So I was browsing around a CD store the other day... (let's just pretend for the sake of this story that people still do that) when a particular album cover caught my eye with its suggestive and religiously blasphemous imagery. The album featured its artist up on a cross, wearing a crown of thorns, in what people in the know like to call "the Jesus pose."
 |
| Jesus Christ Shocking, right? But to me, the most shocking thing of all was who the artist was: Britney Spears.  Britney Spears' "Piece of Me" album cover
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly religious or anything... but it seemed to me that this particular motif looked a tad out of place on such a mainstream artists's CD. The tone of the whole design is confusing and garbled... When I was a kid back in high school, Britney Spears was considered the epitome of socially acceptable MTV drivel; not exactly a maker of rebellious statements, which is generally what those who venture down the Jesus-symbolism route are trying to do. Another thing which struck me about this, however, was an unrelenting sense of deja-vu... I was sure I'd seen it somewhere before. Then it hit me:
|
 |
| Marilyn Manson's "Holy Wood" album cover |
Britney
Spears had ripped off an old Marilyn Manson cover!
...And
ripped it off badly.
Manson's
cover is much more graphically pronounced; it is artistic while making its statement. Dead Marilyn Manson hangs
on the cross, the central focus put slightly to the left of the cover.
The artwork is, despite its dead and rotting imagery, much more alive than the Spears counterpart. Manson's arm seems to create
a cradle for the title and credits, and the dramatic use of
colour creates excellent contrast and hierarchy; pulling the eye immediately into the excellent (if a tad morbid) graphic elements. The text and distortion
plays in perfectly with the dark textures and edgy theme, and overall the cover
is a good visual representation of what the artist is all about.
At the
time, the cover created quite a bit of controversy; but Manson was making a statement. A known satanist, his statement had to do with
individuality over conformity; personal spirituality over the blind
following of an organized church.
Britney's
cover is just Britney, naked on a cross. The cover lacks any visual
interest whatsoever, (unless you happen to be a 14 year old boy.)
The image
on Spears' cover is perfectly centered, failing to create any palpable visual
energy. The pink hand-written script of the main title clashes horribly with
the piece's overall appearance. It makes one wonder... Is this a bold
statement, or a Sunday trip to the Mall? It's as if they just threw the
title text in afterwards, left over from a completely different concept.
Another
thing I couldn't help but notice was her boob... (not like you're thinking.) Spears'
breast has been photoshopped in this image to be smooth and nipple-less;
another former Manson staple. In several videos, Marilyn Manson donned a
creepy, asexual, pale bodysuit with the sexual organs as anatomically correct
as those of Barbie and Ken. Are Spears' designers just dragging up old metal
albums to make Britney seem more edgy?
 |
| Marilyn Manson's "Mechanical Animals" album cover |
I think
the extent of the statement being made by Spears in this case has to do with
how "martyred" she's become with Tabloids and Entertainment shows
picking apart her every zit, bad hair day, and tummy bulge. It's a
statement I don't completely disagree with; I think those shows are just
ridiculous, not to mention demeaning towards women... but somehow this
particular cover still just
leaves a bad, confusing taste in my mouth.
On a
personal note, I find Manson's rebellious statement much less ideologically offensive than Britney's "sexy
Jesus". At least he was trying to say something with his image... What's
so sexy about death by crucifixion? In the past, artists far greater than Britney Spears
were severely damaged for making so bold a statement. John Lennon got the Beatles
into serious trouble after
proclaiming themselves to be "Bigger than Jesus." And that was The Beatles!!!
Even Manson, an often-offensive shock rocker from whom
controversy was generally expected, took his share of flack for doing his Holy
Wood cover. When did such casual profanity move from the realm of dark,
shock-rocking metal groups and crazy punks trying to make a statement, to the
very mainstreamiest of mainstream? When did something so hypothetically wrong
become run-of-the-mill? (I posed this question to a friend of mine, and he
informed me that it was around the time Rebecca Black became famous.
 |
| Sex Pistols' Johnny Rotten getting nailed |
Now I know, I know; I should leave her
alone. Britney Spears has been through enough. All I'm saying is there's
going to be a lot of confused stoner kids out there when they go to play their
Marilyn Manson CDs and wind up hearing the first track off "Piece of
Me" instead.
 |
| These two little gothic stoner kids completely tweaked out after accidentally buying the wrong album. They were never heard from again. |
No comments:
Post a Comment