Great album, agree wholeheartedly with your review.

Written by Uxküll on 27.10.2022 at 00:35

Great album, agree wholeheartedly with your review.

Thanks it's a great album indeed

I also agree with the review; it's a very good bm album and the cover art is so beautiful too. I don't find it as experimental as the other bands you mention in the end, but I find its quality to be on par with theirs.

Written by nikarg on 27.10.2022 at 11:42

I also agree with the review; it's a very good bm album and the cover art is so beautiful too. I don't find it as experimental as the other bands you mention in the end, but I find its quality to be on par with theirs.

Unfortunately I failed mentioned the wonderful cover art in my review, perhaps I should have Even so I'm very impressed by this release.

The cover is a blatant re-use of a very famous piece of Polish art by Władysław Podkowiński that the artist is mostly known for called Szał uniesień (Madness of Passions or something to that effect), dating back to 1900s, with quite a history that accompanies it: https://niezlasztuka.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/IMG_8248.jpg

This picked up by a German band, well it's as though a Mona Lisa ended up on the cover of a Russian band's album. Not quite fitting and it feels cheap. Probably it isn't recognised outside of Poland unless you are into art history, but it's universally recognised there by most people with secondary/high school education.

Did the band even seek the Museum's permission that houses this masterpiece to re-use it?

My view is putting old art or parts of it on a cover is always a cheap move, no matter how good the music. In this case the facts surrounding its selection make it even worse, publicity for the sake of causing controversy. Shame on the band!

Written by pthread on 27.10.2022 at 15:08

The cover is a blatant re-use of a very famous piece of Polish art by Władysław Podkowiński that the artist is mostly known for called Szał uniesień (Madness of Passions or something to that effect), dating back to 1900s, with quite a history that accompanies it: https://niezlasztuka.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/IMG_8248.jpg

This picked up by a German band, well it's as though a Mona Lisa ended up on the cover of a Russian band's album. Not quite fitting and it feels cheap. Probably it isn't recognised outside of Poland unless you are into art history, but it's universally recognised there by most people with secondary/high school education.

Did the band even seek the Museum's permission that houses this masterpiece to re-use it?

My view is putting old art or parts of it on a cover is always a cheap move, no matter how good the music. In this case the facts surrounding its selection make it even worse, publicity for the sake of causing controversy. Shame on the band!

Well I never thought of it that way so thanks for your input as much as I like the artwork I understand your point in seeking the museum's permission first, but then perhaps the same could be said for most bands that use famous paintings and artworks for their covers

Whether they have requested permission or not, still leaves two problems.

Many bands have done it, though it is normally a piece that is either internationally recognised or limited by country or place origin to the band's residence. One that I do recall is Anathema's The Silent Enigma.

The issue re-use issue wouldn't be so glaringly obvious and striking if:
1. The picture didn't transcend borders. You could argue it's part of national heritage and it's not been lent abroad (recently, as far as I know) for show.
2. It was an artist's lesser piece, not his pinnacle of achievement. Anywhere abroad it will be taken as original artwork created in the recent times whereas universally in Poland it is known to be a local achievement. Cultural appropriation eh?

Recently seeing many covers originating from the art world has me thinking if a cover that is a picture hasn't become an unhealthy fad to do. Especially those that feature a vertical black box on either side with the band's name in golden typeface (see Behemoth, Bloodbath etc).

Generally, would an artist have agreed to have his art associated with a metal band? It is an open question who is to decide those things, can a band pick up any piece of art and put it on a cover or should they request the permission of whom, the present owner, the artist's family? It's not merely a question of copyright but decency.

After all, none of the works of art were produced with the music of today in mind. My view is don't nick it if it creates unhealthy controversy for reasons 1 & 2 above, in this instance many folks that know it from the Museum wall might feel about its re-use in a similar way.

To all that like the picture, it is so much better to see it as intended on the wall. It bears a visible cut in the canvas hat has been mended but can be seen at an angle, nothing that an album cover can reproduce. Good publicity for the Museum though if it gains recognition.

