Well, what happened was we had two choices for the cover and went with one over the other. The one we didn't choose ended up on the inside and putting it on the cover wasn't worth the possible confusion it might cost. You have no idea how much bullshit someone can get over things like this so being careful about it is just saving yourself from possible confusion and people reading into something wrong. Especially when the thing they would be reading into would be simply some decorative shit that, in the long run, doesn't matter. Huge sell out , right?Employee wrote:/Blockhead wrote: It happened to me on my last album cover (also involving monkeys) and we switched shit around a little just as a precaution , knowing how sensitive people can be about this kinda shit.
And you actually went along with that shit?
Isn't one of art's many purpose to offend, unintentionally or otherwise?
In the end of the day, it was an album cover that has no impact on the music itself. It wasn't a gut wrenching choice that i was artistically torn about. I love the cover I decided on.
Is the purpose of art to offend? I'm sure in some cases but not an instrumental album that will mostly be bought by beat nerds and girls.
But in the case of PFAC, then yes. that was 100% built to offend.