Written by [user id=4365] on 11.04.2013 at 16:19
But you went on to use the argument that art is in the eye of the beholder, which I doubt anyone would disagree with. Your initial argument was whether or not it was an artwork, which, in my opinion anything appearing in the cover is instantly so, be it photo, shitty Photoshop, blank white image etc. You're saying it has to be art to be an album artwork. I don't agree.

Incidentally this is all moot in my eyes as the Megadeth cover art is not a pphotograph, rather a Photoshop image.

Well, art is in the eye of the beholder, although it would be wrong to assume that is the sole criteria I have for judging whether something is "art" or not. Again, I was misunderstood, although perhaps I could have worded my initial argument in a better way. That cover is the album artwork, and in that context, I do accept it as artwork. What I meant in my initial post was that it was something which I personally wouldn't deem as "art". If for some bizarre reason, a band used a photo of my cat as album artwork, and just touched it up a bit in photoshop, it would be artwork. In fact, it would still be artwork even if it wasn't touched up at all. But whether or not it was actually "art" or not would all be down to an individual's interpretation of it.

Oh, and I knew it was a photoshop image. It is a photograph, but it has been doctored, mainly in it's lighting.

I think we can all agree on this: That artwork is awful.

Oh please tell me this is not true. Horrific!

Thanks guys, now both my head and eyes hurt with your art debate and that wretched image up there.

My initial thought about that album cover is that it looks like something they cut out of a science magazine of some sort. If that is in fact a photo of a "Super Collider" then the photo fits the context. Though it seems like a natural response to question whether the album cover is "art", if the album were titled "Megadave's Foot" and he proceeded to supply us with a nice little photo of his foot for the album cover I'd have a hard time calling it art.

Written by X-Ray Rod on 11.04.2013 at 16:36

I think we can all agree on this: That artwork is awful.

the problem with it is the band logo and album title on it. The pic itself I find quite intruiging. But the lettering on it is just all wrong.

The artwork is awful, but amazingly, it's not the worst album artwork in Megadeth's discography. Both "Cryptic Writings" and the original cover of "Risk" were even worse, whilst "Endgame" and "13" both had equally hideous covers. The artwork on "United Abominations" was nicely done, even if the "new Vic" looked ridiculous.

Written by R'Vannith on 11.04.2013 at 16:46

Thanks guys, now both my head and eyes hurt with your art debate and that wretched image up there.

My initial thought about that album cover is that it looks like something they cut out of a science magazine of some sort. If that is in fact a photo of a "Super Collider" then the photo fits the context. Though it seems like a natural response to question whether the album cover is "art", if the album were titled "Megadave's Foot" and he proceeded to supply us with a nice little photo of his foot for the album cover I'd have a hard time calling it art.

My head hurts as well after it, I've just had to take 2 paracetemol...

I believe the photo is of the inside of the Large Hadron Super Collider particle accelerator...

Well, if the photo of Dave's foot was on the album cover, it would be the album artwork. Whether it was actually "art" or not however, would be open to debate.

If Vic was on the cover and the Megadeth logo was in the classic gold colour, I think it would have looked a bit better...

The artwork would be better if it wasn't so saturated. I'm also pretty sure those lens flares are entirely manufactured too.

Written by Angelic Storm on 11.04.2013 at 16:55


My head hurts as well after it, I've just had to take 2 paracetemol...

I believe the photo is of the inside of the Large Hadron Super Collider particle accelerator...

Well, if the photo of Dave's foot was on the album cover, it would be the album artwork. Whether it was actually "art" or not however, would be open to debate.

If Vic was on the cover and the Megadeth logo was in the classic gold colour, I think it would have looked a bit better...

If not for the band name slapped onto it it would be anyone's guess as to what genre of music is behind it. Or if it's music at all and not a documentary or something.

The artwork is extremely obvious, the album is titled Super Collider and they've just put a photo of it on the cover. Completely bypasses my "now that's art" alarm.

Maybe they thought the photoshop was required to "artsy" it up a bit?

Written by [user id=4365] on 11.04.2013 at 17:02

The artwork would be better if it wasn't so saturated. I'm also pretty sure those lens flares are entirely manufactured too.

Yep, I suspect if they had just used the actual photo itself, without touching it up at all, it would have looked better. I think the "photoshopping" is the reason why it looks so saturated.

I think this is the actual photo used in the artwork:

Waaaaaay better. Makes me think of Dan Swanö's Moontower. Which is nice.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 11.04.2013 at 16:48
the problem with it is the band logo and album title on it. The pic itself I find quite intruiging. But the lettering on it is just all wrong.

Something for Metalsuck to whine about.

Wasn't the Moontower cover just a photo of someone's eye?

For some reason, this cover makes me think of a time machine, not the Hadron Collider.

The sample was unimpressive. I've heard worse, but, if that was supposed to get me excited about the upcoming album, it didn't work. I'll wait until the single before I decide for certain if it's worth getting, but my expectations are already not that high.

Written by Angelic Storm on 11.04.2013 at 17:19

Wasn't the Moontower cover just a photo of someone's eye?

His own eye I think.

Written by R'Vannith on 11.04.2013 at 17:10
Maybe they thought the photoshop was required to "artsy" it up a bit?

I think it's very safe to assume that the photoshopping was done merely to make it seem more "artsy". But if they had just used the un-doctored photo, it would still have been a lazy artwork, but it would have looked better.

Written by Angelic Storm on 11.04.2013 at 17:19

Wasn't the Moontower cover just a photo of someone's eye?

Yeah, but this is a robotic eye!

(I know it isn't...)