It doesn't help that with the music consumed mostly online these days without liner notes it takes a conscious effort to find out if a cover is original artwork or merely borrowed.

Written by pthread on 27.10.2022 at 15:08

The cover is a blatant re-use of a very famous piece of Polish art [...]
This picked up by a German band, well it's as though a Mona Lisa ended up on the cover of a Russian band's album. [...]

Did the band even seek the Museum's permission that houses this masterpiece to re-use it?

My view is putting old art or parts of it on a cover is always a cheap move, no matter how good the music. In this case the facts surrounding its selection make it even worse, publicity for the sake of causing controversy. Shame on the band!

I honestly don't quite understand your reasoning.
Władysław Podkowiński grew up in Warsaw, studied in Saint Petersburg and he also lived in Paris for a while. That doesn't sound like a nationalist to me, who would still be upset even 125 years after his death that a German band is using one of his artworks.
Where's the controversy and what particularly bothers you about the fact that it's a German band?
I mean, should I be concerned now whenever a Polish symphony orchestra plays the Moonlight Sonata without asking Beethoven's heirs for permission, just because I am German?
Shouldn't art be universal and be allowed to be perceived across national and ideological boundaries?
Isn't it one of the tasks of art to question and break through traditional borders, especially the borders in people's minds? And doesn't the exchange of art contribute to a better understanding of different peoples and different cultures? Why should this exchange be regulated or hampered?
I just don't get it...

Besides, quite a few art historians argue that this work contains a reminiscence of the ride of goddess Europa on Zeus in form of a bull and thus represents the mythological birth of the European identity. If anything, the message of Podkowiński's painting is at odds with nationalistic sentiments.

From a purely legal point of view, it is almost impossible to inhibit the circulation of old masterpieces anyway. There is no law, neither at national nor European level, that prohibits the photographic reproduction of works of art 130 years after they were created. And that's a damn good thing, because otherwise only visitors to the Louvre would ever have seen the Mona Lisa, and only Italians would be allowed to distribute photographs of the most famous work of art of all time.

I also don't quite understand your moral concerns.
Why should one ask the museum for permission? They have been making money for over a hundred years by exhibiting a work of art that they did not create and that was donated (!) to them, they didn't have to pay a single ruble for the painting. If any, that is the only immoral aspect I can see here.

Written by Starvynth on 27.10.2022 at 23:04

Written by pthread on 27.10.2022 at 15:08

The cover is a blatant re-use of a very famous piece of Polish art [...]
This picked up by a German band, well it's as though a Mona Lisa ended up on the cover of a Russian band's album. [...]

Did the band even seek the Museum's permission that houses this masterpiece to re-use it?

My view is putting old art or parts of it on a cover is always a cheap move, no matter how good the music. In this case the facts surrounding its selection make it even worse, publicity for the sake of causing controversy. Shame on the band!

I honestly don't quite understand your reasoning.
Władysław Podkowiński grew up in Warsaw, studied in Saint Petersburg and he also lived in Paris for a while. That doesn't sound like a nationalist to me, who would still be upset even 125 years after his death that a German band is using one of his artworks.
Where's the controversy and what particularly bothers you about the fact that it's a German band?
I mean, should I be concerned now whenever a Polish symphony orchestra plays the Moonlight Sonata without asking Beethoven's heirs for permission, just because I am German?
Shouldn't art be universal and be allowed to be perceived across national and ideological boundaries?
Isn't it one of the tasks of art to question and break through traditional borders, especially the borders in people's minds? And doesn't the exchange of art contribute to a better understanding of different peoples and different cultures? Why should this exchange be regulated or hampered? I just don't get it.

Besides, quite a few art historians argue that this work contains a reminiscence of the ride of goddess Europa on Zeus in form of a bull and thus represents the mythological birth of the European identity. If anything, the message of Podkowiński's painting is at odds with nationalistic sentiments.

From a purely legal point of view, it is almost impossible to inhibit the circulation of old masterpieces anyway. There is no law, neither at national nor European level, that prohibits the photographic reproduction of works of art 130 years after they were created. And that's a damn good thing, because otherwise only visitors to the Louvre would ever have seen the Mona Lisa, and only Italians would be allowed to distribute photographs of the most famous work of art of all time.

