Like the Cover Art? Tell us why...

Post by **Spud** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:09 pm

Morbid Morgan wrote:That would be Madam...

I knew that.

bortwein · Post by **bortwein** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:10 pm

Bjam wrote:
Morbid Morgan wrote:
Spud wrote:I look forward to another several minutes of your work, sir.
That would be Madam, but the sentiment is appreciated.
Yay for more females!

I agree: Yay indeed for more females!

Morbid Morgan · Post by **Morbid Morgan** » Sun Jun 12, 2005 1:13 pm

bortwein wrote:
Bjam wrote:Yay for more females!
I agree: Yay indeed for more females!

Hopefully you still feel that way after my estrogen driven cover art submissions this week.

Rabid Garfunkel · Post by **Rabid Garfunkel** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

...and Morbid gets her triptych! Good job!

Now you're going to be insufferable, aren't you

Morbid Morgan · Post by **Morbid Morgan** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:20 pm

Rabid Garfunkel wrote:...and Morbid gets her triptych! Good job!

Now you're going to be insufferable, aren't you

No more so than usual. Yay! No competition, but eh, who gives a shit, I can still be giddy.

fodroy · Post by **fodroy** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:21 pm

wow. the cover art. i wasn't expecting that.

Adam! · Post by **Adam!** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:31 pm

Initial Reactions

Janjaweed: hmm...
Policy of Rape: HMMM...
What's in it for Me: Ack! My brain!

But seriously, this cover art is awesome. I love the target theme. I love the elephant's expression. Great, ballsy stuff. Ballsy might not be the best choice of word.

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:51 pm

do we need to add "not safe for work" to the songfight page now? sheesh.
-bill

Post by jb » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:06 pm

HeuristicsInc wrote:do we need to add "not safe for work" to the songfight page now? sheesh.
-bill

It's art, not titillation or humor. If it's not safe at your work, they probably won't be too happy with you for sucking down 100mb of songs all day long either.

j$ · Post by j$ » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:31 pm

I like what it's in it for me, very very much. Lovely elephant. The other two are kind of one-shots (if you pardon the expression) and do absolutely nothing for me. (not that I could do anything better, mind, but this is the thread for expressing opinion on the cover art, after all)

mico saudad · Post by **mico saudad** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:52 pm

Those covers are gorgeous MM.

Morbid Morgan · Post by **Morbid Morgan** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:22 pm

jb wrote:
HeuristicsInc wrote:do we need to add "not safe for work" to the songfight page now? sheesh.
-bill
It's art, not titillation or humor. If it's not safe at your work, they probably won't be too happy with you for sucking down 100mb of songs all day long either.

I apologize for any trouble that my covers may have caused you at work. However, I felt that the subject matter would be best represented with blunt, graphic images. I appreciate the feedback, and I am glad that they were, for the most part, well received.

Morbid

bortwein · Post by **bortwein** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:03 pm

...
I'm shocked... I'm scared that I have just pointed out the songfight site to a possible employer as a place that I create art for weekly... and this is the week they might visit.

Yes it is art... yes I have used "Blunt" and "Graphic" images to accomplish a feeling and meaning (see Rabies) but I don't know what to say about this weeks art. I can say, perhaps something less shocking could have been used. I feel that the site has posted at least 2 covers that I would not consider "art" as much as it could be considered in poor taste for a public website.

That's my 2 cents, as an artist and as a viewer of the site as a fan of song fight.

I'm very very glad to be back...

Morbid Morgan · Post by **Morbid Morgan** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:00 pm

bortwein wrote:...
I'm shocked... I'm scared that I have just pointed out the songfight site to a possible employer as a place that I create art for weekly... and this is the week they might visit.

Yes it is art... yes I have used "Blunt" and "Graphic" images to accomplish a feeling and meaning (see Rabies) but I don't know what to say about this weeks art. I can say, perhaps something less shocking could have been used. I feel that the site has posted at least 2 covers that I would not consider "art" as much as it could be considered in poor taste for a public website.

That's my 2 cents, as an artist and as a viewer of the site as a fan of song fight.

I'm very very glad to be back...

While I appreciate your "two cents worth," I will say this, yes, something less shocking could have been used, but I chose not to follow any invisible guidelines for this project. And as far as the art being in poor taste, I can understand why someone like you would feel that way. Songfight is a public website, and it therefore has the opportunity to reflect a wide variety of feelings and interpretations on a number of different subjects. Not everyone is offended by the image of a woman's vagina as a target, or the image of a man's penis being used as the weapon. And while I could have portrayed the same ideas in a less graphic manner, I didn't want to. So, I exercised the same freedom that you do every week in the creation of your covers, because this is a public website. In the future, I would recommend directing potential clients to websites that you have a bit more creative control over, say for instance, your portfolio website. It's a crazy thought I know. Welcome back.

HeuristicsInc · Post by **HeuristicsInc** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:45 pm

jb wrote: It's art, not titillation or humor. If it's not safe at your work, they probably won't be too happy with you for sucking down 100mb of songs all day long either.

I don't. I download them at home and burn them to cdrw every week.

I just figured there would be some guidelines. Isn't it you who said bandnames with swear words in them were verboten? Because there were kids that visit SongFight?
-bill

Morbid Morgan · Post by **Morbid Morgan** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:04 pm

HeuristicsInc wrote: I just figured there would be some guidelines. Because there were kids that visit SongFight?
-bill

Perhaps an age group should be decided on so that the artists may tailor their art to the appropriate demographic. Give me a break dude, this is songfight, not Disney.com.