Not gonna listen to a snippet of a part of a section of a song from the album, but the artwork is... well... it's not horrible...
Also, I didn't read all the comments but photographs are art too, though I don't wanna join any discussions.

Oh my god. That snippet was horrible. It sounds so generic and dull. The last hope I had of this album being any good are now gone. It's especially sad because Megadeth has been my favorite band for a long time now. This made my day (in the completely opposite way).

I love the album cover and the snippet, dont know about you guys but im pretty stoked !!

No Vic Rattlehead?

Written by [user id=4365] on 11.04.2013 at 17:02

The artwork would be better if it wasn't so saturated. I'm also pretty sure those lens flares are entirely manufactured too.

You have a sharp eye my friend, I agree completely with both of those statements. Not only that but I think to really pull it together the artwork would require something that is actually visually interesting... the collider thing is just a steel wall in a circle shape basically. I think the over-saturation and lens flare effect could be a sort of replacement for having anything actually visually interesting...

That's the way I see it anyways

Written by romeck on 11.04.2013 at 21:25

No Vic Rattlehead?

Well, Vic hasn't featured on the vast majority of Megadeth album covers since 1990, so it's not much of a surprise to me that he isn't on this cover artwork. The album cover seems very hastily and lazily put together, so... it would have been nice if Vic had been incorporated into the artwork somehow, but in the end, it's how the music on the album sounds that will be the main thing.

I invite everyone commenting on art on this post to take a closer look at the center of the collider, maybe you will see someone starring back at you.

Written by Medievalman on 12.04.2013 at 00:36

I invite everyone commenting on art on this post to take a closer look at the center of the collider, maybe you will see someone starring back at you.

I'm assuming you mean right at the back of the collider, if you look closely, you can see Vic? It does sort of resemble Vic I grant you, but if you take a look at the original photo that was used for this artwork, that exactly same pattern is there. It's a mere coincidence that the pattern in the back of the photo resembles Vic, it unfortunately wasn't purposely put there by whoever doctored the image.

All I can say about the clip is it sucks big time.

And is it so hard to understand that by 'artwork', Angelic Storm only wished to underline the difference between something entirely hand-made (a drawing or painting) and a real image caught with technology (a photograph from a camera, for example)? And that both are different? For example, I could take a photograph but I can't make a painting.

In any case, this cover is horrible.

Written by Lord_Regnier on 12.04.2013 at 01:57

All I can say about the clip is it sucks big time.

And is it so hard to understand that by 'artwork', Angelic Storm only wished to underline the difference between something entirely hand-made (a drawing or painting) and a real image caught with technology (a photograph from a camera, for example)? And that both are different? For example, I could take a photograph but I can't make a painting.

In any case, this cover is horrible.

And once again we have someone confusing art in a subjective context and making something of the medium called art.

Your example is completely incorrect because if you took a paint brush and drew a simple line on a canvas you would have made a painting. If you held a camera and took a blurry picture of a wall you would have taken a photograph. I'm amazed people don't understand the difference between the simple concept of making something that belongs to the medium of art and making something artistically good. The first is not incumbent on the second.

Camera - Paintbrush

Canvas - Film + Photographic Paper / Photoshop etc.



I don't see people making their own paint. So not entirely hand made, like a photograph is not entirely hand made. There are infinite ways to manipulate an image with a camera. If you can't see that then that's an issue with your lack of vision and technical knowledge but a painting is as every way artistic as a photo.

Written by [user id=4365] on 12.04.2013 at 02:37

And once again we have someone confusing art in a subjective context and making something of the medium called art.

Your example is completely incorrect because if you took a paint brush and drew a simple line on a canvas you would have made a painting. If you held a camera and took a blurry picture of a wall you would have taken a photograph. I'm amazed people don't understand the difference between the simple concept of making something that belongs to the medium of art and making something artistically good. The first is not incumbent on the first.

And I totally understand all this. I'm not denying in any way that both are a form of art. What you say is correct.
I just wished to say that it wasn't hard to get the meaning of Angelic Storm's post and that some people are making too much of a fuss about it.

Written by Lord_Regnier on 12.04.2013 at 02:51



And I totally understand all this. I'm not denying in any way that both are a form of art. What you say is correct.
I just wished to say that it wasn't hard to get the meaning of Angelic Storm's post and that some people are making too much of a fuss about it.

No one got her post because she said that a photo could not be considered as an album artwork. The only thing I could see that caused confusion is that AS suggested that the term "artwork" in this context is a subjective thing, which it isn't. Anything that appears on an album is a form of artwork. If you ask me the problem here was with no one but AS for not saying outright and simply that the album was not artistically pleasing.

Written by [user id=4365] on 12.04.2013 at 02:58

Written by Lord_Regnier on 12.04.2013 at 02:51



And I totally understand all this. I'm not denying in any way that both are a form of art. What you say is correct.
I just wished to say that it wasn't hard to get the meaning of Angelic Storm's post and that some people are making too much of a fuss about it.

No one got her post because she said that a photo could not be considered as an album artwork. The only thing I could see that caused confusion is that AS suggested that the term "artwork" in this context is a subjective thing, which it isn't. Anything that appears on an album is a form of artwork. If you ask me the problem here was with no one but AS for not saying outright and simply that the album was not artistically pleasing.

OK. I understand. She admitted, I believe, that she should have explained better. It seems I was the only one to get her point right away and I guess it's because I probably know her better than most people here. You know, when you're more familiar with someone, you sometimes read between the lines and understand what is not specifically written.

I will end this discussion here. I think what has to be said is said. Now, back to the topic: this clip really sounds boring.

Amazingly, the song sounds great, I'm impressed. As for the album cover where's Vic?