I also don't quite understand your moral concerns.
Why should one ask the museum for permission? They have been making money for over a hundred years by exhibiting a work of art that they did not create and that was donated (!) to them, they didn't have to pay a single ruble for the painting. If any, that is the only immoral aspect I can see here.

I called it cultural appropriation for a reason. That reason being that a band chooses to promote their work is to cause clear controversy by piggybacking on an otherwise excellent imagery but unfortunately from a neighbouring country. Most bands are sensible in choosing covers and either seek permission or plain go for artwork from their own circle or go for established pieces that are widely used internationally (cliche che guevara imagery coming to mind). But an internationally unknown (by non art historians) but still a major art piece in the Polish circle for a foreign metal album that it can't have any connection to is just cheap. I put it down to a lapse of judgement. Does the band want to become known as that which piggybacks on foreign art?

It offends my historical sensitivities to see it coming from a foreign German band, knowing a bit more of the turmoiled history of the era. I would argue the same thing were a Polish band nick a key piece of a renowned French artist (say one of the impressionists) and call that inappropriate and seeking to offend the French. A French band may be entitled to use an impressionist on its cover, any other does not. The greater good is avoiding controversy, which I clearly see that being the reason and it has resonated at least with me.

Orchestral music isn't a good comparison here, as such music only exists in multiple intended renditions by orchestras. A sheet music record isn't meddled with and stays as is. Normally, royalties are paid to the composer for publishing rights. In contrast, a painting normally exists in a single copy. While alive, painters normally oppose reproducting the whole or parts of it, unless by themselves. Especially cropped or otherwise distorted like done on the cover.

Mona Lisa is a bad comparison: it is internationally renowned, and with a history of being in foreign hands. Podkowiński does not stand comparison, is a strictly Polish artist that hasn't acquired world-wide recognition, justifying its use by appropriating artists from abroad. How many viewers will recognise Szał uniesień as a famous work of art and not a cover by the band's artist? Internationally, not many to be honest. So it *IS* misleading to use works of art when the original artist does not get the benefit of the credit by viewers recognising it. Such things must be taken into the account. In contasy, Mona Lisa on a cover of a album won't fool anyone that it isn't the work of the band (which does not make it right to use it by any band).

Repeating an artist's life in several places, but neglecting to observe it was a time when the artist's roots (Polish by upbringing, under the Russian regime) country was essentially partitioned and essentially off the map, is your way of justifying its appropriateness by a foreign band appropriating non-home made imagery by that artist?

Art being universal does not make it right for bands piggybacking on foreign artwork a band have little connection to. It needn't neccessarily be a legal issue (though it may; I am not a lawyer) but a case of decency.

Your argument about what the painting was reportedly inspired by is misleading and makes it no less inappropriate. That way anything culture produces is inspired by something else and yet you are not allowed to or should not copy about anything and make it appear in the context of your own work. This cover is not inspired as much as it is a cropped reproduction, leaving off parts that the artist may not have agreed to leaving out (chief being his signature which is in the painting). Why hasn't it been reproduced in full to ensure the credit is given as the author had intended?

Aren't there sufficient pieces by German artists to go by? That way the band would have avoided the chief controversy outside their own circle. Nations have every right to call some art coming from their own homeland due to a line of history behind it. The EU hasn't made national borders and cultural achievements redundant. It is always highlighted a painter is Dutch, German, Slovak, French etc. Given that some uses are unseemly. What Podkowiński masterpiece has to do with a German band, I haven't a clue. Granted, I find all artwork pieces from a different era on album covers as low effort.

There are plenty of reasons why a work featured at a museum isn't in the public domain. Artists that recycle the work or others clearly mark them "courtesy of [an institution]" when reproduced, highlighting the fact of seeking permission and getting it.

Reproducing a work of art against the wish of or failing to ask the institution at all, especially when it is a German band and the work of a Polish artist, is grounds for controversy. They nailed that right if it had been intended.

