get into doing music until I was 23, and that was only by accident... it´s a problem to carry on devoting time to art. I should be happy just doing music, but sometimes I just love the selfishness of doing one piece. But I do use my artwork on stage, which makes me much happier to tour."

SARAH KENT: "I can´t tell if this double nude is sculpture which has been photographed, or a photographed person which has been played with in the darkroom. The image is very striking and powerful. The mask-like faces and exaggerated breasts and top light make it striking. But why has he joined them down the middle to make them Siamese twins? That way of using women is such a cliché. An unjoined image would have been a lot stronger, it would have been very dramatic and stark without having the problem of mutilation."

MIKE VON JOEL: "You might have seen Bob Carlos Clarke do it in the early Seventies... it´s old hat, and derivative. But it´s effective consumer photography and competely done."
http://www.davidlynch.de/facepaint.html
Ellis
Power Tools
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Ellis »

Why are critics so negative and dissmissive?
That's always bothered me...
User avatar
Mike
Addicted Archivist
Posts: 5971
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:20 am
Location: In the mud
Contact:

Post by Mike »

Ellis wrote:Why are critics so negative and dissmissive?
That's always bothered me...
BINGO! I've never understood that either.
All the fervor over Perry's art.
To the extent that they banned the covers.
It's kind of silly looking back at it now.
I mean art has had nudity in it forever.
Why is the human body not art?
User avatar
killerlax22
Power Tools
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:51 pm
Location: Baltimore, Maryland

Post by killerlax22 »

Nothing's Shocking wrote:
Ellis wrote:Why are critics so negative and dissmissive?
That's always bothered me...
BINGO! I've never understood that either.
All the fervor over Perry's art.
To the extent that they banned the covers.
It's kind of silly looking back at it now.
I mean art has had nudity in it forever.
Why is the human body not art?
some human bodies are better than others. what if perry's sculpture was based on this human body?

Image


back to the point though... 'slc punk' comes to mind when i am thinking about the jane's covers and how critics were so negative about it. i like the scene in the movie where the punks go to wyoming to buy beer. :lol:
[img]http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/5236/howtohandleofficeconflictsds8t.gif[/img]
User avatar
StickyFingers
One West
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Third Stone from the Sun

Post by StickyFingers »

IMO Perry has been smarter than we think about Jane's covers.
In fact,the troubles,banned covers,new cover-amendament things didn't work (if you think it now) AGAINST Jane's,but they just helped Jane's break-out because people and magazines were talking about their nudity censored, so they went more respected among the "rock alternative nation".

Still i can't understand why Perry did let such a average cover for Strays,and not the "body-machine sex" it was working at, for that album cover :?:
-You are not the boss of me-
User avatar
subculture
The Co Co Club
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:38 pm

Post by subculture »

maybe he felt the music wasn't worthy?
Essence_Smith
Power Tools
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:26 pm
Location: Brooklyn Zoo

Post by Essence_Smith »

Ellis wrote:Why are critics so negative and dismissive?
That's always bothered me...
who gives a fuck, lol? we all "got" it! :P
[img]http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/110560.gif[/img]
User avatar
Mike
Addicted Archivist
Posts: 5971
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:20 am
Location: In the mud
Contact:

Post by Mike »

Essence_Smith wrote:
Ellis wrote:Why are critics so negative and dismissive?
That's always bothered me...
who gives a fuck, lol? we all "got" it! :P
That's true Essence but I don't think it's fair for somebody else to decide what is art and what is obscene for me. You know what I mean?
Post Reply