Morbid

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:57 pm

oh crap

*updates bookmarks*

mkilly · Post by **mkilly** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:28 pm

bortwein wrote:I'm scared that I have just pointed out the songfight site to a possible employer as a place that I create art for weekly... and this is the week they might visit.

They'll have to click through to see the cover art, and they'll find that you didn't do the art this week. This is me talking but if a place wasn't that openminded about art I don't think I'd want to create art for them (you find the art objectionable and so you'd be in their camp if they also thought it objectionable, so that much is moot).

bortwein wrote:I can say, perhaps something less shocking could have been used. I feel that the site has posted at least 2 covers that I would not consider "art" as much as it could be considered in poor taste for a public website.

I did cover art for Policy of Rape (see here... I thought it might be inappropriate to link to my site and credit it to myself, though, and it was used in another context besides) and it was passed over in favor of a Morbid Morgan hat trick. And that's fine. Two of the titles directly speak to a genocide in Africa, with military folk raping women... well, you can read the article yourself. While you may discuss the merits of the art I don't think there's anything shocking about it (especially considering the subject), though I may just be a liberal youth. Let me ask: would dildos or nudes ever be appropriate, in your view, on SongFight insofar as cover art goes? I realize that the Policy cover could be considered more explicit than an adjectiveless "nude," but I dunno... it's only as explicit as an erect penis might be.

bortwein wrote:I'm very very glad to be back...

Pardon me, but I think this is a statement in poor taste. It strikes me as if to say you're SongFight's paladin, saving us from ourselves from a post appointed from on high. I have no authority here and I'm glad you do consistently-superb art for the site almost every week, but I think this very unproductive. In fact, these kinds of posts are what got Jessica Hale to leave and the art thread to stop last time. In fact I don't know that this is an adequate place for this discussion. Maybe we should discuss more in private messages or through email.

Post by jb » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:36 pm

HeuristicsInc wrote:
jb wrote: It's art, not titillation or humor. If it's not safe at your work, they probably won't be too happy with you for sucking down 100mb of songs all day long either.
I don't. I download them at home and burn them to cdrw every week.

I just figured there would be some guidelines. Isn't it you who said bandnames with swear words in them were verboten? Because there were kids that visit SongFight?
-bill

There are guidelines, but they can't be written down or enumerated in any way. It's a judgement call, and we made it. In our judgement, anyone too young or too sensitive to be exposed to the issues the art presents is too young or too sensitive to be browsing without supervision.

The "no swears on the front page" rule is not because there are kids visiting Song Fight, it's because schools and libraries have filters.

[edit]

Did you really think that's the reason? For crying out loud, have you listened to some of these songs?

http://www.songfight.org/music/firecrac ... ackers.mp3
http://www.songfight.org/music/romantic ... lah_rc.mp3
How dense are you? Pretty damned dense I'd say!

[/edit]

Eric Y. · Post by **Eric Y.** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:49 pm

jb wrote:The "no swears on the front page" rule is not because there are kids visiting Song Fight, it's because schools and libraries have filters.

not to mention, that rule is no longer included in the FAQ (as far as i can see).

j$ · Post by j$ » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:22 am

I don't find them shocking, not very aesthetically pleasing, but certainly not shocking. I don't like them ebcause there's nothing there to be challenged by. They are pictures of some dildos and a vagina, respectively. I've seen both before so *shrug* But I said that already ... however

jb wrote:How dense are you? Pretty damned dense I'd say!

That's completely uncalled for. Bill is asking you a question. His posts up until this point (and personally, I feel, including it) have been reasonable and unaggressive. 'I think he deserves better than a 'oh god, anyone who doesn't like it must be a moron'.

Even when we had the 'no swears on the front page' argument it was only ever on the front page, not in the content, so I personally think it was a valid question, explained by the filter explanation. The edit was uncalled for.

jb wrote:In our judgement, anyone too young or too sensitive to be exposed to the issues the art presents is too young or too sensitive to be browsing without supervision.

Hahahahaha - yes, but come on, you know as well as anyone, that there's a huge difference between what people should be doing and what they do, especially when it comes to kids and the internet. This argument (perhaps neccessarily) shirks responsibility.

That having been said, I will still defend Morbid's right to create that artwork, and Songfight's right to post it. Just because i don't like it doesn't make it shocking, or wrong. I am such a bleeding heart liberal

Ikari · Post by **Ikari** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 3:41 am

I haven't really been reading anything anyone's been saying, but... Oh my god! Morbid Morgan is my hero! I've always been too afraid to submit anything that might even slightly offend anyone. I don't think there's anything wrong with the covers displaying body parts. I don't feel the art was in poor taste at all. Just like damn is the same as darn, but if you want to you can be offended by hearing one more than the other. Man this almost feels like deja vu like how Lauren was treated for a certain cover. (Which was also her last... Hmm...)

I went to Border's books and saw a CD with a picture of a completely exposed woman on it for no apparent reason (note that it was an all male band so it definantly wasn't a band member.) If that's okay in a bookstore with a children's section I find nothing wrong with it being on the internet which is about as clean as public school anyway.

I don't know much about art, but I felt the covers were very expressive. I can tell a few people didn't like it, but I found it to my liking. I looked up the definition of art. There is nothing about silly jokes in it. Maybe it's because it's the abridged version, but art as far as I know it is expressive, beautiful, passionate, ugly, insert adjectives here, I seriously am too drunk for this, etc...

For serious if it's an issue you can ask one of the fight masters to change the it to "cover pictures" or "cover quips" I just wouldn't try to act all surprised/offended when someone takes the definition of art seriously. Might as well ask for censorship over the songs too while you're at it.

Oh yeah, Mkilly you're my hero too.

PS: I think the name of the thread isn't "Hate the cover art? Tell us why..." but I could be mistaken.