I can't decide if it looks kinda cool and shiny, or incredibly dull and monotonous.

It's Dave's gold plated sphincter.

Yuck

Shocker.

Album title very good, album artwork horrifically bad.

Written by [user id=132675] on 11.04.2013 at 13:06

It's Dave's gold plated sphincter.

nice!

I've seen worse.

Euuuuuh... April's fool?

Well I like it, it looks cool.

The worrying thing is that cover is actually better than the clip of the new song, which sounds incredibly bland. The "artwork" (I think it's actually a photo, rather than an actual artwork) isn't great, but it isn't the worst one in Megadeth's discography. The only post-RIP cover I've really loved is the one for "The System Has Failed", which incidentally, is also my fave Megadeth album post-1990. The last 3 albums haven't been anything to write home about, and if that soundbite is anything to go by, then this new one won't be bucking that trend... shame.

Written by Angelic Storm on 11.04.2013 at 14:10

(I think it's actually a photo, rather than an actual artwork)

Since when isn't a photo used as cover actual artwork?

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 11.04.2013 at 14:30
Since when isn't a photo used as cover actual artwork?

I suspect you know fine well what I meant by that. A photo can be "cover artwork", but I wouldn't class it is an original piece of art.

Written by Angelic Storm on 11.04.2013 at 14:36

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 11.04.2013 at 14:30
Since when isn't a photo used as cover actual artwork?

I suspect you know fine well what I meant by that. A photo can be "cover artwork", but I wouldn't class it is an original piece of art.

Still an original piece of art because of the way it is used. And it could even be that this photograph Megadeth own the rights to to specifically use.
Just like Celtic Frost's use of the GIger painting on To Mega Therion at the time.
And besides, photography is a specific art form which prooduces original pieces of art.

Since when did photos not come under the rubric of "art?"

You need to visit more galleries

For example

Awfully generic. I honestly thought things might be going the right way after Endgame, and then came 13, and now this...

Mediocrity Wins (referencing another article regarding an upcoming release I'm actually excited about).

Wow! It really looks dumb...

Saying that photograph can't be art is something I will put in the same category as a person I know who said that electric guitar isn't an instrument and only acoustic counts.

Why is it always the usual suspects that descend on my posts like a pack of hungry hyenas? With Mr. Doctor in particular being a smartass.

I didn't say that a photograph can't be art, I was just misinterpreted.

Written by Angelic Storm on 11.04.2013 at 15:25

Why is it always the usual suspects that descend on my posts like a pack of hungry hyenas? With Mr. Doctor in particular being a smartass. :p

I didn't say that a photograph can't be art, I was just misinterpreted.

Why people attack you on this is because of what you said...

Quote:

(I think it's actually a photo, rather than an actual artwork)

Then ytou clearly don't understand the concept of what makes something art. Because a normal photo is an actual piece of art as well given the right context. According to your reasoning none of the Dutch Golden Age painters made art. Like The Nightwatch by Rembrandt. That was a commission piece just like a group photograph is currently.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 11.04.2013 at 15:34
Why people attack you on this is because of what you said...

My point wasn't that I was being attacked, rather that it always seems to be the same small group of members who seem to actually glean something out of attacking me.

Quote:
Then ytou clearly don't understand the concept of what makes something art. Because a normal photo is an actual piece of art as well given the right context. According to your reasoning none of the Dutch Golden Age painters made art. Like The Nightwatch by Rembrandt. That was a commission piece just like a group photograph is currently.

I probably could have worded that better, but I have a feeling that nonetheless, you knew I wasn't being totally literal with that comment, but still felt the need to "correct" me. You've just admitted that a normal photo is only a piece of art when "given the right context". But who's to judge what distinguishes between a "regular photo", and one that can be deemed as a piece of art? That criteria is almost certainly not set in stone, and is open to debate and personal interpretation.

All that's left to do
It's like talking to K7, totally

One more thing, stop playing the frigging victim card every single time.

If you were privy to my lengthy discussion with Cal Wolvington when he declared 2001 A Space Odyssey to not be a film then you should know I will always challenge someone who challenges established facts and paradigms. Nothing to do with individual

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 11.04.2013 at 15:47

All that's left to do
It's like talking to K7, totally

One more thing, stop playing the frigging victim card every single time.

Oh please, give me a break. Instead of actually debating the legitimate point I made in my last post, you have to descend to the level of being personally insulting. Typical.

Written by Angelic Storm on 11.04.2013 at 15:25

Why is it always the usual suspects that descend on my posts like a pack of hungry hyenas? With Mr. Doctor in particular being a smartass.

I didn't say that a photograph can't be art, I was just misinterpreted.

No offence... But I think you are being oversensitive here. I'll leave it at that.

In regarding to your second comment, it's not like you were misinterpreted by anyone... If you meant something else then you clearly wrote it the wrong way because I don't know how you can translate this in two different ways:

Quote:
The "artwork" (I think it's actually a photo, rather than an actual artwork)

I don't get how the photgraph can't be an actual artwork. Specially in this context.

Art and artwork are two separate concepts in this case. You're trying to use the subjective "but is it art?" debate instead of simply recognising something falling under the medium of art. This cover falls under "art" as a concept, even if you don't find it artistic.

Written by X-Ray Rod on 11.04.2013 at 15:57
No offence... But I think you are being oversensitive here. I'll leave it at that.

I am sensitive, I won't deny that. But.... it's not worth getting into in any event.

Quote:
In regarding to your second comment, it's not like you were misinterpreted by anyone... If you meant something else then you clearly wrote it the wrong way because I don't know how you can translate this in two different ways:

Quote:
The "artwork" (I think it's actually a photo, rather than an actual artwork)

And I freely admitted to doing so. I was misunderstood, if not misinterpreted, and that was my own fault. However, the criticsms persisted even after I'd made it clear that I never meant that photos couldn't be art. I went into more detail in my 2nd last post, which should shed some light on what I actually meant.

Written by [user id=4365] on 11.04.2013 at 16:03

Art and artwork are two separate concepts in this case. You're trying to use the subjective "but is it art?" debate instead of simply recognising something falling under the medium of art. This cover falls under "art" is a concept, even if you don't find it artistic.

But I used the word "artwork", and not art, and my further explanations should have shown that I'm perfectly aware that they are two separate concepts. I'm also aware that photos can be artwork in certain circumstances, but again as I explained, the criteria for that is probably not universal, even amongst the experts in the field. When is a photo "just a photo", and when does it become "art"?

Written by Angelic Storm on 11.04.2013 at 16:10


But I used the word "artwork", and not art, and my further explanations should have shown that I'm perfectly aware that they are two separate concepts. I'm also aware that photos can be artwork in certain circumstances, but again as I explained, the criteria for that is probably not universal, even amongst the experts in the field. When is a photo "just a photo", and when does it become "art"?

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.

A photo or image in this concept is of the art medium, even if you don't consider is "art" (artistic). A shit film or album is still of the medium it's part of, regardless of quality.

Judging by the effort put into this cover, you can go ahead and skip the album.

Written by BrutalN00dle on 11.04.2013 at 16:30

Judging by the effort put into this cover, you can go ahead and skip the album.

Since when is cover art indicative of the music on the album?