Cover art reminds me of old Burzum. Will have to check it out! Nice review as always sir!

Written by Crème fraiche on 28.10.2022 at 22:59

Cover art reminds me of old Burzum. Will have to check it out! Nice review as always sir!

Thanks very much. Your right it does slightly remind me of Burzum's cover art, who has some outstanding covers too I must say.

You wrote short review about so great album, but you tell 100%truth about it!

Written by AndyMetalFreak on 29.10.2022 at 08:08

Written by Crème fraiche on 28.10.2022 at 22:59

Cover art reminds me of old Burzum. Will have to check it out! Nice review as always sir!

Thanks very much. Your right it does slightly remind me of Burzum's cover art, who has some outstanding covers too I must say.

It does appear a bit like the cover for Belus, in style, era and subject, which is originally by a French painter. But unlike the reviewed album, Belus flies under the radar of inappropriate to re-use as a cover, as it isn't immediately recognised as the painter most prolific work, which is always a risk to use to showcase your own work. And Burzum has ties to France these days, so one could argue a stronger connection exists than with Firtan who have none.

Written by Bad English on 29.10.2022 at 14:06

You wrote short review about so great album, but you tell 100%truth about it!

Thanks straight to the point I guess

I come to say the same thing, how is it possible that they have the same cover?

https://metalstorm.net/bands/album.php?album_id=152987

Written by SebaRaven36 on 29.10.2022 at 18:57

I come to say the same thing, how is it possible that they have the same cover?

https://metalstorm.net/bands/album.php?album_id=152987

Ridiculous but serves them right. Let me guess: Covid ended and two bands happened to go on holiday and see the painting at a Krakow museum? It's been on display for ages, nothing that popped up recently.

It just goes to show renowned paintings (albeit not internationally) make low effort copycat covers. Going through the works of an artist and settling on a less prolific piece of art would have helped them avoid the cover clash but "hey, we saw it first!".

If only either had gone through the effort of requesting permission of the present art custodian for the piece... "fine but you need to know a band called X made a similar request recently" but why bother?

Written by pthread on 27.10.2022 at 23:44

I called it cultural appropriation for a reason. That reason being that a band chooses to promote their work is to cause clear controversy by piggybacking on an otherwise excellent imagery but unfortunately from a neighbouring country. Most bands are sensible in choosing covers and either seek permission or plain go for artwork from their own circle or go for established pieces that are widely used internationally (cliche che guevara imagery coming to mind). But an internationally unknown (by non art historians) but still a major art piece in the Polish circle for a foreign metal album that it can't have any connection to is just cheap. I put it down to a lapse of judgement. Does the band want to become known as that which piggybacks on foreign art?

You're interpreting way too much into all this and you're implying an evil intent that is simply not there.
Firtan are a apolitical band and there's not the slightest indication that the creator's nationality or the historical circumstances of the painting's creation played any role in the selection of the artwork. For most people it's just a beautiful piece of art, nothing more, nothing less. You don't have to politicize everything just because you can.

The controversy you keep talking about didn't happen, it seems that nobody except you is upset about the choice of the cover. It's neither the first nor the last time (see Spell's Tragic Magic) this image has been used for an album cover, and at no point has it caused an outcry.
As far as I know, Dutch disco duo Snoopy was the first music project to use Podkowinski's painting, way back in 1979 for the single No Time For A Tango. No one ever gave a damn that they didn't use a work by Van Gogh instead.

Ukrainian multimedia artist Caliph Mutabor also used it, cropping the image in the worst possible way. Besides, I'm pretty sure that Podkowiński would not have liked this kind of music at all. Yet, also the harsh noise project Starving For Seven failed to stirr up a wave of indignation.

Quote:
It offends my historical sensitivities to see it coming from a foreign German band, knowing a bit more of the turmoiled history of the era. [...] especially when it is a German band and the work of a Polish artist

So your main concern is that Firtan is a German band and that's because Germany Prussia is to blame for the division of Poland? That's the most backward-looking bullshit I've heard for a very long time.

Quote:
A French band may be entitled to use an impressionist on its cover, any other does not.

