janesaddiction.org

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

Why are critics so negative and dissmissive?
That's always bothered me...

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?

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?




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.

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

maybe he felt the music wasn't worthy?

Ellis wrote:Why are critics so negative and dismissive?
That's always bothered me...

who gives a fuck, lol? we all "got" it!

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!

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?