That's a terrible mindset. Did you really mean to write that?

Quote:
Aren't there sufficient pieces by German artists to go by?

Sure. But you might as well ask hundreds, if not thousands, of non-German metal bands why they used artwork by German painters without ever asking anyone for permission.

Do you by any chance know what the metal bands Nachtgeblüt and Ulfhethnar (Argentina), Dos Brujos (Austria), Divina Enema (Belarus), Glistening (Canada), Lords Of Triumph (Denmark), National Napalm Syndicate (Finland), Anthemon and Garden Of Silence (France), Unknowing and How Like A Winter (Italy), The Cimmerian Path (Lebanon), Goden and Mystic Charm (Netherlands), Gravheim (Norway), Thunderstorm (Romania), Starved (UK), Death Fortress, Sardonic Wrath, Type O Negative and Dusk (USA), Armia, Nyctophilia and Evilfeast (Poland) have in common?
Well, each of them (and many, many more) used paintings by Caspar David Friedrich. And guess what, no German metalhead has ever been bothered by this fact and nobody took offence to it. Needless to say, nobody has ever dared to call it "cultural appropriation" either, and that's because there's a much better and positive term: public domain.
And there's a good reason why old masterpieces are considered public domain: art needs to be viewed - viewed even by people who have neither the financial means nor the opportunities to visit museums in foreign countries.

Quote:
How many viewers will recognise Szał uniesień as a famous work of art and not a cover by the band's artist? Internationally, not many to be honest. So it *IS* misleading to use works of art when the original artist does not get the benefit of the credit by viewers recognising it.

That's not true. The band has used every opportunity to refer to the creator of the artwork and thus make him a bit better known outside of Poland. The phrase "Cover painting by Władysław Podkowiński" is in every other Facebook post and the credits are on their Bandcamp and on the label's Bandcamp.

Quote:
This cover is not inspired as much as it is a cropped reproduction, leaving off parts that the artist may not have agreed to leaving out (chief being his signature which is in the painting). Why hasn't it been reproduced in full to ensure the credit is givben as the author had intended?

None of this is true. The cover for Marter is a near-perfect copy of the original. The signature is still there and also the year "1894" can still be seen. The fact that black lettering on a dark brown background is extremely difficult to recognize when scaled down from a massive canvas (3,100 × 2,750 mm) to LP/CD size (315 x 315 mm/120 x 120 mm) cannot be blamed on the band.

For comparison, here's a rare attempt by Polish musicians to honor the art of Podkowiński and that's what I'd call a cropped, cheap and unflattering reproduction.




To sum up and to put it plainly, I find it very disturbing that you are denouncing a contemporary band based on historical events that go back 250 to 130 years.

Well, how do you explain not one but two bands picking up the same artwork within the timeframe of one month? That itself is the problem, when nonethewiser artists pick up an image they have no connection to. And with all due respect, Caspar Friedrich's renown is far wider reaching than Podkowiński's. If I recall the former was a key figure in the history of romanticism. I even recall seeing his works in a school textbook. What exactly is it that justifies Podkowiński, I haven't a clue. It all depends on the stature of an artist, his prominence in the culture. Podkowiński's impact is clearly local, impacting the Polish move to symbolism. He hasn't been a key figure like Friedrich across Europe. But for that, you need to know a bit about art history. Sadly, those that appropriate obsure, local art are often ignorant to the point of assuming no-one had used it in the past that they shoot themselves in the foot and make fools of themselves by becoming yet another copycat art recycler of a piece universally stolen for own purposes.

If only a German band would understand this! Or a bit of art history and that some pieces are best left without oportunistically copy anything deemed safe not to spend a penny. I don't expect them to, it is a sign of surefire arrogance, too bad they have no indicative connection to the piece and trespass on territory that isn't theirs to begin with. No humility in the choice of going for the major piece of an artist.

I didn't use the term evil. I stick by cultural appropriation for no reason, followed by artistic and historical ignorance of yet another cheap band who can't commission a proper artist.

Funny that you choose to defend the bad, uninformed recycling of the said painting refering by yet another misguided one. All of them are bad (perhaps not equally, though some may claim they're connected in a way, this one is clearly not). So if one steals, are all other thefts suddenly justified on the grounds of a precedent? And a cultural appropriation in broad daylight, with a failure to understand of the sensitivities of Polish-German relations in the post war art world for a piece of clearly local renown, not one universally recognised across Europe.

I take issue with the cropping and adding a styled album title that could lead some to believe this is recent artwork. That is misleading most viewers. That it does not fit a cover is poor explanation and manipulating the intention of the artist what to include.

The earlier argument on the museum or the artist having made enough money is plain ludicrous. Just because someone makes money does not make it right for you to piggyback on its local success (driven by misguided novelty of that art piece in a rock genre). However, your cover examples clearly prove it is a low effort copycat move. Had they not done their research prior to making the cropped copy the graphic equivalent of their album? Shame on them!
The cover has become a joke, having too many cliched recycled uses before. To NOT know this especially with the simplicity one can loop it up on the internet in seconds is ill advised ignorance (one that spells: I'm sure it hasn't been used as an album cover before).

Copyright is not all that drives what you can reasonably use to piggyback own art upon.

Whether money changed hands remains irrelevant (it hasn't, nor have they talked to the owners, proven by the double cover blunder). The keyword is (with kind) permission, sometimes referred to as a courtesy (of). A piece or practical advice to all the fledgling smart-ass bands wishing to piggyback on great foreign artwork whilst saving on own artist: if you ever see an obscure painting that you like to put on the cover of your album, do make the effort to contact the present owner, it will save you the disgrace that goes along with it having been used before for a similar purpose. Consult it with an art historian. You might avoid being flagged a cheap copycat for recycling a cliche artwork. Listen to women; women recognise that to come to a party wearing an identical dress such as another woman attending is wearing is nothing to be proud of (even when they have no way of knowing beforehand unlike a band that can do research).

The choice was theirs what to use to promote their music and they've made fools of themselves in a number of ways. This is what happens when cheap amateurs approach art.

All I know is I like the cover art at the end of the day As for Spell - Tragic Magic, I believe that's more of a coincidence rather than them thinking hey we like Firtan's cover art why don't we let's copy it? It's not the first time the same covers have been used by different bands, it's the fact that they just so happen to have been released in such a short space of time from one another.

Either way it's shedding light on the artists masterpiece, I wouldn't have known anything about this masterpiece if I hadn't been exposed to it through this fine album.

Someone commented on Spell's Facebook about the cover art and the band's reply was this:

"the gallery that owns the painting should not have licensed it to multiple groups. But, there’s no way either of us could have known about the other bands’ intentions, because we both had to select our album art nearly a year ago due to the vinyl plant delays. Luckily, though, it turned us on to Firtan who are super cool, and we’re fans now!"

Written by nikarg on 31.10.2022 at 15:04

Someone commented on Spell's Facebook about the cover art and the band's reply was this:

"the gallery that owns the painting should not have licensed it to multiple groups. [...] Luckily, though, it turned us on to Firtan who are super cool, and we’re fans now!"

Turn the fault around and blame the museum? Interesting way of defending one's failure. I'm tempted to check with the museum myself if they have been approached at all by anyone.

Written by pthread on 01.11.2022 at 08:42

I'm tempted to check with the museum myself if they have been approached at all by anyone.

Please do check. And let us know what they replied. I, for one, am very interested.

Written by pthread on 01.11.2022 at 08:42
I'm tempted to check with the museum myself if they have been approached at all by anyone.

So what did the museum say? Do they share your view that Firtan and Spell are cheap amateurs, indecent copycats, ignorant liars and thieves?

Written by Starvynth on 22.11.2022 at 11:58

Written by pthread on 01.11.2022 at 08:42
I'm tempted to check with the museum myself if they have been approached at all by anyone.

So what did the museum say? Do they share your view that Firtan and Spell are cheap amateurs, indecent copycats, ignorant liars and thieves?

Oh so you checked with them too?

I might have to buy this piece of art so I can later list it on auction after all this shit.